On 3/20/2019 3:07 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:


On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 7:23:29 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



    On 3/19/2019 9:32 AM, John Clark wrote:
    On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:50 AM <agrays...@gmail.com
    <javascript:>> wrote:

    **

        *> I suppose Einstein started with the motivation of finding
        a general transformation from one accelerating frame to
        another, and later gave up on this project and settled for a
        theory of gravity. Is this true? TIA, AG*


    Einstein's breakthrough, what he called "the happiest thought of
    my life" was when he realized a man in a falling elevator will
    not feel gravity but a man in a accelerating elevator will. In
    other words an accelerating frame and gravity are the same thing,
    that's why it's called the Equivalence Principle.

    I wonder if Einstein ever considered whether a charged particle in
    the falling radiate would radiate?

    Brent


Because of your typos, at first I thought you were joking. Well, maybe it was a joke, but for me it sounds like a damned good question. I surmise that a charged particle accelerating due to gravity does NOT radiate energy, but why? AG

Sorry about the typos.   Yes, it does seem paradoxical.  Here's a paper that purports to solve the problem.


 The radiation of a uniformly accelerated charge is beyond the horizon:
 a simple derivation

Camila de Almeida <https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author&query=de+Almeida%2C+C>,Alberto Saa <https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author&query=Saa%2C+A> (Submitted on 6 Jun 2005 (v1 <https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506049v1>), last revised 2 Dec 2005 (this version, v5))

   We show, by exploring some elementary consequences of the covariance
   of Maxwell's equations under general coordinate transformations,
   that, despite inertial observers can indeed detect electromagnetic
   radiation emitted from a uniformly accelerated charge, comoving
   observers will see only a static electric field. This simple
   analysis can help understanding one of the most celebrated paradoxes
   of last century.

Comments: Revtex, 6 pages, 2 figures. v2: Some small corrections. v3: Citation of a earlier paper included. v4: Some stylistic changes. v5: Final version to appear in AJP Subjects: Classical Physics (physics.class-ph); General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (gr-qc)
Journal reference:      Am.J.Phys. 74 (2006) 154-158
DOI: 10.1119/1.2162548 <https://arxiv.org/ct?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdx.doi.org%2F10.1119%252F1.2162548&v=623983a0> Cite as: arXiv:physics/0506049 <https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506049>[physics.class-ph] (orarXiv:physics/0506049v5 <https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506049v5>[physics.class-ph]for this version)

And another paper that looks at possible experimental evidence.


 Electrical charges in gravitational fields, and Einstein's equivalence
 principle

Gerold Gründler <https://arxiv.org/search/physics?searchtype=author&query=Gr%C3%BCndler%2C+G> (Submitted on 14 Sep 2015 (v1 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.08757v1>), last revised 12 Oct 2015 (this version, v3))

   According to Larmor's formula, accelerated electric charges radiate
   electromagnetic waves. Hence charges should radiate, if they are in
   free fall in gravitational fields, and they should not radiate if
   they are supported at rest in gravitational fields. But according to
   Einstein's equivalence principle, charges in free fall should not
   radiate, while charges supported at rest in gravitational fields
   should radiate. In this article we point out indirect experimental
   evidence, indicating that the equivalence principle is correct,
   while the traditional interpretation of Larmor's formula must be
   amended.

Subjects:       General Physics (physics.gen-ph)
Cite as: arXiv:1509.08757 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.08757>[physics.gen-ph] (orarXiv:1509.08757v3 <https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.08757v3>[physics.gen-ph]for this version)

However, I don't find them entirely convincing.  We know that double stars, which are orbiting one another in free-fall, radiate gravitational waves.  Are we to suppose that if one or both of them had an electrical charge that there would be no EM radiation?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to