"Paradox of radiation of charged particles in a gravitational field" - Wikipedia ( Paper by a guy I forget the same of)

On wikipedia (reliable ikr), there is a paradox occuring between whether or not a charged particle will radiate on the surface of the earth as via the equivalence principle is it indistinguishable from an acceleration. This paradox ,according to wikipedia, is resolved by considering that the surface of the earth is a NON inertial frame of reference. According to the paper linked on the article a free falling charged particle in a gravitational field will NOT radiate. It also states that a charged particle on the surface of the earth will not radiate relative to the earth rest frame, but to an observer in free fall a charged particle on the surface of the earth WILL radiate in this reference frame. This article briefly talks about in the earth rest frame where this radiation "goes" ( as it radiates in the freefall frame) but not in extensive detail.

so my main question to anyone familar with this paradox is:

  • Where does this energy "go". radiation can only be seen in the free fall frame, if the energy radiates away in a free fallframe,then how can it still be there in an earth rest frame.

  • This article states earth is NON inertial but many other sites ive seen say that it IS inertial. So which one is it? ( if it isnt inertial then the equivelance princible wouldnt hold as a charged particle should fall slower due to radiation

  • in empty space if there are 2 charged particles if particle A accelerates, particle B's frame of reference sees an emmition of radiation from A. But,in A's frame of reference although it is accelerating relatve to B, it is "stationary" relative to itself,so in this reference frame it is actually B that is accelerating and therefore should emit radiation. I have a feeling this last one isnt true as A is accelerating and is therefore NON inertial, but I dont get how this is any different from a freefall acceleration of a charged particle seeing a particle emit radiation on the surface of the earth.

  • $\begingroup$ Similar questio asked beforw but answers insufficient $\endgroup$ Nov 1 '20 at 19:31
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you found similar questions you should tag them and tell us why they are insufficient, otherwise it's going to be harder to help you $\endgroup$
    – Triatticus
    Nov 1 '20 at 19:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ You will get better answers to your question if you link to the articles that prompted it, and if you look up the name of the effect. $\endgroup$
    – rob
    Nov 1 '20 at 20:01
  • $\begingroup$ Unruh. The 'answer' to the paradox itself is Unruh radiation, which is indeed seemingly paradoxical, and still controversial as to whether it actually, factually exists... Sort of like the unrelated Casimir Effect... According to the Unruh Effect idea, you, right now, ARE radiating, a little tiny bit, at (I believe) very low frequencies, just by virtue of being stationary in a gravitational potential... $\endgroup$
    – Kurt Hikes
    Apr 24 at 22:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.