electric charge oscillating in gravitational field

[abskebabs]

Hello everybody:-) . It's been a long time since I posted here, but I think now I may have some more interesting things to come back and discuss now, and with a SLIGHTLY better sense of understanding, or if not that, at least familiarity with the concepts which I tend to discuss on these forums.

 

Anyway, I remember one of my professors mentioning a relatively simple scenario, that was once a paradox in theoretical physics but was resolved, yet it defies me how. I know that the subject matter concerned is electrodynamics, mechanics(as the title may suggest) and general relativity.

 

Anyway! Finally to cut to the chase; We have the often heard "I drill a hole through the Earth"(the length of the hole being the diameter of the Earth) and drop a charged particle into the hole. In the subsequent motion we can imagine the particle accelerating, but doesn't that mean that it should also start emitting EM radiation, and so causing a kind of "drag" on the particle as not all the GPE is converted to KE? If so we can imagine this causing the particle to stop oscillating, and eventually occupy the centre of the Earth.

 

But can this necessarily happen at all, I think I remember my Professor mentioning something about the equivalence of accelerating frames of General Relativity(but I feel am tredding on water here, and may have misquoted him). Therefore the particle would have to keep oscillating, but then if it still emitted EM radiation then this would go against the conservation of energy. Can this "paradox" be resolved, and if so how? Or is it not even a paradox, and have I missed something?

[swansont]

I think you get into some trouble mixing GR concepts with other phenomena. The way that you conserve energy is a little more involved, as I understand it. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

[Norman Albers]

We do see huge radiative output as matter falls into a strong source, but is this thermal? The usual radiative dipole we define is accelerating rapidly, locally, z-double-dot. Yes I am bailng out. It is not clear to me that this charge is radiating.

[abskebabs]

We do see huge radiative output as matter falls into a strong source, but is this thermal? The usual radiative dipole we define is accelerating rapidly, locally, z-double-dot. Yes I am bailng out. It is not clear to me that this charge is radiating.

 

Quite frankly, this paragraph baffles me. The source which you describe I assume would be the centre of mass of the Earth in the scenario I stated, but then you talked about the radiation being thermal. Why would it matter whether Ultraviolet, microwave or whatever? The type of radiation, if emitted would just reveal to us the level of acceleration of the charged particle. But then this would go agains our principle of relativity! This is because in such a scenario we would be able to detect absolute motion, as we would know the charged particle was accelerating and not us.

 

By relativity, both frames should be indistinguishable, aka you accelerate from me I accelerate from you. Thereby such radiation should not be allowed to occur, but this raises the question; what does happen in this scenario?

[Norman Albers]

We say radiation occurs when a charge is accelererating in some frame. We can also say the accelerations here are small, and that the metric of the space is changing. We don't need a borehole, just an understanding of the free-falling charged particle. I was trying to say that in the chaos of matter falling into dense stellar objects there is thermal dynamics which kicks energy outward, but this is not the same as gravitational energy per se.

[fredrik]

By relativity, both frames should be indistinguishable, aka you accelerate from me I accelerate from you. Thereby such radiation should not be allowed to occur, but this raises the question; what does happen in this scenario?

 

Maybe I misinterpret you here, but you seem to suggest that any (accelerating) reference frame is equivalent to each other? no?

 

The founding equivalence principle of GR, basically says that the local effect of an accelerating frame is indistinguishable from the local effect a gravitational field - ie since a local observer can not tell wether it's accelerating, or is in a gravitational field, what is the difference? Since they seem indistinguishable, Einstein suggested that they should to be treated as a single phenomenon. One possible mathematical exploit to accomplish this unification Einsteins field equations which incorporate the concept of a non-euclidian geometry.

 

( But as you mix GR with other things like QM. Things get weird. Which remains to be properly explained. Part of the problem IMO is that GR and QM are built with different philosophies. Also concepts like energy doesn't by definition mean quite the same things in GR and QM. )

 

/Fredrik

[fredrik]

About the remaining part of the question : So what does happen?

 

A classical reasoning suggest that the accelerating charge will radiate and thus loose energy, and thus finally slow down.

 

This is the same problem as electrons in the atoms. They also accelerate, and thus "should" continously radiate. And atoms would not be stable. This is not observed - why?

 

This problem was solved by the introduction of quantum mechancs.

 

The key is that since the electron is (*by assumption*, if it is not it will escape the system) captured / bond by some kind of interaction / force. May it be gravity or eletromagnetism, quantum mechanics asserts that the system is only defined for discrete energy values can be measured - thus continous radiation at arbitrary energies is not possible. Only discrete transitions occurs (the spectral lines), and there is a definite probability for a given transition.

 

At the same instant you define that your electron is bound, you also impose restriction on what energy states can be detected.

 

In this context "energy" can be though of as something that is related to the our systems time coding. The concept of time and energy are related. Without time the concept of energy (in this context) would not make sense in as much that momentum without space makes no sense.

 

/Fredrik

[swansont]

Radiation of a free accelerating charge is not thermal, AFAIK. It's proportional to the acceleration.

[Norman Albers]

I knew I felt confused and then couldn't get back on this morning. We should not mix gravity and electromagnetism so freely! Equivalence speaks of inertial and gravitational acceleration being indistinguishable locally. The acceleration of this electron in not much and it gets less(going as r) toward the center. It will radiate from this, a bit. No one said anything about E&M being equivalent. I had mentioned infalling matter in stellar situations but I confused things. Yes, charges falling in will acceleratively radiate but the high flux of x-rays is from friction scattering all massive particles. ABSKEBABS, careful about who is accelerating. There is only one of the two twins in the paradox who goes away and then changes direction.

[SyedAmeen]

Hello everybody:-) . It's been a long time since I posted here, but I think now I may have some more interesting things to come back and discuss now, and with a SLIGHTLY better sense of understanding, or if not that, at least familiarity with the concepts which I tend to discuss on these forums.

 

Anyway, I remember one of my professors mentioning a relatively simple scenario, that was once a paradox in theoretical physics but was resolved, yet it defies me how. I know that the subject matter concerned is electrodynamics, mechanics(as the title may suggest) and general relativity.

 

Anyway! Finally to cut to the chase; We have the often heard "I drill a hole through the Earth"(the length of the hole being the diameter of the Earth) and drop a charged particle into the hole. In the subsequent motion we can imagine the particle accelerating, but doesn't that mean that it should also start emitting EM radiation, and so causing a kind of "drag" on the particle as not all the GPE is converted to KE? If so we can imagine this causing the particle to stop oscillating, and eventually occupy the centre of the Earth.

 

But can this necessarily happen at all, I think I remember my Professor mentioning something about the equivalence of accelerating frames of General Relativity(but I feel am tredding on water here, and may have misquoted him). Therefore the particle would have to keep oscillating, but then if it still emitted EM radiation then this would go against the conservation of energy. Can this "paradox" be resolved, and if so how? Or is it not even a paradox, and have I missed something?

 

jan.25.2007

 

The scenario of dropping a charge particle into a hole equal to length of the diameter of earth is absurd,because:

A charge particle ,is matter and interacts with MASS around.

But you can imagine a Neutrino entering north pole of the earth and seiving out from south pole unhindered.That happens.Also recent reports of heavy neutrinos Oscillations were observed.

My ignorons quantum field theory,which assumes existence of omnipresent faster than velocity of light particles or entities,describes PHOTON is not one particle,but an ENTANGLED QUANTUM STATE.The real nature and origin of Photon remained ELUSIVE to Einstein et.al.

But Entanglement indicates ,when ever a CHARGE particle is liberated or freed,instantaneously the ignorons(faster than C particles,which are omnipresent in the universe)form a union,this Entanglement is our real photon.

Thus

PHOTON = ignoron + e- (charge particle)

 

The entanglement produces a compromised momentum which is the wave length or frequency observed of a photon.

The energy momentum induced tensors become operative to make a wave-particle phenomenon,that is our known photon.The ignorons ,being faster than C,could be simply WAVE-FIELD,and encountering liberated Charge,this wave-field engulfs it and keeps moving on,due to energy induced momentum tensors action.

This Dr.Syed Ameen 's new theory is slowly getting accepted with non Relativity Cult scientist,because it had first time shown the real origin and nature of photon as an entangled quantum state of two particle system,contrary to Einstein's misleading arguement for photon and nothing can move faster than C?!

Dr.Syed Ameen (Ph.D.)

view my blog for list of links about ignoron quantumfield:

 

http://www.myspace.com/syedameen

http://mywebpage.netscape.com/drsyedameen1/index.html