This implies that every electron that has undergone a change of velocity would imminently lose all its energy. Read my series of blogs on the Rayleigh-Jeans law and the Planck radiation law. These may answer your questions. I believe if understand correctly there is a small mistake in your language above.
You had said that if an electron is moving at a constant velocity it it emitting a constant magnetic field. As you say later a there needs to be an acceleration for produce the magnetic field. I believe at a constant velocity the electron created no magnetic feild. Thank you for the post. Comments RSS. You are commenting using your WordPress.
You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Email Address:. Home About. Feeds: Posts Comments. The all-time best selling albums in the UK ». Why do accelerated electrons radiate electromagnetic radiation? Share this: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn.
Like this: Like Loading Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:. Email required Address never made public. Name required. Let us analyze this expression. The electric field is proportional to the charge q. The bigger the accelerating charge, the bigger is the field. It decreases as the inverse of the distance r', which is the distance between the accelerating charge and the position where the field is observed.
But it is not the distance at the time the field is observed, but the distance at some earlier time, called the retarded time , when the radiation field was produced. The electric field is also proportional to the acceleration of the charge. The larger the acceleration, the larger is the field. In the above expression E rad r ,t is proportional to a perp , the component of the acceleration perpendicular to the line of sight between r and the retarded position of the charge.
The direction of E rad r ,t is perpendicular to this line of sight and its magnitude is proportional to the component of the acceleration perpendicular to this line of sight. The figure on the right illustrates that point. The electric field is zero along a line of sight in the direction of the acceleration, largest along a line of sight perpendicular to the direction of the acceleration, and always perpendicular to the line of sight.
For electromagnetic waves E and B are always perpendicular to each other and perpendicular to the direction of propagation. The static field decreases with distance much faster than the radiation field, and therefore the radiation field will dominate at large distance for accelerating charge distributions.
In addition, radiation fields are only produced by accelerating charges, often the electrons , while static fields are produced by all charges positive nuclei and negative electrons and cancel each other out.
Far from the source of an electromagnetic wave, we often treat the EM wave as a plane wave. We shall now consider the energy budget during the time when the charge is within , that is, for. According to 3. In this region so that there is no other effect of the external force than a change in the kinetic energy. Thus, the sum of the kinetic energy of the charge and its potential energy in the field of force accelerating it in is approximately constant, and the radiated energy is taken from the Schott energy, which according to 3.
The energy has been radiated as a pulse with energy given in 3. The situation changes when the particle approaches the position where it leaves , that is, when. Then, the particle experiences a new nonnegligible preacceleration, which reduces the acceleration from to 0, and the emitted power is reduced from to 0.
The velocity still increases during this period, but less than in the case of hyperbolic motion. The Schott energy, which until now in has decreased at a constant rate, increases from the negative value to zero. All the energies increase during this preacceleration. The energy is provided by the work of the external force , or in other words from the loss of potential energy of the particle in the field of this force. In the region where the motion can be considered as hyperbolic, , and the reaction force vanishes.
Here, is the only force acting upon the particle, and. This is no longer the case when the particle approaches the exit of , where the preacceleration makes. In order to make a complete energy budget in the region , we must know the proper time when the particle leaves. The position of the particle at a point of time is given by where is given by 3. The point of time when the particle leaves is found from the equation. Solving the integral to the second order in the equation reads where we have utilized.
We get the following solution to the second order in : where is the rapidity of the particle at the moment it enters. The term , which is dominating, is the proper time that the particle would have spent inside if the motion had been hyperbolic. Then , so the travelling proper time would be , where is the increase of during the motion in.
Equation 3. Inserting from 3. This is seen as follows. Using for hyperbolic motion, leads to Thus, the time that the charge stays inside is The dominating term in 3. To get the complete energy budget from to we utilize and. Then, according to 3. Expressing the relationships in terms of the velocity which is negative at , we find that the radiated energy is The kinetic energy, the mechanical energy i.
Let us summarize what happens to the particle and its energy from to. The charge comes from an infinitely far region with constant velocity. It moves towards a region with, say, a constant electrical field antiparallel to its direction of motion. Approaching it gets an increasing preacceleration, which causes the kinetic energy of the particle to decrease. A Schott energy of about the same magnitude appears. Also a small amount of energy is radiated away by the particle.
In the region the particle moves approximately hyperbolically until it experiences a new preacceleration before it leaves. During the hyperbolic part of the motion the external work performed by the field force upon the particle is used only to change the kinetic energy of the particle.
The particle radiates at a constant rate, and the radiated energy comes from the Schott energy, which decreases steadily during this part of the motion. Before the particle leaves the preacceleration decreases the acceleration towards zero. The particle still radiates although the Schott energy now increases.
What happens all together while the particle is in is that the kinetic energy and the Schott energy decrease by about the same amount, giving about the same contribution to the radiated energy.
When the particle has left and disappears towards an infinite remote region, the Schott energy has vanished again. The particle has lost kinetic energy, and this loss of energy is equal to the energy that the particle has radiated. Pauri and Vallisneri [ 19 ] have commented this situation in the following way:. While draining energy, the field becomes more and more different from the pure velocity field of an inertial charge; when hyperbolic motion finally ends, the extended force must provide all the energy that is necessary to re-establish the original structure of the field.
The foundation of the principle of equivalence is that at a certain point of spacetime every free particle instantaneously at rest falls with the same acceleration independent of its composition. A consequence of this is that if a proton and a neutron are falling from the same point in spacetime, they will fall together with the same acceleration.
However, the proton will emit electromagnetic radiation and the neutron not. So where does the radiated energy come from? Think of the following two situations. However, as observed by a comoving observer it is at rest in an inertial frame. Hence, this observer would say that the charge does not radiate. But it is at rest in UAF. If the detection of radiation depended only on the state of motion of the charge, an observer in UAF would detect radiation from a charge at rest in UAF.
However, in this situation there is nothing that can provide the radiation energy since the situation is static, so the assumption that whether a charge radiates or not depends only upon its state of motion, cannot be correct. Both situations 1 and 2 mean that the existence of radiation cannot be invariant against a transformation between an inertial and noninertial reference frame.
In order to have a discussion of the question whether the existence of radiation from a charged particle is invariant against a transformation between an inertial- and an accelerated reference frame we need a precise definition of electromagnetic radiation. This will be given below following Rohrlich [ 20 ]. The rate of radiation energy emission will be defined as a Lorentz invariant, but not generally invariant, quantity.
Hence, in this section all components of tensor quantities will refer to an inertial reference frame and we use units so that. The component formulae will be generalized to expressions valid also with respect to a uniformly accelerated reference frame in Section 4. Given a point charge following a trajectory , the electromagnetic field produced by the charge, , is measured at a point with coordinates. The point is connected to an emission point by a null vector , that is,.
The spatial distance between and in the inertial system in which the charge is instantaneously at rest is where represents the 4-velocity of the charge at the retarded point. The first term is the generalized Coulomb field, and the second term, which vanishes if and only if the components of the four-acceleration with respect to an inertial frame vanish, is the radiation field , by definition. The electromagnetic energy tensor is where the components of the Minkowski metric tensor have been used since all quantities are decomposed in an inertial frame in this section.
Inserting 4. Let represent a spherical surface in the instantaneous inertial rest frame of the charge at the point. We shall calculate the rate of change of electromagnetic field energy inside this surface in the limit of a very large radius so that the surface is in the wave zone of the charge.
Energy-momentum conservation can be expressed in the following way: the rate of change of electromagnetic energy-momentum inside this surface is equal to the flux of electromagnetic energy-momentum through the surface, Inserting expression 4. Rohrlich [ 20 ] then showed that the radius of the spherical surface can be chosen to be small.
The sphere need not be in the wave zone of the charge. This was demonstrated in the following way. The rate of energy and momentum which crosses the surface in the direction per unit solid angle is This quantity is a 4-vector. The first two terms are both spacelike vectors and may be interpreted as the Coulomb 4-momentum and the cross-term between Coulomb and radiation fields.
The last term is a null vector and describes pure radiation. It is independent of. Because this expression is independent of , it follows that the radiated power through the surface is given by that is, we do not need to take the limit of an infinitely large radius of the surface.
This result permits one to establish a criterion for testing whether a charge is emitting radiation at a given instant, by measuring the fields only and without having to do so at a distance large compared to the emitted wave length. The criterion for radiation is as follows : given the world line of a charge and an arbitrary instant on it.
Consider a sphere of arbitrary radius in the instantaneous inertial rest system of the charge at the proper time with center at the charge at that instant. Measure the electromagnetic fields on at the time and evaluate the integral where is the Poynting vector.
The value of this integral is the Lorentz invariant rate of radiation energy at time and vanishes if and only if the charge did not radiate at that instant. Ginzburg [ 21 ] has pointed out that according to this definition a uniformly accelerated charge radiates although there is no wave zone in this case, and it is not suitable, then, to speak about the appearance of photons.
It should be noted that an accelerated observer may very well measure a different rate of radiation from that given in 4. The concept of radiation emitted from a charged particle as measured by an accelerated observer will be described in Section 4. The principle of equivalence is usually stated as follows: the physical effects of a homogeneous gravitational field due to a mass distribution are equivalent to the physical effects of the artificial gravitational field in an accelerated reference frame.
However, Hammond [ 6 ] writes that in the general theory of relativity the curvature of spacetime replaces the Newtonian concept of a gravitation field.
For a uniformly accelerated frame in fact for any accelerated frame in Minkowski spacetime the curvature tensor vanishes: there is no gravitational field. However, in applications of the principle of equivalence it is necessary to distinguish between the tidal and the nontidal components of a gravitational field. The distinction between a tidal and a nontidal gravitational field is based on the geodesic equation and the equation of geodesic deviation. Consider two nearby points and in spacetime and two geodesics, one passing through and one through.
Let be the distance vector between and. The geodesics are assumed to be parallel at and , so that. Using 53 of [ 25 ] we find that a Taylor expansion about the point gives the following formula for the acceleration of a free particle at : The first term at the right hand side represents the acceleration of a free particle at and contains, for example, the centrifugal acceleration and the Coriolis acceleration in a rotating reference frame.
We define the gravitational field strength at the point , , as the acceleration of a free particle instantaneously at rest. Then, the spatial components of the four-velocity vanish.
Using the proper time of the particle as time coordinate gives , and 4. The first term at the right hand side of this equation represents the acceleration of gravity at the point , that is, it represents the uniform part of the gravitational field.
The second term represents the nonuniform part of the gravitational field, which is also present in a noninertial reference frame in flat spacetime, for example, the non-uniformity of the centrifugal field in a rotating reference frame. The last term represents the tidal effects, which in the general theory are proportional to the spacetime curvature. This suggests the following separation of a gravitational field into a nontidal part and a tidal part where the non-tidal part is given by and the tidal part by The non-tidal gravitational field can be transformed away by going into a local inertial frame.
The tidal gravitational field cannot be transformed away. The mathematical expression of these properties is that the non-tidal gravitational field is given by Christoffel symbols, and they are not tensor components. All of them can be transformed away.
But the tidal gravitational field is given in terms of the Riemann curvature tensor of spacetime, which cannot be transformed away.
A gravitational field caused by a mass distribution may be called a permanent gravitational field. In general such a field has both a tidal and a non-tidal component. However, the gravitational fields experienced in rotating or accelerated reference frames in flat spacetime are purely non-tidal. With this background, making it clear that there exists a gravitational field in a uniformly accelerated reference frame in flat spacetime, a brief review of earlier works on the compatibility of the equivalence principle with the invariance or noninvariance of radiation produced by an accelerated charge will now be presented.
The present discussion will be based on the following formulation of the principle of equivalence. According to the principle of equivalence the physical effects of the non-tidal gravitational field in a noninertial frame of reference are equivalent to the effects of the non-tidal component of a permanent gravitational field caused by a mass distribution.
It is valid in a region of spacetime sufficiently small that tidal effects of a permanent gravitational field cannot be measured with the equipment of the laboratory. Hence, according to the principle of equivalence in such a laboratory one cannot perform any experiment making it possible to decide, for example, whether one is in an accelerated laboratory in space or in a laboratory at rest on the surface of the Earth.
In Bondi and Gold [ 26 ] discussed radiation from a uniformly accelerated charge in relation to the principle of equivalence. This might be thought to raise a paradox when a charged particle, statically supported in a gravitational field, is considered, for it might be thought that a radiation field is required to assure that no distinction can be made between the cases of gravitation and acceleration—But there can be no static radiation field, and as the whole system is static the electromagnetic field cannot depend upon time.
In Fulton and Rohrlich [ 15 ] took up the discussion whether the existence of radiation from a uniformly accelerated charge is in conflict with the principle of equivalence. Then they used the LAD-equation to show that in spite of the vanishing radiation reaction upon a uniformly accelerating charge this is not in conflict with energy conservation. When the particle is charged, the observer can establish the presence of a gravitational field by looking for radiation.
If he observes radiation from the charge, he knows that he and the charge are falling in a gravitational field; if he observes no radiation, he knows that he and the particle are in a force free region of space. Fulton and Rohrlich solved the problem in a similar way as Bondi and Gold, noting that radiation can only be determined far from the emitting charge and that the principle of equivalence has only a local validity, and hence the problem disappears.
The problem discussed by Bondi and Gold and by Fulton and Rohrlich and the way they solved it indicate that at this time it was an underlying assumption that the existence of radiation from an accelerated charge is invariant against a transformation between an accelerated and an inertial reference frame, and hence that an observer in the accelerated frame for whom the charge is permanently at rest will measure radiation from the charge.
0コメント