Electrodynamics of hyperbolically accelerated charges. II: Does a charged particle with hyperbolic motion radiate? (Q5938525)

From MaRDI portal

!

This is the item page for this Wikibase entity, intended for internal use and editing purposes. Please use the normal view instead:

scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1622508
Language Label Description Also known as
default for all languages
No label defined
    English
    Electrodynamics of hyperbolically accelerated charges. II: Does a charged particle with hyperbolic motion radiate?
    scientific article; zbMATH DE number 1622508

      Statements

      Electrodynamics of hyperbolically accelerated charges. II: Does a charged particle with hyperbolic motion radiate? (English)
      0 references
      0 references
      0 references
      22 July 2001
      0 references
      charged particle
      0 references
      hyperbolic motion
      0 references
      electromagnetic field
      0 references
      radiation
      0 references
      The paper is the continuation of [Part I (see Zbl 0983.78008)]. The question of whether a uniformly accelerated charge radiates has been debated for about 90 years. Both Max von Laue and Wolfgang Pauli argued that it does not, but later \textit{D. L. Drukey} [Phys. Rev. 76, 543-544 (1949; Zbl 0033.32205)] argued that it does. The authors analyze this question from different points of view. The treatment of Fulton and Rohrlich is presented. They found out that the accelerating charge radiates, and they gave a formula for the radiated energy. For a hyperbolic motion, the radiation energy per unit time is constant. So the result of Drukey is verified. Julian Schwinger has considered a non-relativistic case and showed that also in this case the uniformly accelerated charge does radiate. The spectral distribution and the power spectrum of radiation are obtained for a charged particle moving hyperbolically. The question of whether there exists a wave-zone in the electromagnetic field of a uniformly accelerated charge is also studied. It appears that there is one, and its location is calculated. It is also shown where Pauli made a mistake.NEWLINENEWLINENEWLINEFor Part III, see ibid. 286, 373-399 (2000; Zbl 0983.78010) below.
      0 references

      Identifiers