Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utastro.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!ethan From: ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) Newsgroups: net.astro,net.physics Subject: Re: Equivalence Principle and Electric Charge Message-ID: <887@utastro.UUCP> Date: Sat, 8-Dec-84 10:53:13 EST Article-I.D.: utastro.887 Posted: Sat Dec 8 10:53:13 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 10-Dec-84 02:46:22 EST References: <1534@pur-phy.UUCP>, <6475@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: UTexas Astronomy Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 23 Xref: watmath net.astro:378 net.physics:1986 [] I've never thought about this before, and I suspect that working out the full answer is quite time consuming. However, I think I know what the resolution must be. The equivalence of gravity and acceleration (for an object on the surface of the Earth) is a *local* equivalence. On the other hand, the radiation of electromagnetic waves necessarily involves the application of boundary conditions at infinity (i.e. no incoming waves in the Minkowski frame, something more complicated but along the same lines when curvature is invoked). Therefore there is not necessarily a paradox involved here. On the other hand, it would be nice if someone worked this one out. Any volunteers? The above will not be the official opinion of the University of Texas until such time as it can be reliably ascertained that hell has frozen over to a depth of at least 10 meters. "I can't help it if my Ethan Vishniac knee jerks" {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas Austin, Texas 78712