User talk:ManitouLance

Welcome!

Hello, ManitouLance! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 23:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

ManitouLance, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi ManitouLance! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Paradox of a charge in a gravitational field

I think the radiation of a free falling charge is still an open question.

I didn't know the explanation of your article. It is for sure consistent, but there is at least a second explanation, at least equally valid, which is based in the Feynman radiation equation.

Classic radiation equation is obtained assuming that a charge does not interact with its own field. Feynman equation does not assume this and obtains a different expression for the radiation [1]

Though maybe it is surprising, there is no experiment that measures directly if an uniformly accelerated charge radiates in an inertial frame. Classic electromagnetic theory says it should, but this has never been confirmed by an experiment, because experiments use circular accelerating charges to verify the classic radiation equation.

For sure, classic equations yield the correct result for circular accelerating charges, but Feynman radiation equation yields the same value in these cases. The big difference is that it yields no radiation for an uniformly accelerating charge seen from an inertial frame.

Should Feynman be right, the accelerated charge would not radiate in any frame. This explanation is also consistent, and besides, it preserves energy in any frame without using the Boulware explanation (I thinks it is cleaner). Therefore, I think the article should be extended with at least this alternative explanation.

Comment on Kaluza–Klein_theory

User_talk:ManitouLance - Please have a look at this Talk:Kaluza–Klein_theory#Modern_generalizations_of_Kaluza-Klein_theory (talk page) and see if this proposed revisions of the section (Modern generalizations of Kaluza-Klein theory) may be worth including in the Kaluza–Klein_theory article. Thanks. VodnaTopka (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)