Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 22:14:22 -0500 (CDT) From: "Stephen A. Fulling" To: Acceleration Radiation Community: ; Subject: More comments by Bob Wald ====================================================== From: Robert Wald Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2020 11:26:34 -0500 Subject: Re: More comments, July 17 Below are a few quick comments with regard to Daniel's and Don's remarks [https://www.math.tamu.edu/~fulling/ar/fulling1_comments717.txt ] Best wishes, Bob ---------------------------------------------------------- Daniel's remarks: I agree with Bill's comments. There is no such thing as "the physical solution"; everyone is free to consider any solution to Maxwell's equations that they want to consider. The solution people are usually most interested in is the one with no incoming radiation from null infinity. (If one has this solution, it is easy to add a homogeneous solution to account for incoming radiation if one wishes.) I don't see any way of arguing why one person's choice of initial data on a Cauchy surface would be "better" than someone else's choice (unless, e.g., the charges are known to be static for all time in the past, in which case the "no incoming radiation" condition would pick out a "natural" choice of initial data). ---------------------------------------------------------------- Don's remarks: a) I recall that radiation from a radially infalling point charge in Schwarzschild was looked at and possibly numerically calculated in the 1970s (around the time of the Davis, Ruffini, Press, Price paper on gravitational radiation from an infalling mass). b) When I said " A stationary charge in a (globally) stationary spacetime, of course, will not radiate to infinity" I was talking about a spacetime where there is a time translation symmetry, including, e.g., conductor boundaries. A spacetime with moving conductors is not stationary, nor is a spacetime with black holes orbiting around each other. Radiation in these cases certainly should be expected. =============================================================