What does a finite Poynting flux at infinity imply in case of a 
             uniformly accelerating charge?

                   Ashok K. Singal
              ashokkumar.singal@gmail.com


Dear all,  This is my contribution on `radiation' from a 
uniformly accelerated charge. I am attaching a ppt file 
(converted into pdf to reduce size). It mostly comprises 
diagrams, along with some text. I am sorry for its length, but 
could not reduce it, without making it even worse. So I beg you 
to bear with me.

EDITOR'S NOTE:  The slides are at
https://www.math.tamu.edu/~fulling/ar/singal1.pdf

The summary of my arguments is: the Poynting flux at large 
distances from the charge is certainly there, but it is not 
'radiation emitted away' by the uniformly accelerated charge. In 
a typical radiation scenario, the radiation goes away (to 
infinity!), with the charge remaining behind, perhaps not very 
far from its original location. However, in the case of a uniform 
acceleration, such is not true, the charge, moving with v~c, is 
not very far behind the wave-front r=ct. As the fields move 
toward infinity, so does the charge, and the fields, in fact, are 
all around the charge. As I show, contrary to some earlier 
claims, radiated power does not go beyond the horizon, into 
regions of space-time inaccessible to an observer co-accelerating 
with charge.

The fields actually are the self-fields of the charge and as the 
charge picks up speed, the fields increase in strength, due to 
the acceleration fields, which build up the self-fields just 
sufficiently to values expected from the `present' velocity of 
uniformly accelerated charge.

Naturally there is no radiation reaction on the uniformly 
accelerated charge, since no field energy is being `radiated 
away' from such a charge. This, of course, also makes it fully 
conversant with the strong principle of equivalence.

The PPT file contains excerpts from one of my papers near 
completion, there might be minor typos or other mistakes, but I 
hope the meaning will be clear. At a first look some of my 
arguments might sound as far-fetched, but these all result from 
actual calculations, mostly given in ref. 3 (listed in the last 
slide).

Any comments, criticism and suggestions will be most welcome.

                                                Ashok