Falling electric dipole contradicts equivalence principle?












2












$begingroup$


Consider an electric dipole consisting of charges $q$ and $-q$, both of mass $m$, separated by a distance $d$.



If the dipole is given an acceleration $a$ perpendicular to its moment the total electric force on it, due to each charge acting on the other, is given approximately by



$$F_e=frac{e^2a}{c^2d}$$



where we introduce $e^2 equiv q^2/4piepsilon_0$ for clarity. The exact expression is given in Electrostatic Levitation of a Dipole Eq(5).



Now suppose the dipole, initially oriented horizontally, is dropped in a vertical gravitational field of strength $g$.



Applying Newton's second law to the dipole as a whole we have: gravitational force (gravitational mass times field strength) plus electric force must equal the inertial mass times acceleration



$$2mg+F_e=2m a$$



Therefore the acceleration $a$ of the dipole is given by



$$a=glarge(1-frac{e^2}{2mc^2d}large)^{-1}$$



Thus the dipole is accelerating faster than gravity. An observer falling with the dipole will see it move away from him whereas in deep space the observer would not see the dipole move away.



Surely this contradicts the equivalence principle?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Related paper: arxiv.org/pdf/1311.5798.pdf
    $endgroup$
    – kkm
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Does a charged particle accelerating in a gravitational field radiate?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    3 hours ago
















2












$begingroup$


Consider an electric dipole consisting of charges $q$ and $-q$, both of mass $m$, separated by a distance $d$.



If the dipole is given an acceleration $a$ perpendicular to its moment the total electric force on it, due to each charge acting on the other, is given approximately by



$$F_e=frac{e^2a}{c^2d}$$



where we introduce $e^2 equiv q^2/4piepsilon_0$ for clarity. The exact expression is given in Electrostatic Levitation of a Dipole Eq(5).



Now suppose the dipole, initially oriented horizontally, is dropped in a vertical gravitational field of strength $g$.



Applying Newton's second law to the dipole as a whole we have: gravitational force (gravitational mass times field strength) plus electric force must equal the inertial mass times acceleration



$$2mg+F_e=2m a$$



Therefore the acceleration $a$ of the dipole is given by



$$a=glarge(1-frac{e^2}{2mc^2d}large)^{-1}$$



Thus the dipole is accelerating faster than gravity. An observer falling with the dipole will see it move away from him whereas in deep space the observer would not see the dipole move away.



Surely this contradicts the equivalence principle?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Related paper: arxiv.org/pdf/1311.5798.pdf
    $endgroup$
    – kkm
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Does a charged particle accelerating in a gravitational field radiate?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    3 hours ago














2












2








2


1



$begingroup$


Consider an electric dipole consisting of charges $q$ and $-q$, both of mass $m$, separated by a distance $d$.



If the dipole is given an acceleration $a$ perpendicular to its moment the total electric force on it, due to each charge acting on the other, is given approximately by



$$F_e=frac{e^2a}{c^2d}$$



where we introduce $e^2 equiv q^2/4piepsilon_0$ for clarity. The exact expression is given in Electrostatic Levitation of a Dipole Eq(5).



Now suppose the dipole, initially oriented horizontally, is dropped in a vertical gravitational field of strength $g$.



Applying Newton's second law to the dipole as a whole we have: gravitational force (gravitational mass times field strength) plus electric force must equal the inertial mass times acceleration



$$2mg+F_e=2m a$$



Therefore the acceleration $a$ of the dipole is given by



$$a=glarge(1-frac{e^2}{2mc^2d}large)^{-1}$$



Thus the dipole is accelerating faster than gravity. An observer falling with the dipole will see it move away from him whereas in deep space the observer would not see the dipole move away.



Surely this contradicts the equivalence principle?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Consider an electric dipole consisting of charges $q$ and $-q$, both of mass $m$, separated by a distance $d$.



If the dipole is given an acceleration $a$ perpendicular to its moment the total electric force on it, due to each charge acting on the other, is given approximately by



$$F_e=frac{e^2a}{c^2d}$$



where we introduce $e^2 equiv q^2/4piepsilon_0$ for clarity. The exact expression is given in Electrostatic Levitation of a Dipole Eq(5).



Now suppose the dipole, initially oriented horizontally, is dropped in a vertical gravitational field of strength $g$.



Applying Newton's second law to the dipole as a whole we have: gravitational force (gravitational mass times field strength) plus electric force must equal the inertial mass times acceleration



$$2mg+F_e=2m a$$



Therefore the acceleration $a$ of the dipole is given by



$$a=glarge(1-frac{e^2}{2mc^2d}large)^{-1}$$



Thus the dipole is accelerating faster than gravity. An observer falling with the dipole will see it move away from him whereas in deep space the observer would not see the dipole move away.



Surely this contradicts the equivalence principle?







electromagnetism general-relativity classical-electrodynamics equivalence-principle






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 3 hours ago







John Eastmond

















asked 5 hours ago









John EastmondJohn Eastmond

1,8891225




1,8891225












  • $begingroup$
    Related paper: arxiv.org/pdf/1311.5798.pdf
    $endgroup$
    – kkm
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Does a charged particle accelerating in a gravitational field radiate?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    3 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Related paper: arxiv.org/pdf/1311.5798.pdf
    $endgroup$
    – kkm
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Possible duplicate of Does a charged particle accelerating in a gravitational field radiate?
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    3 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Related paper: arxiv.org/pdf/1311.5798.pdf
$endgroup$
– kkm
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
Related paper: arxiv.org/pdf/1311.5798.pdf
$endgroup$
– kkm
4 hours ago












$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Does a charged particle accelerating in a gravitational field radiate?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
3 hours ago




$begingroup$
Possible duplicate of Does a charged particle accelerating in a gravitational field radiate?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
3 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

The paper that claims this result was written in reply to An electric dipole in self-accelerated transverse motion, which claims that a dipole in zero gravitational field really can accelerate itself, indefinitely. So if you believe both of the results of these papers, the equivalence principle is satisfied; dipoles can have an extra, weird contribution to their acceleration in both a gravitational field and in a freely falling frame.



However, the analysis of point charges in electromagnetism, and especially their self-interaction, is full of subtleties. More recently, the paper Nonexistence of the self-accelerating dipole and related questions has claimed that both of these results are incorrect, but since the author of this paper is active on Physics.SE I'm going to refrain from attempting to summarize the paper, because I'll probably get it wrong!



From a more general perspective, we already know postulating perfectly pointlike charges leads to a ton of subtleties, even before bringing relativity into the mix. In the modern formulation of quantum field theory in curved spacetime, everything is manifestly covariant from the start, so the equivalence principle is satisfied by construction. Of course it's interesting to see how it can come about in a less fundamental theory like classical electromagnetism, but issues with that aren't going to bring all of relativity crashing down.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    In addition to the points you raise, there are likely to be a couple of vexing issues: (1) that a boosted dipole isn't a dipole (related to Mansuripur's paradox); (2) there is no universally accepted way to define what is a radiation field in this kind of context.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    4 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The weird self-acceleration is merely a special case for extremely small separations of the two charges. John Eastmond's observation and question is valid even for dipoles that do not have such strange solutions.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    1 hour ago



















1












$begingroup$

In your calculation you assume that gravitational mass $M_G$ of the system is $2m$ where $m$ is rest mass of a single particle, thus you assume it is independent of the mutual distance between the charged particles $d$. In other words, you do not take into account the force of gravity acting on the system due to the concentrated bound negative energy of EM field near the charged particles. However, since the system has lower inertial mass, it should also have lower gravitational mass.



It is well known that systems with negative potential EM energy have inertial mass defect. In this case, the dipole is such a system, so it will have lower inertial mass than $2m$, thanks to its negative electrostatic potential energy $-frac{e^2}{d}$.



This "mass defect" effect comes from the forces of "acceleration electric fields" acting to speed up the charged particles. This you have taken into account by including force $F_{em/self} = frac{e^2}{c^2d}a$, which is the electromagnetic self-force acting on the dipole.



But defect in inertial mass should mean also defect in gravitational mass. Heuristically/naively, the gravitational mass to use in the formula $F_G = M_G g$ should correspond to total energy of the system via Einstein's formula



$$
E = M_Gc^2
$$



where $E$ is total energy of the system, including its internal potential energy. Using the Coulomb formula for potential energy,
$$
E = 2mc^2 - frac{e^2}{d}
$$

and so the gravitational mass of the dipole should be taken as
$$
M_{G} = 2m -frac{e^2}{c^2d}.
$$

Then, the Newtonian equation of motion turns out as follows. We have
$$
M_G g + F_{em/self} = 2ma;
$$

using the above expression for $M_G$ and $frac{e^2}{c^2d}a$ for $F_{em/self}$, we obtain



$$
left(2m - frac{e^2}{c^2d}right)g = 2ma - frac{e^2}{c^2d}a
$$

which always implies
$$
a = g,
$$

confirming that dipole will move in accordance with the equivalence principle.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f455555%2ffalling-electric-dipole-contradicts-equivalence-principle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    3












    $begingroup$

    The paper that claims this result was written in reply to An electric dipole in self-accelerated transverse motion, which claims that a dipole in zero gravitational field really can accelerate itself, indefinitely. So if you believe both of the results of these papers, the equivalence principle is satisfied; dipoles can have an extra, weird contribution to their acceleration in both a gravitational field and in a freely falling frame.



    However, the analysis of point charges in electromagnetism, and especially their self-interaction, is full of subtleties. More recently, the paper Nonexistence of the self-accelerating dipole and related questions has claimed that both of these results are incorrect, but since the author of this paper is active on Physics.SE I'm going to refrain from attempting to summarize the paper, because I'll probably get it wrong!



    From a more general perspective, we already know postulating perfectly pointlike charges leads to a ton of subtleties, even before bringing relativity into the mix. In the modern formulation of quantum field theory in curved spacetime, everything is manifestly covariant from the start, so the equivalence principle is satisfied by construction. Of course it's interesting to see how it can come about in a less fundamental theory like classical electromagnetism, but issues with that aren't going to bring all of relativity crashing down.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      In addition to the points you raise, there are likely to be a couple of vexing issues: (1) that a boosted dipole isn't a dipole (related to Mansuripur's paradox); (2) there is no universally accepted way to define what is a radiation field in this kind of context.
      $endgroup$
      – Ben Crowell
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      The weird self-acceleration is merely a special case for extremely small separations of the two charges. John Eastmond's observation and question is valid even for dipoles that do not have such strange solutions.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      1 hour ago
















    3












    $begingroup$

    The paper that claims this result was written in reply to An electric dipole in self-accelerated transverse motion, which claims that a dipole in zero gravitational field really can accelerate itself, indefinitely. So if you believe both of the results of these papers, the equivalence principle is satisfied; dipoles can have an extra, weird contribution to their acceleration in both a gravitational field and in a freely falling frame.



    However, the analysis of point charges in electromagnetism, and especially their self-interaction, is full of subtleties. More recently, the paper Nonexistence of the self-accelerating dipole and related questions has claimed that both of these results are incorrect, but since the author of this paper is active on Physics.SE I'm going to refrain from attempting to summarize the paper, because I'll probably get it wrong!



    From a more general perspective, we already know postulating perfectly pointlike charges leads to a ton of subtleties, even before bringing relativity into the mix. In the modern formulation of quantum field theory in curved spacetime, everything is manifestly covariant from the start, so the equivalence principle is satisfied by construction. Of course it's interesting to see how it can come about in a less fundamental theory like classical electromagnetism, but issues with that aren't going to bring all of relativity crashing down.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 1




      $begingroup$
      In addition to the points you raise, there are likely to be a couple of vexing issues: (1) that a boosted dipole isn't a dipole (related to Mansuripur's paradox); (2) there is no universally accepted way to define what is a radiation field in this kind of context.
      $endgroup$
      – Ben Crowell
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      The weird self-acceleration is merely a special case for extremely small separations of the two charges. John Eastmond's observation and question is valid even for dipoles that do not have such strange solutions.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      1 hour ago














    3












    3








    3





    $begingroup$

    The paper that claims this result was written in reply to An electric dipole in self-accelerated transverse motion, which claims that a dipole in zero gravitational field really can accelerate itself, indefinitely. So if you believe both of the results of these papers, the equivalence principle is satisfied; dipoles can have an extra, weird contribution to their acceleration in both a gravitational field and in a freely falling frame.



    However, the analysis of point charges in electromagnetism, and especially their self-interaction, is full of subtleties. More recently, the paper Nonexistence of the self-accelerating dipole and related questions has claimed that both of these results are incorrect, but since the author of this paper is active on Physics.SE I'm going to refrain from attempting to summarize the paper, because I'll probably get it wrong!



    From a more general perspective, we already know postulating perfectly pointlike charges leads to a ton of subtleties, even before bringing relativity into the mix. In the modern formulation of quantum field theory in curved spacetime, everything is manifestly covariant from the start, so the equivalence principle is satisfied by construction. Of course it's interesting to see how it can come about in a less fundamental theory like classical electromagnetism, but issues with that aren't going to bring all of relativity crashing down.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    The paper that claims this result was written in reply to An electric dipole in self-accelerated transverse motion, which claims that a dipole in zero gravitational field really can accelerate itself, indefinitely. So if you believe both of the results of these papers, the equivalence principle is satisfied; dipoles can have an extra, weird contribution to their acceleration in both a gravitational field and in a freely falling frame.



    However, the analysis of point charges in electromagnetism, and especially their self-interaction, is full of subtleties. More recently, the paper Nonexistence of the self-accelerating dipole and related questions has claimed that both of these results are incorrect, but since the author of this paper is active on Physics.SE I'm going to refrain from attempting to summarize the paper, because I'll probably get it wrong!



    From a more general perspective, we already know postulating perfectly pointlike charges leads to a ton of subtleties, even before bringing relativity into the mix. In the modern formulation of quantum field theory in curved spacetime, everything is manifestly covariant from the start, so the equivalence principle is satisfied by construction. Of course it's interesting to see how it can come about in a less fundamental theory like classical electromagnetism, but issues with that aren't going to bring all of relativity crashing down.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered 4 hours ago









    knzhouknzhou

    43.2k11118206




    43.2k11118206








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      In addition to the points you raise, there are likely to be a couple of vexing issues: (1) that a boosted dipole isn't a dipole (related to Mansuripur's paradox); (2) there is no universally accepted way to define what is a radiation field in this kind of context.
      $endgroup$
      – Ben Crowell
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      The weird self-acceleration is merely a special case for extremely small separations of the two charges. John Eastmond's observation and question is valid even for dipoles that do not have such strange solutions.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      1 hour ago














    • 1




      $begingroup$
      In addition to the points you raise, there are likely to be a couple of vexing issues: (1) that a boosted dipole isn't a dipole (related to Mansuripur's paradox); (2) there is no universally accepted way to define what is a radiation field in this kind of context.
      $endgroup$
      – Ben Crowell
      4 hours ago










    • $begingroup$
      The weird self-acceleration is merely a special case for extremely small separations of the two charges. John Eastmond's observation and question is valid even for dipoles that do not have such strange solutions.
      $endgroup$
      – Ján Lalinský
      1 hour ago








    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    In addition to the points you raise, there are likely to be a couple of vexing issues: (1) that a boosted dipole isn't a dipole (related to Mansuripur's paradox); (2) there is no universally accepted way to define what is a radiation field in this kind of context.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    4 hours ago




    $begingroup$
    In addition to the points you raise, there are likely to be a couple of vexing issues: (1) that a boosted dipole isn't a dipole (related to Mansuripur's paradox); (2) there is no universally accepted way to define what is a radiation field in this kind of context.
    $endgroup$
    – Ben Crowell
    4 hours ago












    $begingroup$
    The weird self-acceleration is merely a special case for extremely small separations of the two charges. John Eastmond's observation and question is valid even for dipoles that do not have such strange solutions.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    1 hour ago




    $begingroup$
    The weird self-acceleration is merely a special case for extremely small separations of the two charges. John Eastmond's observation and question is valid even for dipoles that do not have such strange solutions.
    $endgroup$
    – Ján Lalinský
    1 hour ago











    1












    $begingroup$

    In your calculation you assume that gravitational mass $M_G$ of the system is $2m$ where $m$ is rest mass of a single particle, thus you assume it is independent of the mutual distance between the charged particles $d$. In other words, you do not take into account the force of gravity acting on the system due to the concentrated bound negative energy of EM field near the charged particles. However, since the system has lower inertial mass, it should also have lower gravitational mass.



    It is well known that systems with negative potential EM energy have inertial mass defect. In this case, the dipole is such a system, so it will have lower inertial mass than $2m$, thanks to its negative electrostatic potential energy $-frac{e^2}{d}$.



    This "mass defect" effect comes from the forces of "acceleration electric fields" acting to speed up the charged particles. This you have taken into account by including force $F_{em/self} = frac{e^2}{c^2d}a$, which is the electromagnetic self-force acting on the dipole.



    But defect in inertial mass should mean also defect in gravitational mass. Heuristically/naively, the gravitational mass to use in the formula $F_G = M_G g$ should correspond to total energy of the system via Einstein's formula



    $$
    E = M_Gc^2
    $$



    where $E$ is total energy of the system, including its internal potential energy. Using the Coulomb formula for potential energy,
    $$
    E = 2mc^2 - frac{e^2}{d}
    $$

    and so the gravitational mass of the dipole should be taken as
    $$
    M_{G} = 2m -frac{e^2}{c^2d}.
    $$

    Then, the Newtonian equation of motion turns out as follows. We have
    $$
    M_G g + F_{em/self} = 2ma;
    $$

    using the above expression for $M_G$ and $frac{e^2}{c^2d}a$ for $F_{em/self}$, we obtain



    $$
    left(2m - frac{e^2}{c^2d}right)g = 2ma - frac{e^2}{c^2d}a
    $$

    which always implies
    $$
    a = g,
    $$

    confirming that dipole will move in accordance with the equivalence principle.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      In your calculation you assume that gravitational mass $M_G$ of the system is $2m$ where $m$ is rest mass of a single particle, thus you assume it is independent of the mutual distance between the charged particles $d$. In other words, you do not take into account the force of gravity acting on the system due to the concentrated bound negative energy of EM field near the charged particles. However, since the system has lower inertial mass, it should also have lower gravitational mass.



      It is well known that systems with negative potential EM energy have inertial mass defect. In this case, the dipole is such a system, so it will have lower inertial mass than $2m$, thanks to its negative electrostatic potential energy $-frac{e^2}{d}$.



      This "mass defect" effect comes from the forces of "acceleration electric fields" acting to speed up the charged particles. This you have taken into account by including force $F_{em/self} = frac{e^2}{c^2d}a$, which is the electromagnetic self-force acting on the dipole.



      But defect in inertial mass should mean also defect in gravitational mass. Heuristically/naively, the gravitational mass to use in the formula $F_G = M_G g$ should correspond to total energy of the system via Einstein's formula



      $$
      E = M_Gc^2
      $$



      where $E$ is total energy of the system, including its internal potential energy. Using the Coulomb formula for potential energy,
      $$
      E = 2mc^2 - frac{e^2}{d}
      $$

      and so the gravitational mass of the dipole should be taken as
      $$
      M_{G} = 2m -frac{e^2}{c^2d}.
      $$

      Then, the Newtonian equation of motion turns out as follows. We have
      $$
      M_G g + F_{em/self} = 2ma;
      $$

      using the above expression for $M_G$ and $frac{e^2}{c^2d}a$ for $F_{em/self}$, we obtain



      $$
      left(2m - frac{e^2}{c^2d}right)g = 2ma - frac{e^2}{c^2d}a
      $$

      which always implies
      $$
      a = g,
      $$

      confirming that dipole will move in accordance with the equivalence principle.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        In your calculation you assume that gravitational mass $M_G$ of the system is $2m$ where $m$ is rest mass of a single particle, thus you assume it is independent of the mutual distance between the charged particles $d$. In other words, you do not take into account the force of gravity acting on the system due to the concentrated bound negative energy of EM field near the charged particles. However, since the system has lower inertial mass, it should also have lower gravitational mass.



        It is well known that systems with negative potential EM energy have inertial mass defect. In this case, the dipole is such a system, so it will have lower inertial mass than $2m$, thanks to its negative electrostatic potential energy $-frac{e^2}{d}$.



        This "mass defect" effect comes from the forces of "acceleration electric fields" acting to speed up the charged particles. This you have taken into account by including force $F_{em/self} = frac{e^2}{c^2d}a$, which is the electromagnetic self-force acting on the dipole.



        But defect in inertial mass should mean also defect in gravitational mass. Heuristically/naively, the gravitational mass to use in the formula $F_G = M_G g$ should correspond to total energy of the system via Einstein's formula



        $$
        E = M_Gc^2
        $$



        where $E$ is total energy of the system, including its internal potential energy. Using the Coulomb formula for potential energy,
        $$
        E = 2mc^2 - frac{e^2}{d}
        $$

        and so the gravitational mass of the dipole should be taken as
        $$
        M_{G} = 2m -frac{e^2}{c^2d}.
        $$

        Then, the Newtonian equation of motion turns out as follows. We have
        $$
        M_G g + F_{em/self} = 2ma;
        $$

        using the above expression for $M_G$ and $frac{e^2}{c^2d}a$ for $F_{em/self}$, we obtain



        $$
        left(2m - frac{e^2}{c^2d}right)g = 2ma - frac{e^2}{c^2d}a
        $$

        which always implies
        $$
        a = g,
        $$

        confirming that dipole will move in accordance with the equivalence principle.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        In your calculation you assume that gravitational mass $M_G$ of the system is $2m$ where $m$ is rest mass of a single particle, thus you assume it is independent of the mutual distance between the charged particles $d$. In other words, you do not take into account the force of gravity acting on the system due to the concentrated bound negative energy of EM field near the charged particles. However, since the system has lower inertial mass, it should also have lower gravitational mass.



        It is well known that systems with negative potential EM energy have inertial mass defect. In this case, the dipole is such a system, so it will have lower inertial mass than $2m$, thanks to its negative electrostatic potential energy $-frac{e^2}{d}$.



        This "mass defect" effect comes from the forces of "acceleration electric fields" acting to speed up the charged particles. This you have taken into account by including force $F_{em/self} = frac{e^2}{c^2d}a$, which is the electromagnetic self-force acting on the dipole.



        But defect in inertial mass should mean also defect in gravitational mass. Heuristically/naively, the gravitational mass to use in the formula $F_G = M_G g$ should correspond to total energy of the system via Einstein's formula



        $$
        E = M_Gc^2
        $$



        where $E$ is total energy of the system, including its internal potential energy. Using the Coulomb formula for potential energy,
        $$
        E = 2mc^2 - frac{e^2}{d}
        $$

        and so the gravitational mass of the dipole should be taken as
        $$
        M_{G} = 2m -frac{e^2}{c^2d}.
        $$

        Then, the Newtonian equation of motion turns out as follows. We have
        $$
        M_G g + F_{em/self} = 2ma;
        $$

        using the above expression for $M_G$ and $frac{e^2}{c^2d}a$ for $F_{em/self}$, we obtain



        $$
        left(2m - frac{e^2}{c^2d}right)g = 2ma - frac{e^2}{c^2d}a
        $$

        which always implies
        $$
        a = g,
        $$

        confirming that dipole will move in accordance with the equivalence principle.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited 1 hour ago

























        answered 2 hours ago









        Ján LalinskýJán Lalinský

        14.5k1334




        14.5k1334






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f455555%2ffalling-electric-dipole-contradicts-equivalence-principle%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            SQL Server 17 - Attemping to backup to remote NAS but Access is denied

            Always On Availability groups resolving state after failover - Remote harden of transaction...

            Restoring from pg_dump with foreign key constraints