"In any case, the SEP is really just a conjecture. Also there is something fundamentally wrong with a theory in which the existence of radiation is frame dependent. Surely it should at least be possible to settle this question empirically?"

No, look at the Unruh effect.
Virtual photons in inertial frames are real photons in coincident non-inertial frames. This is the origin of the firewall debate on black holes.There is a creative tension between equivalence principle and charges emitting photons
If a charge sits at surface of Earth it has a constant proper acceleration in a static LNIF. Feynman would say no problem - constant acceleration does not cause real photon emission - to who? others ask.
If you accumulate a lot of unbalanced electric charge and just let it sit on a lab table do you expect it to radiate real photons? Where is the energy coming from?
In Wheeler-Feynman-Cramer - the emission of real photons is a transaction between emitter and absorber with advanced confirmation. So now there are four cases emitter rest frame in LIF or LNIF, absorber rest frame in LIF' or LNIF'
We do not expect any real photon emission in the geodesic LIF <—> geodesic LIF' case. What about the other three?


On 6/29/2014 9:39 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Still up in the air

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 29, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Paul Zielinski <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.> wrote:

Here is a more in depth discussion of the problem by R. Scalise, which raises doubts about
Feynman's answer based on more recent work:


On 6/29/2014 6:47 PM, Paul Zielinski wrote:
Informative discussion on this topic by Kevin Brown available here:


On 6/29/2014 6:37 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
1) an electric charge on a time like geodesic should not radiate transverse photons.

2) Feynman showed that a charge in uniform acceleration does not radiate.

This is obvious since radiation reaction depends on the jerk covariant derivative of


Note that this is complicated in LNIFs.

Sent from my iPad