So, if you consider an electron at rest in some inertial frame and then you switch to an accelerating frame, then in that accelerating frame, the electron is accelerating in the opposite direction, but it is not emitting any radiation. Now, compare the electromagnetic fields of this accelerating electron in the non-inertial accelerating frame to the electromagnetic fields of an electron that is accelerated in an inertial frame which we know will radiate electromagnetic waves.

In the latter case, you know that the fields are given as an integral over the charge and current densities at the retarded time, which then gives you radiation fields that fall of as 1/r at large distances. But in the former case, you simply have the Coulomb field that falls off as 1/r^2 at large distances which remains the case if you switch to the accelerating frame.

You might try these lectures on quantum computation by David Deutsch: http://www.quiprocone.org/Protected/DD_lectures.htm

They are very well produced but also very technical. I wasn’t able to truly follow them, but I probably could have had I come armed with pen and paper.

GR: I’ve noticed this “reaching different conclusions” about too many offbeat topics of physical speculation. Why should competent authors reach different conclusions, if we have the wherewithal to know how to find the right answer? It happens with radiations issues (gravity as noted; problems with self-force in general such as Schott energy, averaging, runaway, etc.), the stressed extended body in SRT (right-angle lever paradox, with wrangling for decades in Nuovo Cimento and AJP about whether the “von Laue Energy current” is appropriate versus internal torques, how best to find conservation of angular momentum in the case of Thomas Precession, etc.) and of course the old “4/3 paradox” about EM mass.

Clearly, IMHO that means some things haven’t been fully hashed out properly and that physics isn’t “finished” even not counting traditional frontier areas like ultimate particle theory and ur-cosmology. Take another look at my “complaints” and see if anything impresses you.

If you have access to it,

A. Kovetz, G.E. Tauber, American J. Physics, 37(4) 382-385 (1969) has a pretty good treatment of the problem. It is complicated, though, and it seems a paper or two about it (reaching different conclusions…) appear every few years.

uncle sam, I have no idea how to do the calculation (not that I’ve tried) nor who has done it. All I know is that arguments from the Principle of Equivalence that lead to purported puzzles are misguided.

Any plan on a 2nd edition of your spacetime book?