Facing a paradox: Earnshaw's theorem in one dimensionDoes this example contradict Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension?Classify equilibrium points and find bifurcation points of a non-linear dynamic systemEarnshaw's theorem and springsEarnshaw's theorem for extended conducting bodiesPotential due to charge over infinite grounded plane conductor using the method of imagesRelation between electric field and dipole momentEarnshaw's theorm and Effective potentialDielectric liquid sucked up between two cylinders with a voltage differenceElectrostatics: Induced Boundary Dipole LayerWhy do we assume simply connected domains and continuously differentiable fields in electromagnetism theory?Does this example contradict Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension?
Was any UN Security Council vote triple-vetoed?
Can I make popcorn with any corn?
What is a clear way to write a bar that has an extra beat?
How to efficiently unroll a matrix by value with numpy?
strTok function (thread safe, supports empty tokens, doesn't change string)
What are these boxed doors outside store fronts in New York?
How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?
Arrow those variables!
Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?
I'm flying to France today and my passport expires in less than 2 months
tikz convert color string to hex value
What do the dots in this tr command do: tr .............A-Z A-ZA-Z <<< "JVPQBOV" (with 13 dots)
How to draw a waving flag in TikZ
Today is the Center
Does an object always see its latest internal state irrespective of thread?
How much of data wrangling is a data scientist's job?
How do I deal with an unproductive colleague in a small company?
"You are your self first supporter", a more proper way to say it
Can a Cauchy sequence converge for one metric while not converging for another?
LWC SFDX source push error TypeError: LWC1009: decl.moveTo is not a function
Theorems that impeded progress
Could an aircraft fly or hover using only jets of compressed air?
How do I draw and define two right triangles next to each other?
Is it unprofessional to ask if a job posting on GlassDoor is real?
Facing a paradox: Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension
Does this example contradict Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension?Classify equilibrium points and find bifurcation points of a non-linear dynamic systemEarnshaw's theorem and springsEarnshaw's theorem for extended conducting bodiesPotential due to charge over infinite grounded plane conductor using the method of imagesRelation between electric field and dipole momentEarnshaw's theorm and Effective potentialDielectric liquid sucked up between two cylinders with a voltage differenceElectrostatics: Induced Boundary Dipole LayerWhy do we assume simply connected domains and continuously differentiable fields in electromagnetism theory?Does this example contradict Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension?
$begingroup$
Consider a one-dimensional situation on a straight line (say, $x$-axis). Let a charge of magnitude $q$ be located at $x=x_0$, the potential satisfies the Poisson's equation $$fracd^2Vdx^2=-fracrho(x)epsilon_0=-fracqdelta(x-x_0)epsilon_0.$$ If $q>0$, $V^primeprime(x_0)<0$, and if $q<0$, $V^primeprime(x_0)>0$. Therefore, it appears that the potential $V$ does have a minimum at $x=x_0$, for $q<0$. Does this imply that $x=x_0$ is a point of stable equilibrium? I must be missing something because this appears to violate Earnshaw's theorem (or it doesn't)?
electrostatics mathematical-physics potential classical-electrodynamics equilibrium
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
asked yesterday
SRSSRS
6,561433123
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider a one-dimensional situation on a straight line (say, $x$-axis). Let a charge of magnitude $q$ be located at $x=x_0$, the potential satisfies the Poisson's equation $$fracd^2Vdx^2=-fracrho(x)epsilon_0=-fracqdelta(x-x_0)epsilon_0.$$ If $q>0$, $V^primeprime(x_0)<0$, and if $q<0$, $V^primeprime(x_0)>0$. Therefore, it appears that the potential $V$ does have a minimum at $x=x_0$, for $q<0$. Does this imply that $x=x_0$ is a point of stable equilibrium? I must be missing something because this appears to violate Earnshaw's theorem (or it doesn't)?
electrostatics mathematical-physics potential classical-electrodynamics equilibrium
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
asked yesterday
SRSSRS
6,561433123
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider a one-dimensional situation on a straight line (say, $x$-axis). Let a charge of magnitude $q$ be located at $x=x_0$, the potential satisfies the Poisson's equation $$fracd^2Vdx^2=-fracrho(x)epsilon_0=-fracqdelta(x-x_0)epsilon_0.$$ If $q>0$, $V^primeprime(x_0)<0$, and if $q<0$, $V^primeprime(x_0)>0$. Therefore, it appears that the potential $V$ does have a minimum at $x=x_0$, for $q<0$. Does this imply that $x=x_0$ is a point of stable equilibrium? I must be missing something because this appears to violate Earnshaw's theorem (or it doesn't)?
electrostatics mathematical-physics potential classical-electrodynamics equilibrium
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
asked yesterday
SRSSRS
6,561433123
$endgroup$
Consider a one-dimensional situation on a straight line (say, $x$-axis). Let a charge of magnitude $q$ be located at $x=x_0$, the potential satisfies the Poisson's equation $$fracd^2Vdx^2=-fracrho(x)epsilon_0=-fracqdelta(x-x_0)epsilon_0.$$ If $q>0$, $V^primeprime(x_0)<0$, and if $q<0$, $V^primeprime(x_0)>0$. Therefore, it appears that the potential $V$ does have a minimum at $x=x_0$, for $q<0$. Does this imply that $x=x_0$ is a point of stable equilibrium? I must be missing something because this appears to violate Earnshaw's theorem (or it doesn't)?
electrostatics mathematical-physics potential classical-electrodynamics equilibrium
electrostatics mathematical-physics potential classical-electrodynamics equilibrium
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
asked yesterday
SRSSRS
6,561433123
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
asked yesterday
SRSSRS
6,561433123
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
14.5k42453
asked yesterday
SRSSRS
6,561433123
asked yesterday
SRSSRS
6,561433123
asked yesterday
SRSSRS
6,561433123
6,561433123
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your example does not contradict Earnshaw's theorem for electrostatics, because it rules out stable equilibrium in a region without charge, possibly containing fields made by charges outside that region. Here you're doing the exact opposite, looking at the only point in your situation with charge.
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
answered yesterday
knzhouknzhou
46.3k11124223
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes. I meant Earnshaw's theorem. Thanks. Does it mean that there must be an Earnshaw's theorem for Newtonian gravitation? Because in a massless region, again one has $V^primeprime(x)=0$?
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
yesterday
$begingroup$
I am not yet totally comfortable with this. If you have a charge at some point $x=x_0$, is it not correct to look at the behaviour of the potential at that point? @knzhou
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
So technically $V''(x_0)$ doesn't have an actual value, since $delta(x-x_0)toinfty$ as $xto x_0$. However, if you understand the Dirac delta distribution to be a limit of a function whose peak "gets narrower" with its integral remaining constant, then this is fine and you could say there is a minimum at $x_0$ for $q<0$
This can be more easily understood by just thinking about the motion of a positive charge in this potential. It will move towards the negative charge, i.e. towards the minimum of the potential.
answered yesterday
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.5k42453
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470522%2ffacing-a-paradox-earnshaws-theorem-in-one-dimension%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
$begingroup$
Your example does not contradict Earnshaw's theorem for electrostatics, because it rules out stable equilibrium in a region without charge, possibly containing fields made by charges outside that region. Here you're doing the exact opposite, looking at the only point in your situation with charge.
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
answered yesterday
knzhouknzhou
46.3k11124223
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes. I meant Earnshaw's theorem. Thanks. Does it mean that there must be an Earnshaw's theorem for Newtonian gravitation? Because in a massless region, again one has $V^primeprime(x)=0$?
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
yesterday
$begingroup$
I am not yet totally comfortable with this. If you have a charge at some point $x=x_0$, is it not correct to look at the behaviour of the potential at that point? @knzhou
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Your example does not contradict Earnshaw's theorem for electrostatics, because it rules out stable equilibrium in a region without charge, possibly containing fields made by charges outside that region. Here you're doing the exact opposite, looking at the only point in your situation with charge.
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
answered yesterday
knzhouknzhou
46.3k11124223
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Yes. I meant Earnshaw's theorem. Thanks. Does it mean that there must be an Earnshaw's theorem for Newtonian gravitation? Because in a massless region, again one has $V^primeprime(x)=0$?
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
yesterday
$begingroup$
I am not yet totally comfortable with this. If you have a charge at some point $x=x_0$, is it not correct to look at the behaviour of the potential at that point? @knzhou
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Your example does not contradict Earnshaw's theorem for electrostatics, because it rules out stable equilibrium in a region without charge, possibly containing fields made by charges outside that region. Here you're doing the exact opposite, looking at the only point in your situation with charge.
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
answered yesterday
knzhouknzhou
46.3k11124223
$endgroup$
Your example does not contradict Earnshaw's theorem for electrostatics, because it rules out stable equilibrium in a region without charge, possibly containing fields made by charges outside that region. Here you're doing the exact opposite, looking at the only point in your situation with charge.
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
answered yesterday
knzhouknzhou
46.3k11124223
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
edited yesterday
Aaron Stevens
14.5k42453
14.5k42453
answered yesterday
knzhouknzhou
46.3k11124223
answered yesterday
knzhouknzhou
46.3k11124223
answered yesterday
knzhouknzhou
46.3k11124223
46.3k11124223
$begingroup$
Yes. I meant Earnshaw's theorem. Thanks. Does it mean that there must be an Earnshaw's theorem for Newtonian gravitation? Because in a massless region, again one has $V^primeprime(x)=0$?
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
yesterday
$begingroup$
I am not yet totally comfortable with this. If you have a charge at some point $x=x_0$, is it not correct to look at the behaviour of the potential at that point? @knzhou
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Yes. I meant Earnshaw's theorem. Thanks. Does it mean that there must be an Earnshaw's theorem for Newtonian gravitation? Because in a massless region, again one has $V^primeprime(x)=0$?
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
yesterday
$begingroup$
I am not yet totally comfortable with this. If you have a charge at some point $x=x_0$, is it not correct to look at the behaviour of the potential at that point? @knzhou
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
Yes. I meant Earnshaw's theorem. Thanks. Does it mean that there must be an Earnshaw's theorem for Newtonian gravitation? Because in a massless region, again one has $V^primeprime(x)=0$?
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
Yes. I meant Earnshaw's theorem. Thanks. Does it mean that there must be an Earnshaw's theorem for Newtonian gravitation? Because in a massless region, again one has $V^primeprime(x)=0$?
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
yesterday
$begingroup$
I am not yet totally comfortable with this. If you have a charge at some point $x=x_0$, is it not correct to look at the behaviour of the potential at that point? @knzhou
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
I am not yet totally comfortable with this. If you have a charge at some point $x=x_0$, is it not correct to look at the behaviour of the potential at that point? @knzhou
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
yesterday
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
yesterday
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
So technically $V''(x_0)$ doesn't have an actual value, since $delta(x-x_0)toinfty$ as $xto x_0$. However, if you understand the Dirac delta distribution to be a limit of a function whose peak "gets narrower" with its integral remaining constant, then this is fine and you could say there is a minimum at $x_0$ for $q<0$
This can be more easily understood by just thinking about the motion of a positive charge in this potential. It will move towards the negative charge, i.e. towards the minimum of the potential.
answered yesterday
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.5k42453
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So technically $V''(x_0)$ doesn't have an actual value, since $delta(x-x_0)toinfty$ as $xto x_0$. However, if you understand the Dirac delta distribution to be a limit of a function whose peak "gets narrower" with its integral remaining constant, then this is fine and you could say there is a minimum at $x_0$ for $q<0$
This can be more easily understood by just thinking about the motion of a positive charge in this potential. It will move towards the negative charge, i.e. towards the minimum of the potential.
answered yesterday
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.5k42453
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
So technically $V''(x_0)$ doesn't have an actual value, since $delta(x-x_0)toinfty$ as $xto x_0$. However, if you understand the Dirac delta distribution to be a limit of a function whose peak "gets narrower" with its integral remaining constant, then this is fine and you could say there is a minimum at $x_0$ for $q<0$
This can be more easily understood by just thinking about the motion of a positive charge in this potential. It will move towards the negative charge, i.e. towards the minimum of the potential.
answered yesterday
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.5k42453
$endgroup$
So technically $V''(x_0)$ doesn't have an actual value, since $delta(x-x_0)toinfty$ as $xto x_0$. However, if you understand the Dirac delta distribution to be a limit of a function whose peak "gets narrower" with its integral remaining constant, then this is fine and you could say there is a minimum at $x_0$ for $q<0$
This can be more easily understood by just thinking about the motion of a positive charge in this potential. It will move towards the negative charge, i.e. towards the minimum of the potential.
answered yesterday
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.5k42453
answered yesterday
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.5k42453
answered yesterday
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.5k42453
answered yesterday
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.5k42453
14.5k42453
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470522%2ffacing-a-paradox-earnshaws-theorem-in-one-dimension%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
