Facing a paradox: Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Question CollectionDoes 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?
File name problem(?)
Central Vacuuming: Is it worth it, and how does it compare to normal vacuuming?
Has negative voting ever been officially implemented in elections, or seriously proposed, or even studied?
What happened to Thoros of Myr's flaming sword?
Is there hard evidence that the grant peer review system performs significantly better than random?
Why is it faster to reheat something than it is to cook it?
Crossing US/Canada Border for less than 24 hours
Do wooden building fires get hotter than 600°C?
In musical terms, what properties are varied by the human voice to produce different words / syllables?
What would you call this weird metallic apparatus that allows you to lift people?
How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?
An adverb for when you're not exaggerating
Can a Beast Master ranger change beast companions?
Do I really need to have a message in a novel to appeal to readers?
How can I prevent/balance waiting and turtling as a response to cooldown mechanics
Why are vacuum tubes still used in amateur radios?
How to draw/optimize this graph with tikz
Google .dev domain strangely redirects to https
How do living politicians protect their readily obtainable signatures from misuse?
AppleTVs create a chatty alternate WiFi network
Did Mueller's report provide an evidentiary basis for the claim of Russian govt election interference via social media?
Put R under double integral
How to compare two different files line by line in unix?
Trademark violation for app?
Facing a paradox: Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Question CollectionDoes 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 Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
asked Apr 4 at 13:53
SRSSRS
6,852435126
$endgroup$
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 Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
asked Apr 4 at 13:53
SRSSRS
6,852435126
$endgroup$
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 Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
asked Apr 4 at 13:53
SRSSRS
6,852435126
$endgroup$
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 Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
asked Apr 4 at 13:53
SRSSRS
6,852435126
edited Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
asked Apr 4 at 13:53
SRSSRS
6,852435126
edited Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
edited Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
edited Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
15.6k42556
asked Apr 4 at 13:53
SRSSRS
6,852435126
asked Apr 4 at 13:53
SRSSRS
6,852435126
asked Apr 4 at 13:53
SRSSRS
6,852435126
6,852435126
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 Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
answered Apr 4 at 13:58
knzhouknzhou
47.2k11128227
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Apr 4 at 14:58
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 4 at 16:33
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
Apr 4 at 16:37
|
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 Apr 4 at 13:59
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
15.6k42556
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
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 Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
answered Apr 4 at 13:58
knzhouknzhou
47.2k11128227
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Apr 4 at 14:58
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 4 at 16:33
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
Apr 4 at 16:37
|
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 Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
answered Apr 4 at 13:58
knzhouknzhou
47.2k11128227
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Apr 4 at 14:58
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 4 at 16:33
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
Apr 4 at 16:37
|
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 Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
answered Apr 4 at 13:58
knzhouknzhou
47.2k11128227
$endgroup$
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 Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
answered Apr 4 at 13:58
knzhouknzhou
47.2k11128227
edited Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
edited Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
edited Apr 4 at 16:44
Aaron Stevens
15.6k42556
15.6k42556
answered Apr 4 at 13:58
knzhouknzhou
47.2k11128227
answered Apr 4 at 13:58
knzhouknzhou
47.2k11128227
answered Apr 4 at 13:58
knzhouknzhou
47.2k11128227
47.2k11128227
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Apr 4 at 14:58
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 4 at 16:33
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
Apr 4 at 16:37
|
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
Apr 4 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Apr 4 at 14:58
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 4 at 16:33
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
Apr 4 at 16:37
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 14:57
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 14:57
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Apr 4 at 14:58
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
Apr 4 at 14:58
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 15:37
$begingroup$
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
Apr 4 at 15:37
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 4 at 16:33
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
Apr 4 at 16:33
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
Apr 4 at 16:37
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
Apr 4 at 16:37
|
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 Apr 4 at 13:59
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
15.6k42556
$endgroup$
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 Apr 4 at 13:59
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
15.6k42556
$endgroup$
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 Apr 4 at 13:59
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
15.6k42556
$endgroup$
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 Apr 4 at 13:59
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
15.6k42556
answered Apr 4 at 13:59
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
15.6k42556
answered Apr 4 at 13:59
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
15.6k42556
answered Apr 4 at 13:59
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
15.6k42556
15.6k42556
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
