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?
If a Gelatinous Cube takes up the entire space of a Pit Trap, what happens when a creature falls into the trap but succeeds on the saving throw?
How to draw the figure with four pentagons?
I Accidentally Deleted a Stock Terminal Theme
Watching something be written to a file live with tail
If human space travel is limited by the G force vulnerability, is there a way to counter G forces?
Can I use a neutral wire from another outlet to repair a broken neutral?
Stopping power of mountain vs road bike
How much of data wrangling is a data scientist's job?
Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?
Doing something right before you need it - expression for this?
Why "Having chlorophyll without photosynthesis is actually very dangerous" and "like living with a bomb"?
What is the most common color to indicate the input-field is disabled?
Would Slavery Reparations be considered Bills of Attainder and hence Illegal?
What do you call someone who asks many questions?
Why can't we play rap on piano?
Western buddy movie with a supernatural twist where a woman turns into an eagle at the end
Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?
Did Shadowfax go to Valinor?
How is it possible to have an ability score that is less than 3?
Fully-Firstable Anagram Sets
How to take photos in burst mode, without vibration?
How to show the equivalence between the regularized regression and their constraint formulas using KKT
How to model explosives?
Is the Joker left-handed?
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 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
asked 12 hours ago
SRSSRS
6,513433123
$endgroup$
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 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
asked 12 hours ago
SRSSRS
6,513433123
$endgroup$
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 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
asked 12 hours ago
SRSSRS
6,513433123
$endgroup$
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 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
asked 12 hours ago
SRSSRS
6,513433123
edited 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
asked 12 hours ago
SRSSRS
6,513433123
edited 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
edited 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
edited 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
14.2k42252
asked 12 hours ago
SRSSRS
6,513433123
asked 12 hours ago
SRSSRS
6,513433123
asked 12 hours ago
SRSSRS
6,513433123
6,513433123
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 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
answered 12 hours ago
knzhouknzhou
46.2k11124223
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
10 hours ago
|
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 12 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.2k42252
$endgroup$
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 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
answered 12 hours ago
knzhouknzhou
46.2k11124223
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
10 hours ago
|
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 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
answered 12 hours ago
knzhouknzhou
46.2k11124223
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
10 hours ago
|
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 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
answered 12 hours ago
knzhouknzhou
46.2k11124223
$endgroup$
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 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
answered 12 hours ago
knzhouknzhou
46.2k11124223
edited 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
edited 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
edited 9 hours ago
Aaron Stevens
14.2k42252
14.2k42252
answered 12 hours ago
knzhouknzhou
46.2k11124223
answered 12 hours ago
knzhouknzhou
46.2k11124223
answered 12 hours ago
knzhouknzhou
46.2k11124223
46.2k11124223
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
10 hours ago
|
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS Yes, that's true.
$endgroup$
– knzhou
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
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
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
$endgroup$
– SRS
10 hours ago
|
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 12 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.2k42252
$endgroup$
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 12 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.2k42252
$endgroup$
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 12 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.2k42252
$endgroup$
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 12 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.2k42252
answered 12 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.2k42252
answered 12 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.2k42252
answered 12 hours ago
Aaron StevensAaron Stevens
14.2k42252
14.2k42252
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
