Facing a paradox: Earnshaw's theorem in one dimension












5












$begingroup$


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 $$frac{d^2V}{dx^2}=-frac{rho(x)}{epsilon_0}=-frac{qdelta(x-x_0)}{epsilon_0}.$$ 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







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    5












    $begingroup$


    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 $$frac{d^2V}{dx^2}=-frac{rho(x)}{epsilon_0}=-frac{qdelta(x-x_0)}{epsilon_0}.$$ 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







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      5












      5








      5


      1



      $begingroup$


      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 $$frac{d^2V}{dx^2}=-frac{rho(x)}{epsilon_0}=-frac{qdelta(x-x_0)}{epsilon_0}.$$ 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







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      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 $$frac{d^2V}{dx^2}=-frac{rho(x)}{epsilon_0}=-frac{qdelta(x-x_0)}{epsilon_0}.$$ 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






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 9 hours ago









      Aaron Stevens

      14.2k42252




      14.2k42252










      asked 12 hours ago









      SRSSRS

      6,508433123




      6,508433123






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          9












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            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
            10 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
            $endgroup$
            – Aaron Stevens
            9 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
            $endgroup$
            – SRS
            9 hours ago



















          3












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$














            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
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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









            9












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              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
              10 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              9 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
              $endgroup$
              – SRS
              9 hours ago
















            9












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              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
              10 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              9 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
              $endgroup$
              – SRS
              9 hours ago














            9












            9








            9





            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            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.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited 9 hours ago









            Aaron Stevens

            14.2k42252




            14.2k42252










            answered 12 hours ago









            knzhouknzhou

            46.2k11124222




            46.2k11124222












            • $begingroup$
              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
              10 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              9 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
              $endgroup$
              – SRS
              9 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










            • $begingroup$
              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
              10 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              @SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
              $endgroup$
              – Aaron Stevens
              9 hours ago










            • $begingroup$
              I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
              $endgroup$
              – SRS
              9 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
            10 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
            10 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            @SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
            $endgroup$
            – Aaron Stevens
            9 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            @SRS The potential at a point charge is not defined (or you could say infinite)
            $endgroup$
            – Aaron Stevens
            9 hours ago












            $begingroup$
            I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
            $endgroup$
            – SRS
            9 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            I have to think more about it and I'll get back.
            $endgroup$
            – SRS
            9 hours ago











            3












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              3












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                3












                3








                3





                $begingroup$

                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                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.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 12 hours ago









                Aaron StevensAaron Stevens

                14.2k42252




                14.2k42252






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Contact image not getting when fetch all contact list from iPhone by CNContact

                    Image
                    up vote 0 down vote favorite I know this question already asked but not getting solution. From this code I will get all the information from the contact but image not found when open vcf files on mac os, also not getting when share this file. I use this stackoverflow link here but It's not help full. var contacts = [CNContact]() let keys = [CNContactVCardSerialization.descriptorForRequiredKeys() ] as [Any] let request = CNContactFetchRequest(keysToFetch: keys as! [CNKeyDescriptor]) do { try self.contactStore.enumerateContacts(with: request) { (contact, stop) in // Array containing all unified contacts from everywhere contacts.append(contact) } } catch { print("unable to fetch contacts") } do { let data = try
                    Read more

                    count number of partitions of a set with n elements into k subsets

                    Image
                    up vote 6 down vote favorite 1 This program is for count number of partitions of a set with n elements into k subsets I am confusing here return k*countP(n-1, k) + countP(n-1, k-1); can some one explain what is happening here? why we are multiplying with k? NOTE->I know this is not the best way to calculate number of partitions that would be DP // A C++ program to count number of partitions // of a set with n elements into k subsets #include<iostream> using namespace std; // Returns count of different partitions of n // elements in k subsets int countP(int n, int k) { // Base cases if (n == 0 || k == 0 || k > n) return 0; if (k == 1 || k == n) return 1; // S(n+1, k) = k*S(n, k) + S(n, k-1) return k*countP(n-1, k) + countP(n-1, k-1); } // Driver program int ma
                    Read more

                    A CLEAN and SIMPLE way to add appendices to Table of Contents and bookmarks

                    Image
                    0 I found a lot of questions abount appendices and ToC. Many users want appendices to be grouped in an Appendix part, however some problems arise with ToC, hyperref, PDF viewer bookmarks, and so on. There are different solutions which require extra packages, command patching and other extra code, however none of them satisfies me. I almost found an easy way to accomplish a good result, where appendices are added to bookmarks in the right way and hyperref links point to the right page. However, the number of the "Appendix" part page is wrong (it's the number of appendix A). Is there any EASY way to fix that? This is a MWE: documentclass{book} usepackage[nottoc,notlot,notlof]{tocbibind} usepackage{hyperref} begin{document} frontmatter tableofcontents mainmatter part{First} chapter{
                    Read more