- #1
pivoxa15
- 2,255
- 1
The theorm states:
"You can't trap a charged particle in a charge-free electrostatic field; there is no point of stable equilibrium.'
R. Good, p284.
Is this theorem trying to say that if you are ever able to trap a charge x inside any region than that region must already contain a charge y (although that y was not trapped in the region beforehand).
I suppose any region of interest must have electric fields through it so any charge placed inside it will have a force on it but with divF=0. Hence the froces cannot be directed in a way so as to trap the particle.
What about a region without any electric fields than if the charge is placed inside it with 0 intitial velocity than it will stay stationary. But a region like this does not apply to the theorem because it assumes an electrostatic field, not a vacuum.
"You can't trap a charged particle in a charge-free electrostatic field; there is no point of stable equilibrium.'
R. Good, p284.
Is this theorem trying to say that if you are ever able to trap a charge x inside any region than that region must already contain a charge y (although that y was not trapped in the region beforehand).
I suppose any region of interest must have electric fields through it so any charge placed inside it will have a force on it but with divF=0. Hence the froces cannot be directed in a way so as to trap the particle.
What about a region without any electric fields than if the charge is placed inside it with 0 intitial velocity than it will stay stationary. But a region like this does not apply to the theorem because it assumes an electrostatic field, not a vacuum.
Last edited: