Electrons on a ring - too easy.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fallen Seraph
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrons Ring
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on finding the equilibrium positions of three electrons confined to a ring, with the expectation that they should be symmetrically spaced. The participant believes the solution is straightforward, suggesting that the electrons must be separated by 120 degrees due to their identical nature. They express confusion over the necessity of computational methods for a problem they perceive as simple. The participant likens the situation to proving basic geometrical principles, emphasizing the challenge of demonstrating that other configurations are less favorable. Ultimately, the simplicity of the solution raises questions about the complexity of proving it mathematically.
Fallen Seraph
Messages
32
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Three electrons are confined to move on a ring of radius R. Find the equilibrium positions of the electrons in terms of the angles between them.


Homework Equations


Some hints with differentials are given to us, as is the potential between two of the electrons , but as far as I can tell these are completely redundant.


The Attempt at a Solution



Well my problem is this: we've been given this question in a second year comp lab and the answer is so glaringly obvious to me that I can only come to the conclusion that I'm misunderstanding something. I don't get how one could possibly need a computer to get this.

As I see it, the three electrons being identical particles implies that the final state must be symmetric under interchanging the particles. And on a ring the only way to do this is to have them all separated by 120 degrees.

Surely it can't be that simple? What am I missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The answer might be obvious but computationally it's not the simplest thing in the world to prove by hand

EDIT: It's kinda like the classic prove the shortest distance between two points in a euclidean geometry is a straight line. Duh, right? So go ahead and do it

There's an INFINITE number of other possible paths to take(just like here there are infinite configurations) you're going to have a helluva time going through all infinite cases and showing they don't work
 
Last edited:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top