A Levitron and Earnshaw’s theorem.

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter andresB
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Theorem
AI Thread Summary
Earnshaw's theorem, derived from Maxwell's equations, typically prohibits stable magnetic levitation in static configurations. However, the levitron serves as a counterexample, as it operates through dynamic motion rather than remaining static. The theorem does not apply to moving ferromagnets, which allows the levitron to achieve levitation by spinning. This motion creates a situation where the conditions of Earnshaw's theorem are circumvented. Thus, the levitron demonstrates that while Earnshaw's theorem generally restricts magnetic levitation, exceptions exist in dynamic systems.
andresB
Messages
625
Reaction score
374
The Earnshaw’s theorem comes directly from Maxwell equation so it should be unavoidable in any classical situation. The theorem usually disallows magnetic levitation. However, there are loopholes. Quoting wikipedia "Earnshaw's theorem has no exceptions for non-moving permanent ferromagnets. However, Earnshaw's theorem does not necessarily apply to moving ferromagnets".

The usual counterexample to the impossibility of an equilibrium situation for magnetic levitation is given by the levitron
Open article on the subject: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6404/abbc2c

I tried the literature on the topic, but I still can't understand what is actually happening with the levitron and the Earnshaw’s theorem. Is the theorem simply not applicable to the levitron? why? how?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
andresB said:
The Earnshaw’s theorem comes directly from Maxwell equation so it should be unavoidable in any classical situation. The theorem usually disallows magnetic levitation.
It disallows stable static configurations.
andresB said:
Is the theorem simply not applicable to the levitron? why?
Because it spins, so it's not static.
 
Thread ''splain this hydrostatic paradox in tiny words'
This is (ostensibly) not a trick shot or video*. The scale was balanced before any blue water was added. 550mL of blue water was added to the left side. only 60mL of water needed to be added to the right side to re-balance the scale. Apparently, the scale will balance when the height of the two columns is equal. The left side of the scale only feels the weight of the column above the lower "tail" of the funnel (i.e. 60mL). So where does the weight of the remaining (550-60=) 490mL go...
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. I am in no way trolling. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. Yes, I'm questioning the most elementary physics question we're given in this world. The classic elevator in motion question: A person is standing on a scale in an elevator that is in constant motion...
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Back
Top