I "A system tries to minimize total potential energy"

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the principle of minimizing potential energy in systems, particularly in the context of an object launched from Earth at escape velocity. It questions whether this principle applies to unbound systems, suggesting that it may only be relevant to bound systems that can exchange energy irreversibly. The conversation includes a mathematical example of a harmonic oscillator, illustrating how kinetic and potential energies fluctuate while maintaining constant total energy. It emphasizes that systems do not "choose" to minimize energy, as this anthropomorphism misrepresents their behavior. The conclusion highlights that energy transfer is a fundamental aspect of systems with multiple energy reservoirs.
Swamp Thing
Insights Author
Messages
1,028
Reaction score
763
While reading this thread on Stack Exchange... https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...oes-a-system-try-to-minimize-potential-energy ... a question came to mind : -

Say an object is launched away from Earth at a velocity greater than the escape velocity. This system will not end up with its potential energy less than the initial value. Apparently, therefore, we need to qualify the principle of "tendency towards minimum potential energy" so as to exclude such cases? If so, how would we do that rigorously?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
As far as I know it only applies to bound systems that can irreversibly exchange energy with another system
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and Swamp Thing
There's energy conservation for a closed system. Usually the kinetic and potential energy both change with time but such that the total energy stays constant. Take the harmonic oscillator as an example:
$$m \ddot{x}=-D x.$$
The general solution is
$$x(t)=x_0 \cos(\omega t -\varphi_0),$$
where the amplitude, ##x_0##, and "phase", ##\varphi_0## are integration constants, and ##\omega=\sqrt{D/m}##.

The kinetic and potential energies are
$$T=\frac{m}{2} \dot{x}^2, \quad V=\frac{D}{2} x^2.$$
As a function of time you get
$$T=\frac{m \omega^2}{2} \sin^2(\omega t -\varphi_0), \quad V=\frac{D}{2} x_0^2 \cos^2(\omega t-\varphi_0).$$
Now ##m \omega^2=D## and thus the total energy
$$E=T+V=\frac{D}{2} x_0^2 [\sin^2(\omega t-\varphi_0) + \cos^2(\omega t-\varphi_0)]=\frac{D}{2} x_0^2=\text{const}.$$
 
You're anthropomorphizing inanimate systems. They hate it when you do that.

If you have a system with two energy reservoirs, of any kind (potential and kinetic is but one example), and all the energy is in one, the only thing the system can do with the energy is move it to the other. There is nothing more to this than "if you're all the way to the left, the only direction you can move is to the right".

Swamp Thing said:
While reading this thread on Stack Exchange..
Is that's confusing you, maybe you should go elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
Likes jbriggs444, berkeman, Dale and 1 other person
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top