Why Do Physical Systems Seek Minimum Potential Energy?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of why physical systems tend to seek minimum potential energy. Participants explore this concept through various examples, including the behavior of a ball on a hill and the catenary curve of a hanging cable. The scope includes theoretical considerations, mathematical reasoning, and implications in classical mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference the catenary curve as a solution to minimizing potential energy in the context of calculus of variations.
  • Others argue that physical systems naturally find minimum energy states, exemplified by a ball rolling down a hill to a valley.
  • A participant questions the use of the term "seek," suggesting that without friction, a ball would oscillate indefinitely without settling at a minimum energy state.
  • Another participant introduces the idea that the total energy of a system remains constant, with potential and kinetic energy interchanging, but friction leads to a dissipation of energy, ultimately resulting in the ball resting at the valley bottom.
  • Some participants propose that stable solutions in a system are associated with minimal energy, implying a relationship between energy minimization and stability.
  • There is mention of the Lagrangian principle and its connection to minimizing energy in various physical contexts, including general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of systems seeking minimum potential energy, with some asserting that systems inherently find these states while others challenge the terminology and implications of this behavior. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the fundamental reasons behind this phenomenon.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the role of friction in energy dissipation and its impact on the behavior of systems, indicating that assumptions about ideal conditions may not hold in practical scenarios. The discussion also touches on the equivalence of different formulations of classical mechanics without reaching a consensus on their implications.

LawrenceC
Messages
1,198
Reaction score
5
TL;DR
Catenary Cable Shape
Many, many years ago while in engineering graduate school I was studying calculus of variations. One classic problem was to determine the shape of a hanging cable supported at its two ends. After minimizing the integral, the catenary curve was the solution. The basic assumption in setting up of the integral to be minimized was that the potential energy of the cable must be a minimum. Why must the potential energy be a minimum?
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
LawrenceC said:
Why must the potential energy be a minimum?

Because physical systems naturally find the minimum. For example, the ball rolls down the hill to the valley.

Mathematcially, it seeks a stationary point. Hill tops and valley bottoms are both stationary, but a ball at the top of a hill is unstable; push it in any direction and it rolls down. A ball at the bottom of a valley is stable; push it in any direction and it returns to the bottom.
 
But why do physical systems seek the minimum? The ball near the bottom of a valley finds its resting place at the bottom which, coincidentally, is the point of minimum PE.
 
LawrenceC said:
Summary:: Catenary Cable Shape

Many, many years ago while in engineering graduate school I was studying calculus of variations. One classic problem was to determine the shape of a hanging cable supported at its two ends. After minimizing the integral, the catenary curve was the solution. The basic assumption in setting up of the integral to be minimized was that the potential energy of the cable must be a minimum. Why must the potential energy be a minimum?

That particular problem can also be solved by looking at the tension in the wire. This turns out to be equivalent to minimising the potential energy.

In general there are two formulations of classical mechanics: a direct use of Newton's laws; and the use of the Lagrangian principle, which involves minimising a certain quantity associated with a system. For dynamic problems, these can be shown to be equivalent.

The Lagrangian principle extends widely, especially into areas where there are no forces - like GR (General Relativity) and QM (Quantum Mechanics), where a similar reformulation due to Hamilton is used.

Another example is that when light refracts at a boundary it does so in accordance with Snell's law. On the one hand this is a solution based on what happens solely at the boundary. But, the interesting thing is that resulting trajectory effectively minimises the time that light takes to travel between any two points.

In general, therefore, the Lagrangian principle is deep rooted in nature. And Newton's laws can be seen as one manifestation of this, suitably reformulated.

You could take a look here to start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: tech99
"But why do physical systems seek the minimum? "
'Seek' may not be the right word. Using the ball/hill example:

First: Absent friction, the ball will just endlessly roll back and forth across the valley

At any time, the ball has a total energy which is the sum of potential and kinetic energies. for the 'absent friction' case, the total stays the same, but the individual quantities change by equal/opposite amounts (like a slinky, if you're old enough to know what that is). PE is 0/minimum at the bottom of the valley; KE is 0 at the high point on each hill.

Friction acts to dissipate kinetic energy. With friction, there is a little less total energy on every cycle of the ball; the ball 'stops' a bit lower on hill each cycle because there was less KE to 'trade' for PE. The ultimate result is the dissipation of all of the KE; the ball stops at the low point of the valley with nothing to trade for an increase in elevation.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gmax137
LawrenceC said:
Why must the potential energy be a minimum?
You can set it to the other extreme too and it'll still give you a valid answer (for the case of negative gravity - ooops :wink: )

Basically, you are seeking stable solutions, with the sum of energy of the whole system being constant.
With losses eating up (removing) any excess/kinetic energy, 'stable' constant would mean 'minimal' on long term.
 
LawrenceC said:
But why do physical systems seek the minimum? The ball near the bottom of a valley finds its resting place at the bottom which, coincidentally, is the point of minimum PE.
Every system naturally finds its minimum energy because minimum energy means maximum stability.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K