Why is F=dU/dx=0 either side of inflexion point?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter walking
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Point
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of neutral equilibrium as defined in Tipler & Mosca's 5th edition, specifically on the condition where the first derivative of potential energy, ##\frac{dU}{dx}##, equals zero at an inflection point. Participants clarify that while the first derivative is zero at the inflection point, it can remain approximately zero for small displacements due to the nature of the Taylor expansion around that point. The distinction between stable, unstable, and neutral equilibrium is emphasized, with neutral equilibrium allowing for small displacements without resulting in a restoring force.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of potential energy functions and their derivatives
  • Familiarity with the concepts of equilibrium in physics
  • Knowledge of Taylor series expansions
  • Basic calculus, specifically differentiation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Taylor expansions in physics, particularly around inflection points
  • Explore the differences between stable, unstable, and neutral equilibrium in mechanical systems
  • Investigate examples of neutral equilibrium, such as neutral buoyancy and objects on flat surfaces
  • Review potential energy curves and their graphical representations to understand equilibrium points
USEFUL FOR

Students of physics, particularly those studying mechanics, educators explaining equilibrium concepts, and anyone interested in the mathematical foundations of potential energy functions.

walking
Messages
73
Reaction score
8
In Tipler & Mosca 5th edition p173 it defines neutral equilibrium as a point in a U-x curve where ##\frac{dU}{dx}=0## and also ##\frac{dU}{dx}=0## for a small displacement either side of the point. However I do not understand why ##\frac{dU}{dx}## remains ##0## either side of the inflexion point. Surely the gradient of an inflexion point is just ##0## at the inflexion point itself, and either side of it the gradient is nonzero. If this is indeed the case, then when a particle is displaced either side of an inflexion point, even by a very small amount, there will immediately be a nonzero force on it and hence it will immediately lose equilibrium, meaning that ##\frac{dU}{dx}\ne 0##.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
walking said:
In Tipler & Mosca 5th edition p173 it defines neutral equilibrium as a point in a U-x curve where ##\frac{dU}{dx}=0## and also ##\frac{dU}{dx}=0## for a small displacement either side of the point. However I do not understand why ##\frac{dU}{dx}## remains ##0## either side of the inflexion point. Surely the gradient of an inflexion point is just ##0## at the inflexion point itself, and either side of it the gradient is nonzero. If this is indeed the case, then when a particle is displaced either side of an inflexion point, even by a very small amount, there will immediately be a nonzero force on it and hence it will immediately lose equilibrium, meaning that ##\frac{dU}{dx}\ne 0##.

I suspect they are looking at a Taylor expansion of ##U## about an inflexion point. Remember that for an inflexion point the second derivative is zero, hence ##U## is approx constant (to second order in ##x##). Hence ##\frac{dU}{dx}## is apprx zero to first order in ##x##.
 
walking said:
In Tipler & Mosca 5th edition p173 it defines neutral equilibrium as a point in a U-x curve where ##\frac{dU}{dx}=0## and also ##\frac{dU}{dx}=0## for a small displacement either side of the point. However I do not understand why ##\frac{dU}{dx}## remains ##0## either side of the inflexion point.

The equilibrium point is a point where the first derivative is zero. An inflection point is a point where the second derivative is zero.
 
walking said:
In Tipler & Mosca 5th edition p173 it defines neutral equilibrium as a point in a U-x curve where ##\frac{dU}{dx}=0## and also ##\frac{dU}{dx}=0## for a small displacement either side of the point. However I do not understand why ##\frac{dU}{dx}## remains ##0## either side of the inflexion point. Surely the gradient of an inflexion point is just ##0## at the inflexion point itself, and either side of it the gradient is nonzero. If this is indeed the case, then when a particle is displaced either side of an inflexion point, even by a very small amount, there will immediately be a nonzero force on it and hence it will immediately lose equilibrium, meaning that ##\frac{dU}{dx}\ne 0##.

That's a definition of neutral equilibrium.

If you displace the system slightly but there is a restoring force which brings it back to the equilibrium point, that's stable equilibrium. Most equilibrium situations of interest have this character, for instance simple harmonic motion.

If you displace the system slightly and the resulting force takes it farther away from equilibrium, that's unstable equilibrium. For instance, something you've managed to balance on the top of a sphere.

If you displace the system slightly and there is no force at all, so the new point is also an equilibrium point, that's neutral equilibrium. The above is the definition of this condition. It doesn't say all equilibria are of this nature, it's defining a particular situation. An example is an object experiencing neutral buoyancy. You can move it around and it still stays in the same location. An even simpler example is an object sitting on the ground.

walking said:
Surely the gradient of an inflexion point is just ##0## at the inflexion point itself, and either side of it the gradient is nonzero.

You are restricting your thinking to a very narrow class of functions. Here's a counter example. Take a parabola. Slice off the bottom of it, replacing the curved portion with a horizontal line.

That function has the property that there is a finite region over which all derivatives are 0. If it represents a potential, there are no forces anywhere in that flat region.
 
Mister T said:
The equilibrium point is a point where the first derivative is zero. An inflection point is a point where the second derivative is zero.

Yeah, I already said that!
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Herman Trivilino

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
29K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K