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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of neutral equilibrium as defined in Tipler & Mosca, specifically addressing the behavior of the potential energy function U with respect to its derivative dU/dx at an inflection point. Participants explore the implications of this definition and question the nature of forces acting on a particle displaced from an inflection point.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about why dU/dx remains 0 for small displacements around the inflection point, suggesting that the gradient should be nonzero on either side of the inflection point.
  • One participant proposes that a Taylor expansion of U around the inflection point may explain why dU/dx is approximately zero to first order in x, given that the second derivative is zero at the inflection point.
  • Another participant clarifies that an equilibrium point is where the first derivative is zero, while an inflection point is characterized by a zero second derivative.
  • A participant distinguishes between stable, unstable, and neutral equilibrium, emphasizing that neutral equilibrium allows for displacement without a restoring force, which is a specific definition rather than a general rule.
  • One participant challenges the narrow view of functions by providing a counterexample of a modified parabola that has a flat region where all derivatives are zero, suggesting that such cases can exist in potential energy functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the interpretation of the behavior of dU/dx around the inflection point, with multiple competing views presented regarding the nature of equilibrium and the implications of the definitions provided in the textbook.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the behavior of derivatives at inflection points, particularly in relation to specific functions and their characteristics. There is also an emphasis on the definitions of equilibrium types and their implications for physical systems.

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
30K
  • · 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