Why Does a Particle Not Remain at x(t)=0 in a Negative Quartic Potential?

  • #1
deuteron
57
13
Homework Statement
.
Relevant Equations
.
1695664884703.png

This question is from Collection of Problems in Classical Mechanics by Kotkin & Serbo, here, the answer is given as the following:

1695664930821.png


However, the graph of ##-Ax^4## looks like:

1695664966933.png


so shouldn't the trajectory be just ##x(t)=0##?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
deuteron said:
so shouldn't the trajectory be just ##x(t)=0##?
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Wouldn't ##x(t) = 0## contradict the assumption that the initial value ##x_0## is greater than zero?
 
  • #3
b
TSny said:
How do you arrive at this conclusion? Wouldn't ##x(t) = 0## contradict the assumption that the initial value ##x_0## is greater than zero?
but there is no such assumption in the question, the second picture is from the solution, the first one is the question

My thought process was the following:
1. Total energy is ##0##
2. The potential has a minimum at ##U(x)=0##
3. Therefore the particle would require either a force (which is not present at ##x=0## since ##U(0)=0##) or kinetic energy (which is also not present since ##E=0## and ##U(0)=0## thererfore ##U(0)=E##, therefore ##E-U(0)=T(0)=0##)
4. That's why particle would continue to stay there since that is a stable equilibrium if ##-A>0##, and an unstable equilibrium if ##-A<0##
 
  • #4
deuteron said:
b

but there is no such assumption in the question, the second picture is from the solution, the first one is the question

My thought process was the following:
1. Total energy is ##0##
2. The potential has a minimum at ##U(x)=0##
3. Therefore the particle would require either a force (which is not present at ##x=0## since ##U(0)=0##) or kinetic energy (which is also not present since ##E=0## and ##U(0)=0## thererfore ##U(0)=E##, therefore ##E-U(0)=T(0)=0##)
4. That's why particle would continue to stay there since that is a stable equilibrium if ##-A>0##, and an unstable equilibrium if ##-A<0##
You are correct that if the particle is initially placed at x = 0 with zero initial velocity, then the particle would remain at x = 0. But I think the problem was asking for discussion of the general case where the particle could start at any initial position with an initial velocity such that the total energy is zero. The answer assumes that ##A## is positive. However, this is not specified in the problem statement.

If ##A## is negative, then the only solution for zero total energy is your answer ##x(t) = 0## for all ##t##.
 
  • #5
TSny said:
You are correct that if the particle is initially placed at x = 0 with zero initial velocity, then the particle would remain at x = 0. But I think the problem was asking for discussion of the general case where the particle could start at any initial position with an initial velocity such that the total energy is zero. The answer assumes that ##A## is positive. However, this is not specified in the problem statement.

If ##A## is negative, then the only solution for zero total energy is your answer ##x(t) = 0## for all ##t##.
Thanks!
 
  • #6
To add to what @TSny has already said...

You are told that the potential energy ##U(x) = -Ax^4## and that the total energy is zero. So the kinetic energy is ##Ax^4##. (Hint: this is the first step in deriving the equation for ##x(t)##.)

We need to assume that ##x(0) \ne 0## otherwise the question is trivial (and would, give ## x(t) = 0##).

For illustration purposes the model answer explains what happens when ##x_0>0## in 2 cases:
- when initial velocity > 0 (particle moves to ##x=\infty##)
- when initial velocity < 0 (particle asymptotically moves to ##x=0##)
A similar argument would apply for ##x_0<0##.
 

Related to Why Does a Particle Not Remain at x(t)=0 in a Negative Quartic Potential?

Why does a particle not remain at x(t)=0 in a negative quartic potential?

A particle does not remain at x(t)=0 in a negative quartic potential because this point is not a stable equilibrium. In a negative quartic potential, the potential energy at x=0 is a local maximum, meaning any small perturbation will cause the particle to move away from this point.

What is the shape of a negative quartic potential?

A negative quartic potential has the form V(x) = -ax^4 + bx^2, where a and b are positive constants. This potential has a local maximum at x=0 and local minima at some non-zero values of x, creating a double-well shape that is inverted compared to a positive quartic potential.

How does the stability of equilibrium points differ in a negative quartic potential?

In a negative quartic potential, the equilibrium point at x=0 is unstable because it is a local maximum of the potential energy. In contrast, the points at the minima of the potential (away from x=0) are stable equilibrium points where a particle can potentially remain if placed there with no initial velocity.

What role does the second derivative of the potential play in determining stability?

The second derivative of the potential, V''(x), determines the curvature of the potential at a given point. For x=0 in a negative quartic potential, V''(0) is negative, indicating a local maximum and hence an unstable equilibrium. For the minima, V''(x) is positive, indicating stable equilibrium points.

What happens to a particle initially at rest at x(t)=0 in a negative quartic potential?

If a particle is initially at rest at x(t)=0 in a negative quartic potential, any infinitesimal perturbation will cause it to move away from this point. Due to the instability of the equilibrium at x=0, the particle will accelerate towards the regions of lower potential, moving towards the minima of the potential.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Advanced Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
957
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
25
Views
1K
Back
Top