How can I prove that a state of equilibrium is unstable? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) 2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Question CollectionDoes the induced charge on a conductor stay at the surface?Divergence of a field and its interpretationWhy isn't the electric field just a mathematical tool?Gauss Law for a Modified Coulomb's LawChecking for equilibrium in a square configuration of chargesWhy can't charge be in a stable equilibrium in electrostatic field?Charge distribution: electrostatic equilibrium in conducting sphereSituation of Stable, Neutral and Unstable EquilibriumExplanation of the negative integralUnstable equilibrium due to an arbitrary electrostatic configuration

iPhone Wallpaper?

What's the purpose of writing one's academic bio in 3rd person?

Is there a "higher Segal conjecture"?

ListPlot join points by nearest neighbor rather than order

Dominant seventh chord in the major scale contains diminished triad of the seventh?

List *all* the tuples!

3 doors, three guards, one stone

How can players work together to take actions that are otherwise impossible?

Can inflation occur in a positive-sum game currency system such as the Stack Exchange reputation system?

How can I fade player character when he goes inside or outside of the area?

Can a non-EU citizen traveling with me come with me through the EU passport line?

What LEGO pieces have "real-world" functionality?

I am not a queen, who am I?

How do I stop a creek from eroding my steep embankment?

Bonus calculation: Am I making a mountain out of a molehill?

Letter Boxed validator

How to do this path/lattice with tikz

Dot products and For-loops

Why was the term "discrete" used in discrete logarithm?

Right-skewed distribution with mean equals to mode?

Is 1 ppb equal to 1 μg/kg?

What do you call a phrase that's not an idiom yet?

How to enumerate figures in sync with another counter?

Did Kevin spill real chili?



How can I prove that a state of equilibrium is unstable?



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)
2019 Moderator Election Q&A - Question CollectionDoes the induced charge on a conductor stay at the surface?Divergence of a field and its interpretationWhy isn't the electric field just a mathematical tool?Gauss Law for a Modified Coulomb's LawChecking for equilibrium in a square configuration of chargesWhy can't charge be in a stable equilibrium in electrostatic field?Charge distribution: electrostatic equilibrium in conducting sphereSituation of Stable, Neutral and Unstable EquilibriumExplanation of the negative integralUnstable equilibrium due to an arbitrary electrostatic configuration










10












$begingroup$


In the particular problem I encountered, an electric field was zero at the origin and we were meant to prove that a particle at the origin was in an unstable state of equilibrium.



Is it enough to state that for any non-null coordinates, the electric field isn't zero, ergo the equilibrium is unstable? Or is there a more elegant way of proving it?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I think the answers did a good job of covering this i the specific case, but I wanted to point out that the definition of "unstable" in mathematics is quite elegant: an unstable system is one where the inverse of the time evolution function is stable.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    Apr 2 at 18:09










  • $begingroup$
    @CortAmmon If a particle is at a saddle point of potential field, isn't that unstable?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Apr 3 at 1:14















10












$begingroup$


In the particular problem I encountered, an electric field was zero at the origin and we were meant to prove that a particle at the origin was in an unstable state of equilibrium.



Is it enough to state that for any non-null coordinates, the electric field isn't zero, ergo the equilibrium is unstable? Or is there a more elegant way of proving it?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    I think the answers did a good job of covering this i the specific case, but I wanted to point out that the definition of "unstable" in mathematics is quite elegant: an unstable system is one where the inverse of the time evolution function is stable.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    Apr 2 at 18:09










  • $begingroup$
    @CortAmmon If a particle is at a saddle point of potential field, isn't that unstable?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Apr 3 at 1:14













10












10








10


2



$begingroup$


In the particular problem I encountered, an electric field was zero at the origin and we were meant to prove that a particle at the origin was in an unstable state of equilibrium.



Is it enough to state that for any non-null coordinates, the electric field isn't zero, ergo the equilibrium is unstable? Or is there a more elegant way of proving it?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




In the particular problem I encountered, an electric field was zero at the origin and we were meant to prove that a particle at the origin was in an unstable state of equilibrium.



Is it enough to state that for any non-null coordinates, the electric field isn't zero, ergo the equilibrium is unstable? Or is there a more elegant way of proving it?







electrostatics electric-fields oscillators equilibrium stability






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Apr 2 at 6:31









Qmechanic

108k122001246




108k122001246










asked Apr 1 at 16:51









RyeRye

859




859











  • $begingroup$
    I think the answers did a good job of covering this i the specific case, but I wanted to point out that the definition of "unstable" in mathematics is quite elegant: an unstable system is one where the inverse of the time evolution function is stable.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    Apr 2 at 18:09










  • $begingroup$
    @CortAmmon If a particle is at a saddle point of potential field, isn't that unstable?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Apr 3 at 1:14
















  • $begingroup$
    I think the answers did a good job of covering this i the specific case, but I wanted to point out that the definition of "unstable" in mathematics is quite elegant: an unstable system is one where the inverse of the time evolution function is stable.
    $endgroup$
    – Cort Ammon
    Apr 2 at 18:09










  • $begingroup$
    @CortAmmon If a particle is at a saddle point of potential field, isn't that unstable?
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Apr 3 at 1:14















$begingroup$
I think the answers did a good job of covering this i the specific case, but I wanted to point out that the definition of "unstable" in mathematics is quite elegant: an unstable system is one where the inverse of the time evolution function is stable.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Apr 2 at 18:09




$begingroup$
I think the answers did a good job of covering this i the specific case, but I wanted to point out that the definition of "unstable" in mathematics is quite elegant: an unstable system is one where the inverse of the time evolution function is stable.
$endgroup$
– Cort Ammon
Apr 2 at 18:09












$begingroup$
@CortAmmon If a particle is at a saddle point of potential field, isn't that unstable?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Apr 3 at 1:14




$begingroup$
@CortAmmon If a particle is at a saddle point of potential field, isn't that unstable?
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Apr 3 at 1:14










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















25












$begingroup$

In the centre of a bowl there is equilibrium.



  • Put a ping pong ball in it. If this ball is ever shaken slightly away from equilibrium, it will immediately roll back. A "shake-proof" equilibrium is called stable.


  • Now, turn the bowl around and put the ball on the top. This is an equilibrium. But at the slightest shake, the ball rolls down. This "non-shake-proof" equilibrium is called unstable.


It is about the potential energy. Because, systems always tend towards lowest potential energy. The bottom of the bowl is of lowest potential energy, so the ball wants to move back when it is slightly displaced. The top of the flipped bowl is of highest potential energy, and any neighbour point is of lower energy. So the ball has no tendency to roll back up.



Mathematically, it is thus all about figuring out if the equilibrium is a minimum or a maximum. Only a minimum is stable.



You might for many practical/physical purposes be able to determine this by simply looking at the graph of the potential energy.



But mathematically, this can be solved directly from the potential energy expression $U$. Just look at the sign of the double derivative (derived to position).



  • If it is positive, $U''_xx>0$, then the value at the equilibrium is about to increase - so it is a minimum.

  • If it is negative, $U''_xx<0$, then the value at the equilibrium is about to decrease - so it is a maximum.

If you have a 2D function, then you have more than one double derivative, $U''_xx$, $U''_xy$, $U''_yx$ and $U''_yy$. In this case, you must collect them into a so-called Hessian matrix and look at the eigenvalues of that matrix. If both positive, then the point is a minimum; if both negative, then the point is a maximum. (And if a mix, then the point is neither a minimum nor a maximum, but a saddle point).



This may be a bit more than you expected - but it is the rather elegant, mathematical method.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Yep, exactly :) Also, I thought you wanted negative eigenvalues for minima
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    Apr 1 at 17:46







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AaronStevens If you are evaluating energy you want the function concave up (so positive 2nd derivative). If you are evaluating feedback you want it to be negative.
    $endgroup$
    – dmckee
    Apr 1 at 19:16






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    Also a saddle point is generally classified as "unstable" unless you are asked explicitly about the response in a particular direction.
    $endgroup$
    – dmckee
    Apr 1 at 19:17










  • $begingroup$
    @dmckee Ah yes. I was getting mixed up with the Jacobian in linear stability analysis
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    Apr 1 at 19:51






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Uau, that's actually very helpful, thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Rye
    Apr 2 at 16:38


















7












$begingroup$


Is it enough to state that for any none-null coordinates,
the electric field isn't zero, ergo the equilibrium is unstable?




No, that is not enough.

You are right with: At the point of equilibrium the electric force needs to be null.

But furthermore: The direction of the electric force in the surroundings of the equilibrium position is important.



  • If the electric force points towards the equilibrium position,
    then the equilibrium is stable.

  • If the electric force points away from the equilibrium position,
    then the equilibrium is instable.


Or is there a more elegant way of proving it?




It is usually easier to analyze equilibrium with potential energy,
instead of with forces.



  • If the potential energy is a minimum,
    then the equilibrium is stable.

  • If the potential energy is a maximum,
    then the equilibrium is instable.





share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    +1, but I believe your first bullet list is too general. What if there is a mix? Or in your second list you can have unstable equilibria when the potential is not a local maximum.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Stevens
    Apr 1 at 17:22



















5












$begingroup$

If there is no charge at the origin (that is producing the electric field), then by Gauss's law (in derivative form), the divergence of the electric field there is 0: $fracpartial ^2 Vpartial x^2 + fracpartial ^2 Vpartial y^2 + fracpartial ^2 Vpartial z^2= 0$. Unless all three of these quantities are zero, then one of them must be negative, which means that in that direction, the equilibrium is unstable.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$




















    5












    $begingroup$

    Long story short, you're looking for a minimum in the potential energy. In most cases the tests described in the other answers will work well. The second derivative test discussed in previous answers can be inconclusive, though. In one dimension, when $U''=0$ you don't know if you have a minimum, maximum, or neither. To understand how to handle these more difficult situations, it's best to think of the potential energy as a Taylor series around the point of interest:
    $$U(x) = U(a) + U'(a) (x-a) + fracU''(a)2(x-a)^2 + fracU'''(a)3!(x-a)^3 + ldots$$



    Your first requirement to be an equilibrium, is $U'(a)=0$. Your requirement for stability is then $U''(a) > 0$, unstable if $U''(a)<0$, inconclusive if $U''(a) = 0$.



    If your test is inconclusive, and that is unacceptable, then you move to the next higher derivative, $U'''(a)$. The condition there is if $U'''(a) neq0$ then your potential looks cubic there, so the equilibrium is meta-stable (saddle point - stable one direction, not the other). If $U'''(a) = 0$ you can look to the next higher derivative.



    If $U^mathrmIV(a) > 0$, and all previous derivatives vanish, then your equilibrium is stable. $U^mathrmIV(a) < 0$ is unstable, and $U^mathrmIV(a) = 0$ is inconclusive (see next higher derivative).



    Do you see the pattern? The character of an equilibrium point is fixed by the first non-vanishing derivative higher than first. If that derivative is even, then you use the positive/negative distinction for stable/unstable. If that derivative is odd, then you have a meta-stable point.



    All of this gets tremendously complicated by linear algebra when you go multi-dimensional - you would need to deal with the equivalent of eigenvalues for tensors with ranks higher than 2 (I confess, I've never worked out the details).



    The algorithm outlined above does have its limitations, though. Consider the function $e^-x^-2$ near the point $x=0$ (if we plug the hole there). Is that a stable equilibrium? If you graph the function, it certainly looks like it. If you start doing derivative tests, though, you'll run into the problem that all of the functions derivatives vanish there! Handling cases like this would require getting in to a more technical definition of how to characterize the local behavior of a function (involving sets, epsilons, and "there exists" type statements).






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$




















      4












      $begingroup$

      While checking for any point that its for unstable or stable equilibrium, graphical method can be used. If slope at that point is negative i.e. with increase in one coordinate other decreases and graph goes back to same point again,then its stable and for unstable its vice-versa.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













        Your Answer








        StackExchange.ready(function()
        var channelOptions =
        tags: "".split(" "),
        id: "151"
        ;
        initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

        StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
        // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
        if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
        StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
        createEditor();
        );

        else
        createEditor();

        );

        function createEditor()
        StackExchange.prepareEditor(
        heartbeatType: 'answer',
        autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
        convertImagesToLinks: false,
        noModals: true,
        showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
        reputationToPostImages: null,
        bindNavPrevention: true,
        postfix: "",
        imageUploader:
        brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
        contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
        allowUrls: true
        ,
        noCode: true, onDemand: true,
        discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
        ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
        );



        );













        draft saved

        draft discarded


















        StackExchange.ready(
        function ()
        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469917%2fhow-can-i-prove-that-a-state-of-equilibrium-is-unstable%23new-answer', 'question_page');

        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        25












        $begingroup$

        In the centre of a bowl there is equilibrium.



        • Put a ping pong ball in it. If this ball is ever shaken slightly away from equilibrium, it will immediately roll back. A "shake-proof" equilibrium is called stable.


        • Now, turn the bowl around and put the ball on the top. This is an equilibrium. But at the slightest shake, the ball rolls down. This "non-shake-proof" equilibrium is called unstable.


        It is about the potential energy. Because, systems always tend towards lowest potential energy. The bottom of the bowl is of lowest potential energy, so the ball wants to move back when it is slightly displaced. The top of the flipped bowl is of highest potential energy, and any neighbour point is of lower energy. So the ball has no tendency to roll back up.



        Mathematically, it is thus all about figuring out if the equilibrium is a minimum or a maximum. Only a minimum is stable.



        You might for many practical/physical purposes be able to determine this by simply looking at the graph of the potential energy.



        But mathematically, this can be solved directly from the potential energy expression $U$. Just look at the sign of the double derivative (derived to position).



        • If it is positive, $U''_xx>0$, then the value at the equilibrium is about to increase - so it is a minimum.

        • If it is negative, $U''_xx<0$, then the value at the equilibrium is about to decrease - so it is a maximum.

        If you have a 2D function, then you have more than one double derivative, $U''_xx$, $U''_xy$, $U''_yx$ and $U''_yy$. In this case, you must collect them into a so-called Hessian matrix and look at the eigenvalues of that matrix. If both positive, then the point is a minimum; if both negative, then the point is a maximum. (And if a mix, then the point is neither a minimum nor a maximum, but a saddle point).



        This may be a bit more than you expected - but it is the rather elegant, mathematical method.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$








        • 1




          $begingroup$
          Yep, exactly :) Also, I thought you wanted negative eigenvalues for minima
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 17:46







        • 1




          $begingroup$
          @AaronStevens If you are evaluating energy you want the function concave up (so positive 2nd derivative). If you are evaluating feedback you want it to be negative.
          $endgroup$
          – dmckee
          Apr 1 at 19:16






        • 6




          $begingroup$
          Also a saddle point is generally classified as "unstable" unless you are asked explicitly about the response in a particular direction.
          $endgroup$
          – dmckee
          Apr 1 at 19:17










        • $begingroup$
          @dmckee Ah yes. I was getting mixed up with the Jacobian in linear stability analysis
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 19:51






        • 1




          $begingroup$
          Uau, that's actually very helpful, thank you!
          $endgroup$
          – Rye
          Apr 2 at 16:38















        25












        $begingroup$

        In the centre of a bowl there is equilibrium.



        • Put a ping pong ball in it. If this ball is ever shaken slightly away from equilibrium, it will immediately roll back. A "shake-proof" equilibrium is called stable.


        • Now, turn the bowl around and put the ball on the top. This is an equilibrium. But at the slightest shake, the ball rolls down. This "non-shake-proof" equilibrium is called unstable.


        It is about the potential energy. Because, systems always tend towards lowest potential energy. The bottom of the bowl is of lowest potential energy, so the ball wants to move back when it is slightly displaced. The top of the flipped bowl is of highest potential energy, and any neighbour point is of lower energy. So the ball has no tendency to roll back up.



        Mathematically, it is thus all about figuring out if the equilibrium is a minimum or a maximum. Only a minimum is stable.



        You might for many practical/physical purposes be able to determine this by simply looking at the graph of the potential energy.



        But mathematically, this can be solved directly from the potential energy expression $U$. Just look at the sign of the double derivative (derived to position).



        • If it is positive, $U''_xx>0$, then the value at the equilibrium is about to increase - so it is a minimum.

        • If it is negative, $U''_xx<0$, then the value at the equilibrium is about to decrease - so it is a maximum.

        If you have a 2D function, then you have more than one double derivative, $U''_xx$, $U''_xy$, $U''_yx$ and $U''_yy$. In this case, you must collect them into a so-called Hessian matrix and look at the eigenvalues of that matrix. If both positive, then the point is a minimum; if both negative, then the point is a maximum. (And if a mix, then the point is neither a minimum nor a maximum, but a saddle point).



        This may be a bit more than you expected - but it is the rather elegant, mathematical method.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$








        • 1




          $begingroup$
          Yep, exactly :) Also, I thought you wanted negative eigenvalues for minima
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 17:46







        • 1




          $begingroup$
          @AaronStevens If you are evaluating energy you want the function concave up (so positive 2nd derivative). If you are evaluating feedback you want it to be negative.
          $endgroup$
          – dmckee
          Apr 1 at 19:16






        • 6




          $begingroup$
          Also a saddle point is generally classified as "unstable" unless you are asked explicitly about the response in a particular direction.
          $endgroup$
          – dmckee
          Apr 1 at 19:17










        • $begingroup$
          @dmckee Ah yes. I was getting mixed up with the Jacobian in linear stability analysis
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 19:51






        • 1




          $begingroup$
          Uau, that's actually very helpful, thank you!
          $endgroup$
          – Rye
          Apr 2 at 16:38













        25












        25








        25





        $begingroup$

        In the centre of a bowl there is equilibrium.



        • Put a ping pong ball in it. If this ball is ever shaken slightly away from equilibrium, it will immediately roll back. A "shake-proof" equilibrium is called stable.


        • Now, turn the bowl around and put the ball on the top. This is an equilibrium. But at the slightest shake, the ball rolls down. This "non-shake-proof" equilibrium is called unstable.


        It is about the potential energy. Because, systems always tend towards lowest potential energy. The bottom of the bowl is of lowest potential energy, so the ball wants to move back when it is slightly displaced. The top of the flipped bowl is of highest potential energy, and any neighbour point is of lower energy. So the ball has no tendency to roll back up.



        Mathematically, it is thus all about figuring out if the equilibrium is a minimum or a maximum. Only a minimum is stable.



        You might for many practical/physical purposes be able to determine this by simply looking at the graph of the potential energy.



        But mathematically, this can be solved directly from the potential energy expression $U$. Just look at the sign of the double derivative (derived to position).



        • If it is positive, $U''_xx>0$, then the value at the equilibrium is about to increase - so it is a minimum.

        • If it is negative, $U''_xx<0$, then the value at the equilibrium is about to decrease - so it is a maximum.

        If you have a 2D function, then you have more than one double derivative, $U''_xx$, $U''_xy$, $U''_yx$ and $U''_yy$. In this case, you must collect them into a so-called Hessian matrix and look at the eigenvalues of that matrix. If both positive, then the point is a minimum; if both negative, then the point is a maximum. (And if a mix, then the point is neither a minimum nor a maximum, but a saddle point).



        This may be a bit more than you expected - but it is the rather elegant, mathematical method.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        In the centre of a bowl there is equilibrium.



        • Put a ping pong ball in it. If this ball is ever shaken slightly away from equilibrium, it will immediately roll back. A "shake-proof" equilibrium is called stable.


        • Now, turn the bowl around and put the ball on the top. This is an equilibrium. But at the slightest shake, the ball rolls down. This "non-shake-proof" equilibrium is called unstable.


        It is about the potential energy. Because, systems always tend towards lowest potential energy. The bottom of the bowl is of lowest potential energy, so the ball wants to move back when it is slightly displaced. The top of the flipped bowl is of highest potential energy, and any neighbour point is of lower energy. So the ball has no tendency to roll back up.



        Mathematically, it is thus all about figuring out if the equilibrium is a minimum or a maximum. Only a minimum is stable.



        You might for many practical/physical purposes be able to determine this by simply looking at the graph of the potential energy.



        But mathematically, this can be solved directly from the potential energy expression $U$. Just look at the sign of the double derivative (derived to position).



        • If it is positive, $U''_xx>0$, then the value at the equilibrium is about to increase - so it is a minimum.

        • If it is negative, $U''_xx<0$, then the value at the equilibrium is about to decrease - so it is a maximum.

        If you have a 2D function, then you have more than one double derivative, $U''_xx$, $U''_xy$, $U''_yx$ and $U''_yy$. In this case, you must collect them into a so-called Hessian matrix and look at the eigenvalues of that matrix. If both positive, then the point is a minimum; if both negative, then the point is a maximum. (And if a mix, then the point is neither a minimum nor a maximum, but a saddle point).



        This may be a bit more than you expected - but it is the rather elegant, mathematical method.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Apr 1 at 17:25

























        answered Apr 1 at 17:24









        SteevenSteeven

        28k866113




        28k866113







        • 1




          $begingroup$
          Yep, exactly :) Also, I thought you wanted negative eigenvalues for minima
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 17:46







        • 1




          $begingroup$
          @AaronStevens If you are evaluating energy you want the function concave up (so positive 2nd derivative). If you are evaluating feedback you want it to be negative.
          $endgroup$
          – dmckee
          Apr 1 at 19:16






        • 6




          $begingroup$
          Also a saddle point is generally classified as "unstable" unless you are asked explicitly about the response in a particular direction.
          $endgroup$
          – dmckee
          Apr 1 at 19:17










        • $begingroup$
          @dmckee Ah yes. I was getting mixed up with the Jacobian in linear stability analysis
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 19:51






        • 1




          $begingroup$
          Uau, that's actually very helpful, thank you!
          $endgroup$
          – Rye
          Apr 2 at 16:38












        • 1




          $begingroup$
          Yep, exactly :) Also, I thought you wanted negative eigenvalues for minima
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 17:46







        • 1




          $begingroup$
          @AaronStevens If you are evaluating energy you want the function concave up (so positive 2nd derivative). If you are evaluating feedback you want it to be negative.
          $endgroup$
          – dmckee
          Apr 1 at 19:16






        • 6




          $begingroup$
          Also a saddle point is generally classified as "unstable" unless you are asked explicitly about the response in a particular direction.
          $endgroup$
          – dmckee
          Apr 1 at 19:17










        • $begingroup$
          @dmckee Ah yes. I was getting mixed up with the Jacobian in linear stability analysis
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 19:51






        • 1




          $begingroup$
          Uau, that's actually very helpful, thank you!
          $endgroup$
          – Rye
          Apr 2 at 16:38







        1




        1




        $begingroup$
        Yep, exactly :) Also, I thought you wanted negative eigenvalues for minima
        $endgroup$
        – Aaron Stevens
        Apr 1 at 17:46





        $begingroup$
        Yep, exactly :) Also, I thought you wanted negative eigenvalues for minima
        $endgroup$
        – Aaron Stevens
        Apr 1 at 17:46





        1




        1




        $begingroup$
        @AaronStevens If you are evaluating energy you want the function concave up (so positive 2nd derivative). If you are evaluating feedback you want it to be negative.
        $endgroup$
        – dmckee
        Apr 1 at 19:16




        $begingroup$
        @AaronStevens If you are evaluating energy you want the function concave up (so positive 2nd derivative). If you are evaluating feedback you want it to be negative.
        $endgroup$
        – dmckee
        Apr 1 at 19:16




        6




        6




        $begingroup$
        Also a saddle point is generally classified as "unstable" unless you are asked explicitly about the response in a particular direction.
        $endgroup$
        – dmckee
        Apr 1 at 19:17




        $begingroup$
        Also a saddle point is generally classified as "unstable" unless you are asked explicitly about the response in a particular direction.
        $endgroup$
        – dmckee
        Apr 1 at 19:17












        $begingroup$
        @dmckee Ah yes. I was getting mixed up with the Jacobian in linear stability analysis
        $endgroup$
        – Aaron Stevens
        Apr 1 at 19:51




        $begingroup$
        @dmckee Ah yes. I was getting mixed up with the Jacobian in linear stability analysis
        $endgroup$
        – Aaron Stevens
        Apr 1 at 19:51




        1




        1




        $begingroup$
        Uau, that's actually very helpful, thank you!
        $endgroup$
        – Rye
        Apr 2 at 16:38




        $begingroup$
        Uau, that's actually very helpful, thank you!
        $endgroup$
        – Rye
        Apr 2 at 16:38











        7












        $begingroup$


        Is it enough to state that for any none-null coordinates,
        the electric field isn't zero, ergo the equilibrium is unstable?




        No, that is not enough.

        You are right with: At the point of equilibrium the electric force needs to be null.

        But furthermore: The direction of the electric force in the surroundings of the equilibrium position is important.



        • If the electric force points towards the equilibrium position,
          then the equilibrium is stable.

        • If the electric force points away from the equilibrium position,
          then the equilibrium is instable.


        Or is there a more elegant way of proving it?




        It is usually easier to analyze equilibrium with potential energy,
        instead of with forces.



        • If the potential energy is a minimum,
          then the equilibrium is stable.

        • If the potential energy is a maximum,
          then the equilibrium is instable.





        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$








        • 1




          $begingroup$
          +1, but I believe your first bullet list is too general. What if there is a mix? Or in your second list you can have unstable equilibria when the potential is not a local maximum.
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 17:22
















        7












        $begingroup$


        Is it enough to state that for any none-null coordinates,
        the electric field isn't zero, ergo the equilibrium is unstable?




        No, that is not enough.

        You are right with: At the point of equilibrium the electric force needs to be null.

        But furthermore: The direction of the electric force in the surroundings of the equilibrium position is important.



        • If the electric force points towards the equilibrium position,
          then the equilibrium is stable.

        • If the electric force points away from the equilibrium position,
          then the equilibrium is instable.


        Or is there a more elegant way of proving it?




        It is usually easier to analyze equilibrium with potential energy,
        instead of with forces.



        • If the potential energy is a minimum,
          then the equilibrium is stable.

        • If the potential energy is a maximum,
          then the equilibrium is instable.





        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$








        • 1




          $begingroup$
          +1, but I believe your first bullet list is too general. What if there is a mix? Or in your second list you can have unstable equilibria when the potential is not a local maximum.
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 17:22














        7












        7








        7





        $begingroup$


        Is it enough to state that for any none-null coordinates,
        the electric field isn't zero, ergo the equilibrium is unstable?




        No, that is not enough.

        You are right with: At the point of equilibrium the electric force needs to be null.

        But furthermore: The direction of the electric force in the surroundings of the equilibrium position is important.



        • If the electric force points towards the equilibrium position,
          then the equilibrium is stable.

        • If the electric force points away from the equilibrium position,
          then the equilibrium is instable.


        Or is there a more elegant way of proving it?




        It is usually easier to analyze equilibrium with potential energy,
        instead of with forces.



        • If the potential energy is a minimum,
          then the equilibrium is stable.

        • If the potential energy is a maximum,
          then the equilibrium is instable.





        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$




        Is it enough to state that for any none-null coordinates,
        the electric field isn't zero, ergo the equilibrium is unstable?




        No, that is not enough.

        You are right with: At the point of equilibrium the electric force needs to be null.

        But furthermore: The direction of the electric force in the surroundings of the equilibrium position is important.



        • If the electric force points towards the equilibrium position,
          then the equilibrium is stable.

        • If the electric force points away from the equilibrium position,
          then the equilibrium is instable.


        Or is there a more elegant way of proving it?




        It is usually easier to analyze equilibrium with potential energy,
        instead of with forces.



        • If the potential energy is a minimum,
          then the equilibrium is stable.

        • If the potential energy is a maximum,
          then the equilibrium is instable.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Apr 1 at 17:16









        Thomas FritschThomas Fritsch

        1,603615




        1,603615







        • 1




          $begingroup$
          +1, but I believe your first bullet list is too general. What if there is a mix? Or in your second list you can have unstable equilibria when the potential is not a local maximum.
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 17:22













        • 1




          $begingroup$
          +1, but I believe your first bullet list is too general. What if there is a mix? Or in your second list you can have unstable equilibria when the potential is not a local maximum.
          $endgroup$
          – Aaron Stevens
          Apr 1 at 17:22








        1




        1




        $begingroup$
        +1, but I believe your first bullet list is too general. What if there is a mix? Or in your second list you can have unstable equilibria when the potential is not a local maximum.
        $endgroup$
        – Aaron Stevens
        Apr 1 at 17:22





        $begingroup$
        +1, but I believe your first bullet list is too general. What if there is a mix? Or in your second list you can have unstable equilibria when the potential is not a local maximum.
        $endgroup$
        – Aaron Stevens
        Apr 1 at 17:22












        5












        $begingroup$

        If there is no charge at the origin (that is producing the electric field), then by Gauss's law (in derivative form), the divergence of the electric field there is 0: $fracpartial ^2 Vpartial x^2 + fracpartial ^2 Vpartial y^2 + fracpartial ^2 Vpartial z^2= 0$. Unless all three of these quantities are zero, then one of them must be negative, which means that in that direction, the equilibrium is unstable.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$

















          5












          $begingroup$

          If there is no charge at the origin (that is producing the electric field), then by Gauss's law (in derivative form), the divergence of the electric field there is 0: $fracpartial ^2 Vpartial x^2 + fracpartial ^2 Vpartial y^2 + fracpartial ^2 Vpartial z^2= 0$. Unless all three of these quantities are zero, then one of them must be negative, which means that in that direction, the equilibrium is unstable.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$















            5












            5








            5





            $begingroup$

            If there is no charge at the origin (that is producing the electric field), then by Gauss's law (in derivative form), the divergence of the electric field there is 0: $fracpartial ^2 Vpartial x^2 + fracpartial ^2 Vpartial y^2 + fracpartial ^2 Vpartial z^2= 0$. Unless all three of these quantities are zero, then one of them must be negative, which means that in that direction, the equilibrium is unstable.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            If there is no charge at the origin (that is producing the electric field), then by Gauss's law (in derivative form), the divergence of the electric field there is 0: $fracpartial ^2 Vpartial x^2 + fracpartial ^2 Vpartial y^2 + fracpartial ^2 Vpartial z^2= 0$. Unless all three of these quantities are zero, then one of them must be negative, which means that in that direction, the equilibrium is unstable.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Apr 1 at 20:55









            Faraz MasroorFaraz Masroor

            338116




            338116





















                5












                $begingroup$

                Long story short, you're looking for a minimum in the potential energy. In most cases the tests described in the other answers will work well. The second derivative test discussed in previous answers can be inconclusive, though. In one dimension, when $U''=0$ you don't know if you have a minimum, maximum, or neither. To understand how to handle these more difficult situations, it's best to think of the potential energy as a Taylor series around the point of interest:
                $$U(x) = U(a) + U'(a) (x-a) + fracU''(a)2(x-a)^2 + fracU'''(a)3!(x-a)^3 + ldots$$



                Your first requirement to be an equilibrium, is $U'(a)=0$. Your requirement for stability is then $U''(a) > 0$, unstable if $U''(a)<0$, inconclusive if $U''(a) = 0$.



                If your test is inconclusive, and that is unacceptable, then you move to the next higher derivative, $U'''(a)$. The condition there is if $U'''(a) neq0$ then your potential looks cubic there, so the equilibrium is meta-stable (saddle point - stable one direction, not the other). If $U'''(a) = 0$ you can look to the next higher derivative.



                If $U^mathrmIV(a) > 0$, and all previous derivatives vanish, then your equilibrium is stable. $U^mathrmIV(a) < 0$ is unstable, and $U^mathrmIV(a) = 0$ is inconclusive (see next higher derivative).



                Do you see the pattern? The character of an equilibrium point is fixed by the first non-vanishing derivative higher than first. If that derivative is even, then you use the positive/negative distinction for stable/unstable. If that derivative is odd, then you have a meta-stable point.



                All of this gets tremendously complicated by linear algebra when you go multi-dimensional - you would need to deal with the equivalent of eigenvalues for tensors with ranks higher than 2 (I confess, I've never worked out the details).



                The algorithm outlined above does have its limitations, though. Consider the function $e^-x^-2$ near the point $x=0$ (if we plug the hole there). Is that a stable equilibrium? If you graph the function, it certainly looks like it. If you start doing derivative tests, though, you'll run into the problem that all of the functions derivatives vanish there! Handling cases like this would require getting in to a more technical definition of how to characterize the local behavior of a function (involving sets, epsilons, and "there exists" type statements).






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$

















                  5












                  $begingroup$

                  Long story short, you're looking for a minimum in the potential energy. In most cases the tests described in the other answers will work well. The second derivative test discussed in previous answers can be inconclusive, though. In one dimension, when $U''=0$ you don't know if you have a minimum, maximum, or neither. To understand how to handle these more difficult situations, it's best to think of the potential energy as a Taylor series around the point of interest:
                  $$U(x) = U(a) + U'(a) (x-a) + fracU''(a)2(x-a)^2 + fracU'''(a)3!(x-a)^3 + ldots$$



                  Your first requirement to be an equilibrium, is $U'(a)=0$. Your requirement for stability is then $U''(a) > 0$, unstable if $U''(a)<0$, inconclusive if $U''(a) = 0$.



                  If your test is inconclusive, and that is unacceptable, then you move to the next higher derivative, $U'''(a)$. The condition there is if $U'''(a) neq0$ then your potential looks cubic there, so the equilibrium is meta-stable (saddle point - stable one direction, not the other). If $U'''(a) = 0$ you can look to the next higher derivative.



                  If $U^mathrmIV(a) > 0$, and all previous derivatives vanish, then your equilibrium is stable. $U^mathrmIV(a) < 0$ is unstable, and $U^mathrmIV(a) = 0$ is inconclusive (see next higher derivative).



                  Do you see the pattern? The character of an equilibrium point is fixed by the first non-vanishing derivative higher than first. If that derivative is even, then you use the positive/negative distinction for stable/unstable. If that derivative is odd, then you have a meta-stable point.



                  All of this gets tremendously complicated by linear algebra when you go multi-dimensional - you would need to deal with the equivalent of eigenvalues for tensors with ranks higher than 2 (I confess, I've never worked out the details).



                  The algorithm outlined above does have its limitations, though. Consider the function $e^-x^-2$ near the point $x=0$ (if we plug the hole there). Is that a stable equilibrium? If you graph the function, it certainly looks like it. If you start doing derivative tests, though, you'll run into the problem that all of the functions derivatives vanish there! Handling cases like this would require getting in to a more technical definition of how to characterize the local behavior of a function (involving sets, epsilons, and "there exists" type statements).






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$















                    5












                    5








                    5





                    $begingroup$

                    Long story short, you're looking for a minimum in the potential energy. In most cases the tests described in the other answers will work well. The second derivative test discussed in previous answers can be inconclusive, though. In one dimension, when $U''=0$ you don't know if you have a minimum, maximum, or neither. To understand how to handle these more difficult situations, it's best to think of the potential energy as a Taylor series around the point of interest:
                    $$U(x) = U(a) + U'(a) (x-a) + fracU''(a)2(x-a)^2 + fracU'''(a)3!(x-a)^3 + ldots$$



                    Your first requirement to be an equilibrium, is $U'(a)=0$. Your requirement for stability is then $U''(a) > 0$, unstable if $U''(a)<0$, inconclusive if $U''(a) = 0$.



                    If your test is inconclusive, and that is unacceptable, then you move to the next higher derivative, $U'''(a)$. The condition there is if $U'''(a) neq0$ then your potential looks cubic there, so the equilibrium is meta-stable (saddle point - stable one direction, not the other). If $U'''(a) = 0$ you can look to the next higher derivative.



                    If $U^mathrmIV(a) > 0$, and all previous derivatives vanish, then your equilibrium is stable. $U^mathrmIV(a) < 0$ is unstable, and $U^mathrmIV(a) = 0$ is inconclusive (see next higher derivative).



                    Do you see the pattern? The character of an equilibrium point is fixed by the first non-vanishing derivative higher than first. If that derivative is even, then you use the positive/negative distinction for stable/unstable. If that derivative is odd, then you have a meta-stable point.



                    All of this gets tremendously complicated by linear algebra when you go multi-dimensional - you would need to deal with the equivalent of eigenvalues for tensors with ranks higher than 2 (I confess, I've never worked out the details).



                    The algorithm outlined above does have its limitations, though. Consider the function $e^-x^-2$ near the point $x=0$ (if we plug the hole there). Is that a stable equilibrium? If you graph the function, it certainly looks like it. If you start doing derivative tests, though, you'll run into the problem that all of the functions derivatives vanish there! Handling cases like this would require getting in to a more technical definition of how to characterize the local behavior of a function (involving sets, epsilons, and "there exists" type statements).






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    Long story short, you're looking for a minimum in the potential energy. In most cases the tests described in the other answers will work well. The second derivative test discussed in previous answers can be inconclusive, though. In one dimension, when $U''=0$ you don't know if you have a minimum, maximum, or neither. To understand how to handle these more difficult situations, it's best to think of the potential energy as a Taylor series around the point of interest:
                    $$U(x) = U(a) + U'(a) (x-a) + fracU''(a)2(x-a)^2 + fracU'''(a)3!(x-a)^3 + ldots$$



                    Your first requirement to be an equilibrium, is $U'(a)=0$. Your requirement for stability is then $U''(a) > 0$, unstable if $U''(a)<0$, inconclusive if $U''(a) = 0$.



                    If your test is inconclusive, and that is unacceptable, then you move to the next higher derivative, $U'''(a)$. The condition there is if $U'''(a) neq0$ then your potential looks cubic there, so the equilibrium is meta-stable (saddle point - stable one direction, not the other). If $U'''(a) = 0$ you can look to the next higher derivative.



                    If $U^mathrmIV(a) > 0$, and all previous derivatives vanish, then your equilibrium is stable. $U^mathrmIV(a) < 0$ is unstable, and $U^mathrmIV(a) = 0$ is inconclusive (see next higher derivative).



                    Do you see the pattern? The character of an equilibrium point is fixed by the first non-vanishing derivative higher than first. If that derivative is even, then you use the positive/negative distinction for stable/unstable. If that derivative is odd, then you have a meta-stable point.



                    All of this gets tremendously complicated by linear algebra when you go multi-dimensional - you would need to deal with the equivalent of eigenvalues for tensors with ranks higher than 2 (I confess, I've never worked out the details).



                    The algorithm outlined above does have its limitations, though. Consider the function $e^-x^-2$ near the point $x=0$ (if we plug the hole there). Is that a stable equilibrium? If you graph the function, it certainly looks like it. If you start doing derivative tests, though, you'll run into the problem that all of the functions derivatives vanish there! Handling cases like this would require getting in to a more technical definition of how to characterize the local behavior of a function (involving sets, epsilons, and "there exists" type statements).







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Apr 2 at 6:50

























                    answered Apr 2 at 6:44









                    Sean E. LakeSean E. Lake

                    15k12352




                    15k12352





















                        4












                        $begingroup$

                        While checking for any point that its for unstable or stable equilibrium, graphical method can be used. If slope at that point is negative i.e. with increase in one coordinate other decreases and graph goes back to same point again,then its stable and for unstable its vice-versa.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$

















                          4












                          $begingroup$

                          While checking for any point that its for unstable or stable equilibrium, graphical method can be used. If slope at that point is negative i.e. with increase in one coordinate other decreases and graph goes back to same point again,then its stable and for unstable its vice-versa.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$















                            4












                            4








                            4





                            $begingroup$

                            While checking for any point that its for unstable or stable equilibrium, graphical method can be used. If slope at that point is negative i.e. with increase in one coordinate other decreases and graph goes back to same point again,then its stable and for unstable its vice-versa.






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$



                            While checking for any point that its for unstable or stable equilibrium, graphical method can be used. If slope at that point is negative i.e. with increase in one coordinate other decreases and graph goes back to same point again,then its stable and for unstable its vice-versa.







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered Apr 1 at 17:18









                            sk9298sk9298

                            846




                            846



























                                draft saved

                                draft discarded
















































                                Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                                • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                But avoid


                                • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                draft saved


                                draft discarded














                                StackExchange.ready(
                                function ()
                                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f469917%2fhow-can-i-prove-that-a-state-of-equilibrium-is-unstable%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                );

                                Post as a guest















                                Required, but never shown





















































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown

































                                Required, but never shown














                                Required, but never shown












                                Required, but never shown







                                Required, but never shown







                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Adding axes to figuresAdding axes labels to LaTeX figuresLaTeX equivalent of ConTeXt buffersRotate a node but not its content: the case of the ellipse decorationHow to define the default vertical distance between nodes?TikZ scaling graphic and adjust node position and keep font sizeNumerical conditional within tikz keys?adding axes to shapesAlign axes across subfiguresAdding figures with a certain orderLine up nested tikz enviroments or how to get rid of themAdding axes labels to LaTeX figures

                                Tähtien Talli Jäsenet | Lähteet | NavigointivalikkoSuomen Hippos – Tähtien Talli

                                Do these cracks on my tires look bad? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowDry rot tire should I replace?Having to replace tiresFishtailed so easily? Bad tires? ABS?Filling the tires with something other than air, to avoid puncture hassles?Used Michelin tires safe to install?Do these tyre cracks necessitate replacement?Rumbling noise: tires or mechanicalIs it possible to fix noisy feathered tires?Are bad winter tires still better than summer tires in winter?Torque converter failure - Related to replacing only 2 tires?Why use snow tires on all 4 wheels on 2-wheel-drive cars?