A proof of Archimedes' Principle

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the proof of Archimedes' Principle and the expression for buoyancy force, exploring theoretical underpinnings and mathematical formulations. Participants examine the relationship between pressure in fluids and buoyancy, as well as the historical context of naming conventions related to the principle.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that Archimedes' Principle can be derived from Pascal's principle, emphasizing the equilibrium of pressure in a stationary fluid.
  • Others argue that buoyancy can be understood as the difference in net force between the bottom and top of an object submerged in fluid, leading to the conclusion that the buoyant force equals the weight of the displaced fluid.
  • A later reply discusses transforming the buoyant force integral into a volume integral using vector calculus, suggesting that the buoyant force depends only on the shape of the boundary of the object.
  • Another participant reiterates the mathematical derivation of buoyancy force, indicating that it is independent of the shape of the solid and relies on the isotropic nature of fluid stress as described by Pascal's Law.
  • There is a question raised about why Archimedes' Principle is not referred to as a law or theorem, with speculation that it may be due to historical reasons.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express various viewpoints on the proof and implications of Archimedes' Principle, with no consensus reached on the naming conventions or the completeness of the proof for all solid shapes.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations are noted regarding the assumptions necessary for the proofs, such as the requirement for the object to be completely surrounded by fluid and the fluid's ability to equalize pressure.

DaTario
Messages
1,097
Reaction score
46
TL;DR
Hi All, is there a proof to Arquimedes Principle and the expression for the buoyancy force?
Hi All, is there a proof to Arquimedes Principle and the expression for the buoyancy force? In case there is a proof, may we refer to this as Arquimedes theorem? (Buoyancy force = density of the fluid x acceleration of gravity x submerged volume)

Best Regards,
DaTario
 
Physics news on Phys.org
DaTario said:
Hi All, is there a proof to Arquimedes Principle and the expression for the buoyancy force? In case there is a proof, may we refer to this as Arquimedes theorem? (Buoyancy force = density of the fluid x acceleration of gravity x submerged volume)
It follow more or less automatically from Pascal's principle that the pressure in a stationary fluid at equilibrium and under no net force is the same everywhere.

You layer onto this the idea that a uniform gravity field on a fluid of uniform density results in a fixed pressure at any given depth given by ##P=\rho g h##.

Then you realize that "buoyancy" is nothing more than the difference in the net force along the bottom of an object compared to the force along its top.

From there you realize that the net force difference on any given column within the object is equal to the volume of that column times ##\rho## times ##g##. Add up all the columns and you get that ##\sum F=\rho g V##.

If one is going to be careful about the proof, one needs that the object is completely surrounded by the fluid and that the fluid is all connected -- free to flow so as to equalize pressure.
 
It's fairly straightforward to transform the buoyant force integral ##-\int_{\partial V} p d\mathbf{S}## into a volume integral over ##V## by pure vector calculus.

A more intuitive explanation is that said buoyant force integral depends only on the shape of the boundary ##\partial V##. Therefore, for the purpose of determining the buoyant force, one can replace the body with fluid. The parcel of fluid is obviously in equilibrium along with the rest of the fluid, which implies that the buoyant force is nothing but minus the weight of the parcel of fluid.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd, vanhees71 and jbriggs444
Just to work that out: For a static fluid the total force density must be 0, i.e.,
$$-\vec{\nabla} P +\rho \vec{g}=0.$$
This implies that the buoyancy force of a body with volume ##V## and boundary surface ##\partial V## is
$$\vec{F}_{\text{buo}}=-\int_{\partial V} \mathrm{d}^2 \vec{f} P=\int_V \mathrm{d}^3 x (-\vec{\nabla} P)=-\vec{g} \int_V \mathrm{d}^3 x \rho=-\vec{g} m_V,$$
where ##m_V## is the mass of the displaced fluid, which is Archimedes's principle.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: hutchphd and DaTario
vanhees71 said:
Just to work that out: For a static fluid the total force density must be 0, i.e.,
$$-\vec{\nabla} P +\rho \vec{g}=0.$$
This implies that the buoyancy force of a body with volume ##V## and boundary surface ##\partial V## is
$$\vec{F}_{\text{buo}}=-\int_{\partial V} \mathrm{d}^2 \vec{f} P=\int_V \mathrm{d}^3 x (-\vec{\nabla} P)=-\vec{g} \int_V \mathrm{d}^3 x \rho=-\vec{g} m_V,$$
where ##m_V## is the mass of the displaced fluid, which is Archimedes's principle.
So we use Gauss Law, basically. Is there any obstacle to including every possible solid shape in this proof? My guess is that this is the reason why Arquimedes Principle is not named as a law or a theorem (as in Stevin's).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Yes, it's Gauss's law, and the proof shows that it's completely general, i.e., independent of the shape of the solid. Of course it rests on Pascal's Law that the static stress tensor for a fluid is isotrophic, i.e., ##\sigma_{jk}=-P\delta_{jk}##. It's a good question, why it's named Archimendes's Principle and not Archimendes's Law or Theorem. I guess it's simply for historical reasons.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DaTario

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 32 ·
2
Replies
32
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
714
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K