Why Use Time Derivative Outside the Integral in the Continuity Equation?

AI Thread Summary
The continuity equation is expressed as the time derivative of the integral of density over a fixed volume to accurately reflect how mass changes over time. This approach emphasizes the total mass within the volume and its temporal change, while the alternative formulation focuses on local density changes without accounting for volume variations. The first integral captures both mass changes due to density and any changes in the volume itself. In contrast, the second integral could lead to incorrect conclusions by neglecting the effects of a time-dependent volume. Understanding these distinctions is crucial for accurate fluid dynamics and energy balance calculations.
member 428835
Hi PF!

Can someone help me understand why, when writing the continuity equation we write: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \iiint_v \rho \, dv$$ instead of $$ \iiint_v \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho \, dv$$

I understand the two are not necessarily the same, but why derive it the first way rather than the second?

Intuitively, the first seems to be saying "add up all the mass and then see how it changes in time" where as the second seems to say "see how density changes in time at each location and then add it all up".

I'm just having trouble understanding the second integral.

Thanks!

Josh
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you keep your volume fixed, the two are equivalent. This is usually how you will see the continuity equation on differential form derived.
 
Yea, The same with energy and fluid balances. But I don't know what the second integral means, or rather why it's technically incorrect, from an intuitive perspective (mathematically I realize you need to use Leibniz' rule if the boundaries are time-dependent and you want to interchange the derivative and integral)

Any help on this is greatly appreciated.
 
Well, "technically correct" depends on what you actually want to compute. Assuming that the volume is time dependent (since in the case where it is not the integrals are equivalent). The first integral gives you the change in the mass within a the volume by computing the mass as a function of time and then differentiating it. The second one only gives you the change of mass in the volume due to changes in the density and therefore neglects any contribution coming from the volume growing or shrinking (or moving!). As an example, consider a medium of constant density ##\rho##. The mass within the volume ##V(t)## will be given by ##M(t) = \rho V(t)## and so ##\dot M = \rho \dot V##. If you compute the density derivative ##\dot \rho##, you will get zero because you are neglecting the fact that the volume might change and therefore engulf more or less mass.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top