Is the Continuity Equation a Restatement of Gauss' Divergence Theorem?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ballzac
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Divergence
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The continuity equation is fundamentally distinct from Gauss' divergence theorem, although it relies on the theorem for its derivation. The continuity equation expresses local conservation of mass within a material system, transitioning from a Lagrangian to an Eulerian perspective. The derivation involves five key steps, including the application of Reynolds' transport theorem and Gauss' divergence theorem, ultimately leading to the formulation of the continuity equation as \(\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{D\rho}{dt}=-\nabla\cdot\vec{v}\). This equation is applicable in both classical and quantum contexts, specifically addressing the continuity of probability current.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the continuity equation in fluid dynamics
  • Familiarity with Gauss' divergence theorem
  • Knowledge of Reynolds' transport theorem
  • Basic concepts of Lagrangian and Eulerian perspectives in fluid mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the continuity equation in fluid dynamics
  • Explore applications of Gauss' divergence theorem in various physical contexts
  • Learn about Reynolds' transport theorem and its implications in fluid mechanics
  • Investigate the continuity equation's role in quantum mechanics and probability current
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in physics, particularly those focused on fluid dynamics and quantum mechanics, as well as researchers interested in the mathematical foundations of conservation laws.

ballzac
Messages
100
Reaction score
0
I have followed a derivation of the continuity equation, and it uses the divergence theorem at some point, but looking at the actual meaning of the equation, it almost seems like it is saying the same thing as the theorem. That is, local conservation. So my question is...

Can the continuity equation be considered a formulation of Gauss' divergence theorem?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There are 5 distinct steps in the derivation of the continuity equation:

1. Conservation of mass for EVERY particle-based (i.e), material system.
A material system consists of the SAME particles throughout the observation period.

Thus, for an arbitrary material system with density p, and occupying spatial region V_{M}(t), with volume V(t), we have:
0=\frac{d}{dt}\int_{V_{M}}\rho{dV} (1), where we sum up the masses for the whole spatial region.
The mass conservation principle for material systems is AXIOMATIC in classical physics (it is, as it happens, untrue; a material system under the influence of relativistic effects, for example, may well experience changes in its mass!)
2. Transition from a material system perspective, to a coincident geometric perspective:
A material system, which labels its constituent particles and tracks them meticulously over time is a rather cumbersome way of dealing with the time evolution of a continuum.
Generally, we prefer to use a GEOMETRIC perspective, in that we keep under control and designation a particular geometrical region, IRRESPECTIVE of whether individual particles choose to remain within that region, or choose to to leave (or enter) it.

(We call the material approach "Lagrangian", the geometric approach "Eulerian").

Thus, we are no longer concerned with individual particle quantities per se, like particle density, particle velocity, and so on; rather, we are interested in the evolution of FIELD quantities, i.e, the evolution of the density field and the velocity field.

The field density function, \rho(x,y,z,t), is then related to to the material density distribution as being equal at a particular time t to the density to whichever material particle that happens to be at (x,y,z) at the time t. Time evolution of the density function, then, must be understood as the difference in density of the DIFFERENT particles occupying (x,y,z) at different times. ((x,y,z) itself, of course, must be understood as the centre of a tiny region over which we have averaged quantities).

At any time t, the region occupied by some material system is clearly coincident with some geometrically defined region V_{G}(t), whose surface velocity is defined as \vec{v}_{s}(x,y,z,t). A fixed geometric region has surface velocity 0 everywhere, and we'll use that in the following.

Thus, (1) may be rewritten as:
0=\frac{d}{dt}\int_{V_{G}}\rho{dV}(2) where with a slight abuse of notation, I have retained dV as designating the (geometric) volume element, and the same letter for material and geometric density functions.

3. DIfferentiation of the integral.
This is given by Reynold's transport theorem, i.e we generally have:
\frac{d}{dt}\int_{V_{G}}\rho{dV}=\int_{V_{G}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial{t}}dV+\int_{S_{G}}\rho\vec{v}\cdot\vec{n}dA(3), where S_G is the surface of the region, and dA the area element.

Thus, inserting (3) in (2), we get:
0= \int_{V_{G}}\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial{t}}dV+\int_{S_{G}}\rho\vec{v}\cdot\vec{n}dA(4)

Note that this simply says that the increase of mass within the specified region (first integral) must balance the outward mass flux (second integral).
That this should be equivalent to the mass conservation principle should be obvious.

4. Application of Gauss' divergence theorem.
This is now utilized on the second integral on the left hand side of (4):
\int_{S_{G}}\rho\vec{v}\cdot\vec{n}dA=\int_{V}_{G}\nabla\cdot{(\rho\vec{v})}dV(5)
Adding together the volume integrals we now have, we get by manipulations:
0=\int_{V_{G}}\rho(\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{D\rho}{dt}+\nabla\cdot\vec{v})dV,\frac{D\rho}{dt}\equiv\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial{t}}+\vec{v}\cdot\nabla\rho(6)
where \frac{D\rho}{dt} is called the material derivative of \rho

5.Use of arbitrariness of chosen region.
Now, since (6) is to hold for any, and every region, the integrand has to equal 0 everywhere.

Therefore, since \rho is not, in general zero everywhere, the continuity equation follows:
\frac{1}{\rho}\frac{D\rho}{dt}=-\nabla\cdot\vec{v}(8)


So, as answer to your question:
No, the continuity equation is not merely Gauss' theorem in disguise, but it certainly depends on it for its own validity!
 
Firstly, wow! You really went above and beyond give me a thoughtful and comprehensive response, so thank you very much. Secondly, I meant to post this in the quantum forum, as that is what I am studying at the moment. Of course having understood the majority of your post, I also see that this will hold for the quantum case where it is continuity of probability current that is being being described by the equations.

So, if we were to make a measurement that violated the continuity equation, could we also say that gauss' divergence theorem has failed? Or could the discrepency arise from somewhere else? I guess this is one of those 'If unicorns existed, what colour would they be?' kind of question, so I'm not sure if it is really a valid question, but I thought I'd put it out there.
 
ballzac said:
Firstly, wow! You really went above and beyond give me a thoughtful and comprehensive response, so thank you very much.
No problem. :smile:
Secondly, I meant to post this in the quantum forum, as that is what I am studying at the moment. Of course having understood the majority of your post, I also see that this will hold for the quantum case where it is continuity of probability current that is being being described by the equations.

So, if we were to make a measurement that violated the continuity equation, could we also say that gauss' divergence theorem has failed?
Absolutely not. Empiricism has no place in judging the validity of mathematical propositions!

Rather, it would testify either of two things:
a) The measurement was false
b) The measurement is correct, but the conditions required for the appliciability of Gauss' theorem are not present. (I.e, you have a case of misapplication)

Which of these would be the right one in your particular case, I don't know.
 
yep. Makes sense.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
919
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
591
Replies
28
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
35K