- #1
genxium
- 141
- 2
First by "this derivation" I'm referring to an online tutorial: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336L/Fluidhtml/node9.html
It's said in the above tutorial that the ##i-th## component of the total torque acting on a fluid element is
##\tau_i = \int_V \epsilon_{ijk} \cdot x_{j} \cdot F_{k} \cdot dV + \int_V \epsilon_{ijk} \cdot \sigma_{kj} \cdot dV + \int_V \epsilon_{ijk} \cdot x_{j} \cdot \frac{\partial \sigma_{kl}}{\partial x_{l}} \cdot dV## -- (*)
where
##\epsilon_{ijk}## is the permutation tensor (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PermutationTensor.html),
##F_{i}## is the i-th component of the "volume force" acting on the fluid element
and ##\sigma_{ij}## is the "stress tensor" such that the i-th component of the total force acting on the fluid element is
##f_{i} = \int_V F_{i} \cdot dV + \oint_{S=\partial V} \sigma_{ij} \cdot dS_{j}##
The tutorial states that (slightly rephrased but tried to keep the same meaning)
from
where "the second term" means ##\int_V \epsilon_{ijk} \cdot \sigma_{kj} \cdot dV## in (*).
It's not obvious to me why "the second term" doesn't approximate ##0## when ##V \rightarrow 0## but instead induces absurdly large angular velocity as it "scales as ##V## and ##V \rightarrow 0##".
I understand that it's worth considering ##V \ll 1## thus ##V \gg V^{4/3}## but this is not convincing enough for me to take "the second term" to ##0## and yield the symmetry of ##\sigma_{ij}##. For example, I could argue that even if the ##x_j## factor satisfies ##x_j \ll 1##, i.e. fluid element very close to point ##O##, in the first and third terms, it only makes the first and third terms "small" but NOT necessarily makes the second term "large" especially when ##V \rightarrow 0##.
It's said in the above tutorial that the ##i-th## component of the total torque acting on a fluid element is
##\tau_i = \int_V \epsilon_{ijk} \cdot x_{j} \cdot F_{k} \cdot dV + \int_V \epsilon_{ijk} \cdot \sigma_{kj} \cdot dV + \int_V \epsilon_{ijk} \cdot x_{j} \cdot \frac{\partial \sigma_{kl}}{\partial x_{l}} \cdot dV## -- (*)
where
##\epsilon_{ijk}## is the permutation tensor (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PermutationTensor.html),
##F_{i}## is the i-th component of the "volume force" acting on the fluid element
and ##\sigma_{ij}## is the "stress tensor" such that the i-th component of the total force acting on the fluid element is
##f_{i} = \int_V F_{i} \cdot dV + \oint_{S=\partial V} \sigma_{ij} \cdot dS_{j}##
The tutorial states that (slightly rephrased but tried to keep the same meaning)
the second term must be identically zero (otherwise an infinitesimal fluid element would acquire an absurdly large angular velocity)
from
Assuming that point ##O## lies within the fluid element, and taking the limit ##V \rightarrow 0## in which the ##F_i##, ##\sigma_{ij}##, and ##\frac{\partial \sigma_{ij}}{\partial x_j}## are all approximately constant across the element, we deduce that the first, second, and third terms on the right-hand side of the above equation scale as ##V^{4/3}, V, V^{4/3}##, respectively (since ##x \sim V^{1/3}##). Now, according to Newtonian dynamics, the ##i-component## of the total torque acting on the fluid element is equal to the ##i-component## of the rate of change of its net angular momentum about ##O##. Assuming that the linear acceleration of the fluid is approximately constant across the element, we deduce that the rate of change of its angular momentum scales as ##V^{4/3}##(since the net linear acceleration scales as ##V##, so the net rate of change of angular momentum scales as ##xV##, and ##x \sim V^{1/3}##). Hence, it is clear that the rotational equation of motion of a fluid element, surrounding a general point ##O##, becomes completely dominated by the second term. It follows that the second term must be identically zero (otherwise an infinitesimal fluid element would acquire an absurdly large angular velocity)
where "the second term" means ##\int_V \epsilon_{ijk} \cdot \sigma_{kj} \cdot dV## in (*).
It's not obvious to me why "the second term" doesn't approximate ##0## when ##V \rightarrow 0## but instead induces absurdly large angular velocity as it "scales as ##V## and ##V \rightarrow 0##".
I understand that it's worth considering ##V \ll 1## thus ##V \gg V^{4/3}## but this is not convincing enough for me to take "the second term" to ##0## and yield the symmetry of ##\sigma_{ij}##. For example, I could argue that even if the ##x_j## factor satisfies ##x_j \ll 1##, i.e. fluid element very close to point ##O##, in the first and third terms, it only makes the first and third terms "small" but NOT necessarily makes the second term "large" especially when ##V \rightarrow 0##.