I Why volume is conserved but not the surface area?

Click For Summary
When a water droplet is divided into 1000 smaller droplets, the total volume remains conserved due to the conservation of mass and constant density, meaning the mass of water does not change. However, the surface area increases because the surface area of a sphere is proportional to the square of its radius, while the volume is proportional to the cube of its radius. As the radius of each smaller droplet decreases, the total surface area of all droplets increases significantly compared to the original droplet. This phenomenon occurs because smaller droplets have a higher surface area-to-volume ratio, leading to an overall increase in surface area upon division. Thus, while volume is conserved, surface area is not, illustrating the different mathematical relationships governing these properties.
  • #31
Adesh said:
Is it that density experiment (means density would not change) or something else?
No, it's what @jbriggs444 describes in Post #28.

Lavoisier did similar experiments in which he established conservation of mass.

Density is a concept derived from the concepts of mass and volume.
 
  • Like
Likes Adesh
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
With all this talk of dividing up water, I thought I might add this very satisfying video...

 
  • Like
Likes kuruman
  • #33
etotheipi said:
Thanks, I'll take a look! I hadn't come across the Lagrangian specification of a field before, but it seems fairly intuitive (quite similar conceptually to the ##\vec{\xi} = \vec{x}(t_0)##, ##\vec{x} = \chi(\vec{\xi}, t)## of continuum mechanics).
I'd recommend to start with the Lagrangian description of the electromagnetic field, which is simpler than fluid dynamics.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Adesh and etotheipi
  • #34
The conservation of mass is of course valid only in Newtonian physics. In relativistic physics the invariant mass (in the 21st century we only talk about invariant masses in relativistic physics anyway) of composite objects need not be conserved. E.g., in the fusion reactions of nuclei in the Sun the binding energy of the nucleons is not negligible compared to the masses and thus the masses of the nuclei are smaller than the sum of the masses of the protons and neutrons forming the nucleus. What's conserved here is energy. In relativistic physics there's no additional conservation law for mass.

Within Newtonian physics mass is conserved, and in continuum mechanics it is described by the continuity equation for the mass, i.e.,
$$\partial_t \rho + \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{j}=0, \quad \vec{j}=\rho \vec{v}.$$
This holds for both compressible as well as incompressible fluids (e.g., a gas which is easily compressed vs. liquids like water which are very hard to compress).

The question whether a fluid can be considered incompressible (which is always an approximation valid for not too large pressure) is quantifiable by the compressibility

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressibility

Particularly for water:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Compressibility
 
  • Like
Likes Adesh and etotheipi

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
4K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K