Why volume is conserved but not the surface area?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conservation of volume and surface area when a larger water droplet is divided into smaller droplets. Participants explore the principles of mass, volume, and surface area in the context of physical properties and geometric relationships, touching on theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates the gain in surface energy when a water droplet is divided into smaller droplets and questions why volume is conserved while surface area increases.
  • Another participant suggests that if mass is conserved and density is constant, then volume must also be conserved, implying that density does not change when splitting the droplet.
  • Some participants argue that the surface area is not a conserved quantity and that it depends on the shape of the object, noting that smaller objects tend to have larger surface area to volume ratios.
  • A participant proposes a thought experiment involving cutting a loaf of bread to illustrate that while mass and volume remain constant, surface area increases with each cut.
  • Several participants discuss the implications of hollow objects and how their volume may not be conserved in the same way as solid objects, raising questions about the definition of volume in different contexts.
  • Another participant provides a mathematical explanation of how the surface area changes when a larger droplet is divided into smaller spheres, showing the relationship between the radii of the original and daughter droplets.
  • Conceptual examples are shared, such as spreading a droplet into a thin film to illustrate how surface area can become arbitrarily large.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the conservation of volume and surface area, with some agreeing on the principles of mass and density while others challenge the assumptions regarding hollow objects and the nature of volume. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives presented.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the conservation of volume is contingent on the assumption of constant density, while the relationship between surface area and volume is influenced by the geometric shape of the objects involved. There are also discussions about the implications of different shapes on surface area calculations.

  • #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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: Adesh and etotheipi

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
5K
Replies
26
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K