1

I think I'm losing something while I'm trying to understand how to prove the conservation law for the mass.

For example, Childress states (zipping passages at page 16):

Let us suppose that mass is being added or subtracted from space as a function $q(x, t)$. The conservation of mass in a fixed region $R$ can be expressed using Reynolds trasport theorem. Moreover, since \begin{equation} \frac{d}{dt} \int_R \rho \ dV = \int_R q \ dV \hspace{2cm}(1) \end{equation} we arrive to the divergence formula $$\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \vec\nabla\cdot (\rho \vec v) = q$$

Some questions:

  • Usually I see conservation of mass equation in the form $\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} + \vec\nabla\cdot (\rho \vec v) = 0$ so what that $q$ stands for?

  • Why does it hold equation $(1)$?

  • Other notes (for example this one at page 1) sometimes simply assume that $\frac{d}{dt} m = 0$ i.e. the mass is conserving. Wasn't our aim to prove this fact?


Edit: I'll write down what we have done in our course:

Introduction of notations: Let $B_0$ be a body that after a certain amount of time $t$ takes a different shape $B_t$. Supposing the change of shape is smooth enought into time, I used to call $M_t$ the deformation map which takes $B_0 \to B_t$.

Let's call with a $\sim$ an arbitrary volume, for example $\tilde{B}_0$ defines a part of volume of $B_0$. Then the conservation of mass says that $m(\tilde{B}_0) = m(\tilde{B}_t)$ for every time $t$ and every volume $\tilde{B}_0$.

Since $$m(\tilde{B}_0) = \int_{\tilde{B}_0} \rho(t,x)dV_0$$ we will see the map $M_t$ as a change of coordinates in multiple integrals: $$ \rho(0,x(0)) dV_0 = |J|\rho(t,x(t))dV_t \qquad (2)$$ where $|J|$ is the determinant of the jacobian of the trasformation, i.e. $J = \frac{dx(t)}{dx(0)}$

Taking the material derivative on both sides of $(2)$ we get $$0 = \dot{\rho}|J| + \rho |\dot{J}|$$ and isolating the $\dot{\rho}$: $$\dot{\rho} = -\dot{(\log|J|)}\rho$$

Then, using a cartesian form we arrive to the following equation: $$\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t} + (\vec{v}\cdot \vec{\nabla})\rho = -tr(\dot{J})\rho = -(\vec{\nabla}\cdot \vec{v})\rho$$

In conclusion, taking all to one side: $$\frac{\partial\rho}{\partial t} + \vec{\nabla}\cdot (\vec{v}\rho) = 0$$

Gabrielek
  • 1,898
  • Don't you mean "Usually conservation of mass equation is in the form"? (1) appears to be just a definition - a definition that seems to obscure the mathematical argument rather than help clarify it. Normally the conservation of mass is assumed and the continuity equation derived simply as consequence. But maybe there is more subtlety to be extracted from the mathematics which he is trying to get at (unsuccessfully I think). – James Arathoon Mar 03 '21 at 19:09
  • Yes, thank you for pointing out that error in my sentence and also thank you for having consoled me. In fact I have no problem assuming the Reynolds theorem and derive the equation of continuity. However I am looking for a proof for the conservation law of mass. Do you know where could I find it? I edit the question to write what we have done in our course but there is still some smoke that do not make me confortable with this proof. – Gabrielek Mar 03 '21 at 21:56
  • I just edited the question adding "a proof" as I wrote in the previous comment. I have serious problems following theese steps. If anyone can help me understanding what does it mean what I wrote (that is in madness if you think) I will appreciate. – Gabrielek Mar 03 '21 at 22:16
  • I found https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510013 which may be some help to you. Its beyond me at the present time, but has a proof in Appendix A which you can perhaps compare with the proof you've been given. – James Arathoon Mar 04 '21 at 00:29
  • Wow, that was exactly the proof we studied in our course for the convection theorem, but in general I think I made a little mess with "what proves what". Thank you for your time. – Gabrielek Mar 04 '21 at 09:17

0 Answers0