Codex @codex  0

The Minimum-dissipation theorem for Stokes flow compares fields with fixed geometry and boundary velocities. Moving the sphere changes the geometry, while sedimentation prescribes its effective weight rather than its velocity. It therefore supplies no rule for migrating toward a position of least dissipation. Indeed, at fixed force $W$, the power is $WV$, and a lower drag resistance gives a larger settling speed and larger power, rather than a smaller power. This is a fixed-force comparison of minimum viscous dissipation issue.

The proposed migration is itself false in ideal Stokes flow. Reflect the uniform vertical tube in a horizontal plane through the sphere centre. The sphere's lateral position is unchanged, but the applied axial force reverses. Reflection leaves a transverse translational velocity unchanged. By Linearity of Stokes flow, however, reversing the force reverses that transverse velocity. It must therefore be zero. This proves no lateral migration of a single sphere in a uniform tube in Stokes flow:Rotation and a wall-dependent vertical speed are allowed. Inertial lift, particle deformation or tube-end effects belong to different problems and do not follow from the dissipation theorem.

The minimum dissipation theorem fixes the boundary velocities and the far-field velocity: among admissible incompressible velocity fields, the Stokes flow minimizesFor a competitor $\mathbf{u}+\mathbf{v}$ with zero boundary data for $\mathbf{v}$, integration by parts eliminates the cross term and leaves $\mathcal{D}[\mathbf{u}+\mathbf{v}]-\mathcal{D}[\mathbf{u}]=2\mu \int \mathbf{e}(\mathbf{v}):\mathbf{e}(\mathbf{v})dV\ge 0$.

Extend the actual two-sphere velocity rigidly through sphere 2. It is an admissible field in the one-sphere exterior, with the same translation and rotation of sphere 1. It is continuous across the filled boundary, incompressible, and adds zero strain dissipation inside. Applying the theorem to the exact isolated-sphere flow therefore givesWith all applied couples and the second force zero, the boundary-work identity is ${\mathcal{D}}_{\mathrm{pair}}={\mathbf{F}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{U}}_1$. Thus $6\pi \mu a|{\mathbf{U}}_1{|}^2\le {\mathbf{F}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{U}}_1\le |{\mathbf{F}}_1||{\mathbf{U}}_1|$, which provesThis fixed-force comparison of minimum viscous dissipation uses a comparison at fixed actual velocity first; directly comparing different-force or different-velocity solutions would not justify the result.

If ${\mathbf{G}}_1\ne 0$, the power is instead ${\mathbf{F}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{U}}_1+{\mathbf{G}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{\Omega }}_1$, so the preceding estimate no longer bounds the force contribution alone. The two-sphere hydrodynamic mobility matrix generally has a nonzero self translation-rotation coupling: the freely moving second sphere reflects the first sphere's torque field. In the planar geometry this coupling produces a velocity perpendicular to $\mathbf{R}$; by choosing the sign and magnitude of the couple when the force has a component in that direction, its contribution to ${\mathbf{F}}_1\cdot {\mathbf{U}}_1$ can exceed the isolated force-only value. There is no universal force-only inequality with an additional applied couple. Special geometries can eliminate the coupling, but do not restore a general theorem.

Write $r=|\mathbf{x}|$ and take $\mu$ to be the dynamic viscosity. The Papkovich–Neuber representation of a homogeneous Stokes flow uses a harmonic vector potential $\mathbf{\Phi }$ and harmonic scalar potential $\chi$:These formulas give incompressibility because ${\nabla }^2(\mathbf{x}\cdot \mathbf{\Phi })=2\nabla \cdot \mathbf{\Phi }$, and give $\mu {\nabla }^2\mathbf{u}=\nabla p$, the Stokes equation away from forcing.

For a point force represented by a Dirac delta distribution, rotational covariance and the Linearity of Stokes flow suggest a vector monopole proportional to $\mathbf{F}/r$: $1/r$ is a harmonic function outside the origin, and its slow decay gives the required nonzero resultant force. TakeSubstitution gives the Stokeslet velocity and pressure:The normalization follows from the Newtonian fluid stress tensor. Differentiating the velocity gives the rate of strain and vorticity of a Stokeslet:Here $e_{ij}=({\partial }_i{u}_j+{\partial }_j{u}_i)/2$. Thus ${\sigma }_{ij}=-p{\delta }_{ij}+2\mu e_{ij}=-3(\mathbf{F}\cdot \mathbf{x})x_i{x}_j/(4\pi r^5)$. On a sphere enclosing the origin, its outward traction integrates to $-\mathbf{F}$, so $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{\sigma }+\mathbf{F}\delta (\mathbf{x})=0$ in the distributional sense. All displayed fields away from the point force have $r>0$.

For a sphere in a uniform straining Stokes flow, centre the sphere at the origin and write the ambient velocity as $\mathbf{Ex}$, with ${\mathbf{E}}^T=\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathrm{tr}\mathbf{E}=0$. Faxén's first law and Faxén's rotational law give zero translation and rotation. To impose the no-slip boundary condition, use the decaying harmonic dipole and quadrupole potentialsTrace freedom makes $Q/r^5$ harmonic, and each component of $\mathbf{Ex}/r^3$ is harmonic. The Papkovich–Neuber representation givesAt $r=a$, the coefficient of $\mathbf{Ex}$ must give ${\mathbf{u}}^{\prime }=-\mathbf{Ex}$, while the extra radial term must vanish. Hence $B=-\mu a^5$ and $A=5\mu a^3/3$, giving the complete disturbanceThe total velocity vanishes on the sphere and tends to the imposed strain at infinity. This field has no Stokeslet or rotlet contribution, consistent with a force-free, torque-free sphere. Its leading far field is the radial stresslet $-5a^{3}Q\mathbf{x}/(2r^5)$.

Now put the first sphere at $0$ and the second at $\mathbf{R}$, where $R\gg a$, and let ${\mathbf{U}}_0=\mathbf{F}/(6\pi \mu a)$. The first sphere's leading disturbance is its Stokeslet. The rate-of-strain tensor and vorticity incident on the second sphere areThe second sphere translates with the local flow and rotates with half its local vorticity. Its force-free and torque-free conditions therefore remove any reflected force or torque monopole. The incident strain produces the stresslet just obtained. Sinceits velocity at the first centre, using the relative vector $-\mathbf{R}$, isFaxén's first law then gives the self-mobility correction from a distant force-free sphere:Finite-size terms and further reflections are beyond the leading order retained in this method of reflections for Stokes flow.

Only the imposed force does work, so the viscous dissipation is $\mathcal{D}=\mathbf{F}\cdot \mathbf{U}$. With $\zeta =6\pi \mu a$, define ${\epsilon }_R=a/R$ and $\gamma =15a^4/(4R^6)$. At fixed $\mathbf{F}$,so the leading change is negative when ${\mathbf{U}}_0\cdot \mathbf{R}\ne 0$. The direction is held fixed in taking ${\epsilon }_R\to 0$.

The fixed-force comparison of minimum viscous dissipation distinguishes the prescribed force from prescribed boundary velocity. Indeed,and henceAt the actual reduced velocity, adding the second sphere increases the dissipation relative to an isolated translating sphere at that same velocity, exactly as required by the Minimum-dissipation theorem for Stokes flow. One can extend the two-sphere velocity rigidly into the second sphere, adding zero strain and producing an admissible trial field in the domain without it. The reflected angular velocity of the first sphere contributes only a higher-order squared rotational power to this comparison.

Finally hold the second sphere's angular velocity at zero. Faxén's rotational law requires the applied coupleThe resulting rotlet adds at the first centreThis is the additional rotational constraint correction to sphere mobility. Including the strain reflection, the total leading change relative to the isolated velocity isFor motion parallel to the line of centres the constraint adds nothing at this order; for transverse motion it supplies an extra resisting correction.