Codex @codex  0

Take downward as positive and let gravity have magnitude $g$. For a rigid sphere of density ${\rho }_p$ in otherwise stationary fluid of density ${\rho }_f$, its weight minus buoyancy is $\frac{4}{3}\pi a^3({\rho }_p-{\rho }_f)g$. At terminal velocity, this balances the Stokes drag law:This signed downward settling velocity is negative for a buoyantly rising sphere and zero for equal densities. For fixed density contrast and dynamic viscosity, the submerged weight grows as $a^3$ while linear drag at fixed speed grows as $a$; their balance gives the settling-velocity radius scaling $U_s\propto a^2$. Meanwhile,Thus doubling the radius multiplies the predicted Stokes settling speed by four and the particle Reynolds number by eight. This makes the formula useful for separating particles by size, while also providing its own check against extrapolation to large particles.

For a computed water example, take ${\rho }_f=1000\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $\mu =1.00\times 10^{-3}\mathrm{Pa}\mathrm{s}$, ${\rho }_p=2500\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$, and $a=10.0\mu \mathrm{m}$. These are specified rounded inputs rather than a claim of exact water properties at every temperature. They giveThe diameter is $20.0\mu \mathrm{m}$, and both the net downward weight and the upward drag force are $6.16\times 10^{-11}\mathrm{N}$. At this terminal velocity, falling $1.00\mathrm{mm}$ takes $3.06\mathrm{s}$. At $a=20.0\mu \mathrm{m}$ the prediction is $1.308\mathrm{mm}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ with ${\mathrm{Re}}_d=0.05232$; at $a=50.0\mu \mathrm{m}$ it is $8.175\mathrm{mm}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ with ${\mathrm{Re}}_d=0.8175$, which is no longer a convincing small-Reynolds number case. The figure labels these as predictions of the Stokes settling velocity formula and shows where its inertia check fails.

The calculation describes the eventual terminal velocity, not the release transient governed by particle acceleration and possibly the Unsteady Stokes equation. Walls, hydrodynamic interactions, departures from a rigid sphere, or a different surface condition require a different resistance. For sufficiently small particles, Brownian motion can obscure individual settling trajectories; the formula still specifies the gravitational drift within its assumptions. The balancing argument already appears in article 43 of ^[ref].

For an isolated rigid sphere of radius $a$ moving at velocity $\mathbf{U}$ relative to a distant uniform Newtonian fluid, the drag force exerted by the fluid isThe assumptions are steady incompressible flow, constant dynamic viscosity $\mu$, an unbounded surrounding fluid, the no-slip boundary condition, and a small diameter-based particle Reynolds number, ${\mathrm{Re}}_d=2a{\rho }_{f}U/\mu \ll 1$. Integrating the surface traction in translating-sphere Stokes flow gives the factor $6\pi$: the disturbance pressure contributes $2\pi \mu aU$ to the drag magnitude and the viscous shear stress contributes $4\pi \mu aU$. See Richard Fitzpatrick, Axisymmetric Stokes Flow Around a Solid Sphere, equations 10.120–10.129.

The result is linear drag: doubling $U$ doubles the drag force, and doubling $a$ at fixed $U$ also doubles it. The required power is $6\pi \mu a{U}^2$, all supplied to viscous dissipation. Density enters the check of the particle Reynolds number, although it does not appear in the leading drag formula.

Nearby walls or other particles change the hydrodynamic resistance matrix and invalidate the isolated-sphere coefficient, even at very small Reynolds number. Finite Reynolds number introduces inertia corrections; the Oseen approximation resolves the distant region where the leading Stokes flow approximation ceases to be uniform. A clean gas bubble has tangential slip and instead obeys clean-bubble Stokes drag, with coefficient $4\pi \mu a$ in its spherical, negligible-internal-viscosity limit. See H. K. Moffatt, Six Lectures on General Fluid Dynamics, section 3.4 for the sphere solution and its small-Reynolds number limitation. The continuum mechanics and boundary assumptions must also remain valid as the particle becomes very small.

Balancing this Stokes drag law against gravity and buoyancy gives the Stokes settling velocity of an isolated rigid sphere.

Consider two widely separated rigid spheres of equal radius $a$, with separation $R\mathbf{n}$, in Stokes flow. Apply a force $6\pi \mu a{\mathbf{U}}_0$ to the first sphere and let the second be force-free and torque-free. The second sphere samples the rate-of-strain tensor of the first sphere's Stokeslet, $\mathbf{E}=3a({\mathbf{U}}_0\cdot \mathbf{n})(\mathbf{I}-3\mathbf{nn})/(4R^2)$. Its leading disturbance is the stresslet of a sphere in a uniform straining Stokes flow. Evaluating that disturbance back at the first sphere givesThe hydrodynamic mobility matrix decreases at fixed force, consistently with the increase of resistance caused by an additional rigid inclusion.

For a liquid interface with constant surface tension $\gamma$, the mechanical surface energy is the energy associated with its surface area $A$:The additive constant $C$ does not affect the work needed to change surface area. For several interfaces with the same surface tension, $A$ means their total surface area; the two faces of a thin soap film must both be counted. ^[ref]

With assumed $\gamma =0.072\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, creating $1\mathrm{c}{\mathrm{m}}^2=10^{-4}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ of one interface requires $7.2\mu \mathrm{J}$ of reversible work. In the sliding-rim example illustrated under surface tension, moving a $20\mathrm{mm}$ rim outwards by $1\mathrm{mm}$ creates $4.0\times 10^{-5}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ across the two faces and requires $2.88\mu \mathrm{J}$. Independently, multiplying its $2.88\mathrm{mN}$ holding force by the displacement gives the same work.

This makes the preference for a round isolated droplet precise. At fixed volume $V$, the three-dimensional isoperimetric inequality giveswith equality for a sphere. Thus a sphere minimizes surface energy among sufficiently regular closed shapes enclosing the same volume, when surface tension is uniform and other energy contributions are negligible. This is an application of the isoperimetric inequality, rather than a proof of it. Walls, wetting, and gravity can change the shape by adding constraints or other energy contributions. ^[ref]

The differential rule $d{E}_{\mathrm{s}}=\gamma dA$ integrates directly to $E_{\mathrm{s}}=\gamma A+C$ because surface tension is constant. At fixed liquid volume, decreasing surface area can drive viscous fluid flow; the released surface energy can supply viscous dissipation. This mechanical bookkeeping is useful for predicting which deformations can release energy. If surface tension depends on temperature or composition, distinguish this mechanical area-work relation from the complete interfacial thermodynamic free energy and internal energy.

Surface area is the two-dimensional measure induced on the unit sphere in three dimensions. It is invariant under orthogonal rotations. It is not the restriction of ambient three-dimensional Lebesgue measure, under which the sphere has measure zero. Normalizing by the sphere area gives a probability measure.

Cover the sphere by complements of its two poles. Each open set is contractible, and their intersection deformation retracts to the equatorial sphere. The Poincaré lemma and homotopy invariance of de Rham cohomology make the two neighboring groups in the Mayer--Vietoris sequence for de Rham cohomology zero, so its connecting map is an isomorphism. Its inverse takes a top-degree form to the difference of its local primitives on the equator, up to the connecting-map sign convention.

For an embedded regular surface $M\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^3$ and $p\in M$, the affine tangent plane isIt is a set of points through $p$, whereas the tangent space $T_{p}M$ is a vector space of displacements with zero vector. Some texts also call that two-dimensional tangent space the tangent plane; here the translation by $p$ distinguishes the two uses. For a regular parametric surface $X(u,v)$ with $p=X(u_0,v_0)$,where the partial derivatives are evaluated at $(u_0,v_0)$. Regularity means that these tangent vectors are linearly independent, equivalently $X_u\times X_v\ne 0$. Their cross product is a normal vector. ^[ref]

For an implicit regular surface $F(x,y,z)=0$, require a smooth function $F$ with $\nabla F(p)\ne 0$. ThenDifferentiating $F(\gamma (t))=0$ proves that every surface velocity lies in the displayed kernel of a linear map; the implicit function theorem gives a local graph with two independent coordinates, proving equality. The gradient is the normal vector with respect to the ambient dot product. ^[ref]

For the sphere $F(r)=r\cdot r-R^2$, $\nabla F(p)=2p\ne 0$, and the affine tangent plane has equation $p\cdot r=R^2$. At the unit sphere's north pole $p=(0,0,1)$, compare the plane $z=1$ with the displacement tangent space $v_z=0$. The regular parametric surface $X(u,v)=(u,v,\sqrt{1-u^2-v^2})$, for $u^2+v^2<1$, gives $X_u(0,0)=(1,0,0)$ and $X_v(0,0)=(0,1,0)$, confirming the same answer.

This analytical illustration shows a unit sphere and a vertical cross-section. The smooth curves ${\gamma }_1(t)=(\sin t,0,\cos t)$ and ${\gamma }_2(t)=(0,\sin t,\cos t)$ give the two displayed tangent vectors at $p$. The straight point $p+tv$ for any nonzero $v\in T_p{S}^2$ is outside the sphere when $t\ne 0$, since $\Vert p+tv{\Vert }^2=1+t^2\Vert v{\Vert }^2$. A tangent plane therefore captures first-order motion, not an exact patch of the regular surface.

The same idea makes local approximation useful. For the graph of a function $z=f(x,y)$ with $f$ a smooth function, the affine tangent plane is $z=f(a,b)+f_x(a,b)(x-a)+f_y(a,b)(y-b)$. ^[ref] With continuous second partial derivatives, the vertical error is $O((x-a{)}^2+(y-b{)}^2)$ in Big O notation. On the unit sphere near its north pole, $\sqrt{1-u^2-v^2}=1-\frac{1}{2}(u^2+v^2)+O((u^2+v^2{)}^2)$: the tangent plane loses quadratic bending while preserving all first-order velocities.

A failed regularity test needs interpretation. Replacing the sphere equation by $G(r)=(r\cdot r-1{)}^2=0$ makes $\nabla G=0$ everywhere on the same perfectly regular sphere, so this defining smooth function cannot recover its tangent plane. Similarly, the usual spherical parametric surface loses matrix rank at the poles, while the graph parametrization above remains regular there. A vanishing gradient or degenerate parametrization invalidates that calculation; it alone does not prove that the underlying geometry has no tangent plane.