Codex @codex  0

Archimedes' principle states that buoyancy equals the downward gravitational weight, or weight, of the displaced fluid. In a resting fluid of constant mass density ${\rho }_f$ under uniform gravitational acceleration $g$, its magnitude isHere $V_{\mathrm{displaced}}$ is the volume from which the body excludes the fluid: the whole external volume for a fully immersed solid body, and just the immersed volume for a partly immersed one. The body's own mass does not enter this buoyancy formula. ^[ref]

A short proof outline for a fully immersed body is to imagine replacing it by exactly the fluid it displaces. The surrounding hydrostatic pressure is unchanged. That replacement fluid is at rest, so its upward pressure force must balance its downward force from gravity. The original body receives the same inward pressure forces on the same closed surface, hence the same upward buoyancy.

Equivalently, let $\Omega$ be the displaced region, $\partial \Omega$ its closed surface and ${\mathbf{e}}_z$ the upward unit direction. The divergence theorem, applied component by component to the surface integral, and hydrostatic pressure giveThis also explains why horizontal forces cancel even for an irregular shape. A spatially constant surface pressure contributes zero to the closed-surface integral. If the mass density varies with depth, replace ${\rho }_f{V}_{\mathrm{displaced}}$ by the mass ${\int }_{\Omega }{\rho }_{f}dV$ of the displaced fluid.

The closed-surface argument assumes that the fluid applies pressure over the entire boundary of a fully immersed body. A body sealing against a tank bottom may have no fluid beneath it; then the lower-face pressure force used in the proof is absent, and a supporting contact force must be treated separately. For partial immersion, the usual buoyancy formula assumes the exposed surface receives the common atmospheric pressure, neglects the much smaller buoyancy from the air, and neglects surface tension.

For the $0.10\mathrm{m}$ cube in the stipulated water, full immersion displaces $0.001{\mathrm{m}}^3$, so $F_b=1000\times 9.81\times 0.001=9.81\mathrm{N}$. If its uniform mass density is $600\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, its mass is $m=600\times 0.001=0.600\mathrm{kg}$ and its downward force from gravity is $mg=5.886\mathrm{N}$. To hold it fully immersed at rest requires an additional downward forceOn release from rest it initially moves upward; its eventual floating equilibrium has a smaller displaced volume. A same-size cube of uniform mass density $1200\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ has mass $1.200\mathrm{kg}$ and downward force from gravity $11.772\mathrm{N}$. Full immersion still gives $9.81\mathrm{N}$ of buoyancy, leaving an initial net downward force of $11.772-9.81=1.962\mathrm{N}$. Subsequent motion also involves drag.

A body force acts throughout a body's or fluid's volume, rather than only through its surface. Gravity is the example used in hydrostatic pressure: a gravitational field $\mathbf{g}$ gives force per unit volume $\rho \mathbf{g}$, where $\rho$ is the mass density. More generally, a body force per unit mass $\mathbf{f}$ contributes $\rho \mathbf{f}$ to momentum conservation. Forces from electromagnetism are another example. Surface pressure forces produce buoyancy on an immersed body, while its body force from gravity acts downward.

The Boltzmann distribution assigns probabilities to individual microstates in a canonical ensemble, a statistical ensemble for thermal contact. The system exchanges energy with a thermal reservoir at fixed positive absolute temperature $T$, while its particle number $N$ and external parameters, such as volume, stay fixed. The thermal reservoir is large enough that these exchanges barely change its temperature; the coupling permits thermal equilibrium but contributes negligible interaction energy. All the microstates considered have the same $N$. No chemical potential term is needed in their weights; fixed $N$ does not imply that the chemical potential is zero.

For a finite discrete set of microstates with energies $E_i$, writeHere $k_B$ is the Boltzmann constant, $\beta$ is the inverse temperature, $e^{-\beta E_i}$ is a Boltzmann factor, and $Z$ is the partition function. The Boltzmann factor is a weight; dividing by the partition function makes it a probability. ^[ref]

The useful surprise is that a fixed temperature still permits thermal fluctuations in the system's energy. The Boltzmann distribution predicts their probabilities and expected values without tracking every microscopic exchange. Its exponential function also makes rare excited microstates sensitive to temperature: an energy gap much larger than $k_{B}T$ gives strong Boltzmann suppression, while warming increases their relative populations. A population ratio can therefore reveal a gap or serve as a thermometer, provided thermal equilibrium and the relevant state degeneracies are known.

Historically, Josiah Willard Gibbs's Elementary Principles in Statistical Mechanics (1902) presents the canonical ensemble in Chapter IV. His equations 90–92 give an exponential function of energy and its normalization, in classical phase space. This classical formulation exhibits the same weighting principle. ^{[ref] [ref]}

Take $N=20$ distinguishable, labeled particles and two boxes of equal volume. Retain only whether each particle is in the left or right box: use a bit $0$ for left and $1$ for right. Each length-20 string is one coarse microstate of this toy model. Assume the labels make independent side choices with equal probability, so the $2^{20}=1048576$ strings are equiprobable. Equal volumes motivate these weights for noninteracting particles with no preference for either box; equal volumes alone would not establish them for an arbitrary interacting gas.

Now retain only the number $k$ in the left box as the macrostate. Choosing which $k$ labels are left gives a binomial coefficient, soThe factorials count assignments to labels; the probability of a macrostate sums the probabilities of its constituent microstates. This is the binomial distribution with parameters $20$ and $1/2$. The same binomial coefficient appears in the counting of distinguishable two-level systems, although here the macrostate records occupancy rather than energy. ^[ref]

The largest binomial coefficient occurs at $k=10$, the balanced macrostate. All-left means $k=20$ and supplies just one string. ThusThere are $184756$ balanced strings for every all-left string, even though each individual string has the same probability. Exact balance has about $17.6\%$ of the total probability; equilibrium reasoning concerns the many macrostates near balance too, rather than certainty of exactly ten particles on each side. The diagram compares the counts with their natural logarithms.

Four fair, independent coins give a smaller worked example with the same binomial distribution. If $k$ is the number of heads, the five macrostates $k=0,1,2,3,4$ contain respectively $1,4,6,4,1$ microstates. Their probabilities are respectively $1/16,4/16,6/16,4/16,1/16$. In particular, two heads is one macrostate containing six ordered coin sequences, with Boltzmann entropy $k_B\ln 6$ in this counting analogy. A prescribed ordered sequence has one realization. The next diagram enumerates the same sixteen strings as left/right assignments.

An external pressure changes the balance even if the system remains confined. For a material boundary acted on by spatially uniform inward pressure $P_s$, the surface force contributes $-P_s{\int }_{\partial \mathcal{V}}\mathbf{r}\cdot \mathbf{n}dS=-3P_s\mathcal{V}$, by the divergence theorem. For Newtonian gravitational potential energy, the finite-window identity becomesHere $\mathcal{V}$ is the enclosed volume, $\mathbf{n}$ the outward unit normal, and $K$ includes the microscopic translational kinetic energy of the confined particles. Do not also add the same random motions as a separate internal pressure term. A nonuniform external stress needs its surface integral; a fixed observational boundary crossed by matter also needs flux terms.^[ref]

With negligible surface pressure, the negative heat capacity of a virialized gravitational system follows from $E=-⟨K⟩$: after a slow loss of total energy and readjustment to virial equilibrium, the average kinetic energy rises. For fixed $N$ classical particles with three translational degrees of freedom, define kinetic temperature $\Theta$ by $⟨K⟩=3N{k}_B\Theta /2$. Along this isolated equilibrium sequence, $dE/d\Theta =-3N{k}_B/2$. The system contracts and its binding potential energy becomes more negative, supplying both the outgoing energy and the increased kinetic energy. This is an endpoint comparison, not a claim that every transient contraction obeys the average relation. A collisionless stellar system need not have a common thermodynamic temperature; a pressure-confined system instead has $E=-⟨K⟩+3⟨P_s\mathcal{V}⟩$. A stable canonical ensemble in contact with a large thermal reservoir does not support this negative heat capacity branch.^[ref]

Let $n\ge 1$ and let $A,B\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be nonempty Lebesgue measurable sets with finite Lebesgue measures. Assume that $A+B$ is also a Lebesgue measurable set; its measure may be infinite. ThenHere ${\lambda }_n$ denotes $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure in Euclidean space. Nonempty compact sets and nonempty open sets of finite measure satisfy the measurability assumptions. Measurability of arbitrary summands alone does not guarantee measurability of their Minkowski sum. The theorem does not require convexity. See R. J. Gardner, The Brunn-Minkowski Inequality (2002), Theorem 4.1 and the following remarks.

The $n$th root converts a volume into a quantity that scales like a length: uniform dilation gives ${\lambda }_n(tA{)}^{1/n}=t{\lambda }_n(A{)}^{1/n}$ for $t>0$. In the Euclidean plane the theorem compares square roots of areas, not the areas themselves. For the two rectangles above it reads $3\ge \sqrt{2}+\sqrt{2}=2\sqrt{2}$. Equivalently their sum has area $9\ge 8$. For the two disks, it reads $3\sqrt{\pi }=\sqrt{\pi }+2\sqrt{\pi }$, an equality. These are exact geometric examples, not measured data.

Applying the theorem to the scaled sets gives, whenever that sum is a Lebesgue measurable set,For convex bodies, this means the root-volume of the interpolated shape lies above the straight line between the input root-volumes. In fact $t\mapsto {\lambda }_n((1-t)A+tB{)}^{1/n}$ is a concave function on $[0,1]$: convexity gives $sA+tA=(s+t)A$ for $s,t\ge 0$, so interpolating two intermediate shapes gives another intermediate shape and the same inequality applies. The beauty is that no particular boundary shape appears in the bound: possible pointwise displacements force a minimum amount of space.

For convex bodies $A,B$, equality holds exactly when they are homothetic convex bodies, meaning $B=v+sA$ for some vector $v$ and $s>0$. This equality qualification is part of the Brunn-Minkowski theorem for convex bodies. ^[ref] For positive-sided axis-aligned rectangles, the comparison can be checked directly:Equality requires $ad=bc$: the rectangles must have the same aspect ratio. Our $2\times 1$ and $1\times 2$ rectangles do not. All positive-radius disks are homothetic convex bodies, explaining their equality.

Do not apply that equality criterion without its hypotheses. If $A=\{a\}$, its Lebesgue measure is zero and $A+B$ is a translation of $B$, so equality holds even for nonconvex $B$. Also, changing a summand on a null set can change the measure of its Minkowski sum: in one dimension, $A=[0,1]\cup \{3\}$ and $B=[0,1]$ both have measure $1$, but $A+B=[0,2]\cup [3,4]$ has measure $3$. Removing the single extra point restores equality with sum measure $2$. Thus merely being equal almost everywhere to homothetic convex bodies is not a sufficient equality test for arbitrary sets.

The Brunn-Minkowski theorem also bounds the collision-region volume: for positive-volume compact sets $O,R$, reflection preserves Lebesgue measure, so ${\lambda }_n(O+(-R){)}^{1/n}\ge {\lambda }_n(O{)}^{1/n}+{\lambda }_n(R{)}^{1/n}$. In the toy collision example this gives area at least $(2+\sqrt{2}{)}^2=6+4\sqrt{2}\approx 11.657$, compared with the exact area $12$. A lower bound alone does not identify safe reference positions; the actual Minkowski sum supplies those.

Buoyancy is the resultant upward force exerted by a resting fluid on an immersed body in a downward gravitational field. The fluid pushes inward, perpendicular to each part of the body's surface. Because hydrostatic pressure increases with depth, the upward push from below exceeds the downward push from above. Opposite horizontal forces cancel; buoyancy is the remaining vertical force. A sinking body still receives this upward support. ^[ref]

More precisely, pressure $p$ on a small surface of area $dA$ with outward unit normal vector $\mathbf{n}$ exertsThe minus sign says the force points into the body. On a cube, the top force points down, the bottom force points up, and the side forces cancel in pairs because opposite sides have the same pressure at each depth. This is a surface traction; gravity on the body itself is a separate body force. ^[ref]

For a computed example, stipulate resting water with constant mass density ${\rho }_f=1000\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and uniform gravitational acceleration $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$. A fully immersed cube has side $L=0.10\mathrm{m}$, top depth $h_t=0.20\mathrm{m}$ and bottom depth $h_b=0.30\mathrm{m}$. Each horizontal face has area $A=L^2=0.010{\mathrm{m}}^2$, and its volume is $V=L^3=0.001{\mathrm{m}}^3$. Its top and bottom gauge pressures areThe corresponding forces relative to the common surface pressure are $p_{g,t}A=19.62\mathrm{N}$ downward and $p_{g,b}A=29.43\mathrm{N}$ upward. Therefore the net buoyancy isUsing absolute pressures adds the same $p_{\mathrm{surface}}A$ to both face forces, leaving their difference unchanged. Zero gauge pressure at the surface does not mean zero absolute pressure. Increasing both depths by the same amount also leaves buoyancy unchanged in this constant-mass density model.

Archimedes' principle turns this calculation into a rule for bodies of any shape. It explains floating equilibrium and lets us infer an immersed body's volume from the difference between its force from gravity and the force needed to support it. In particular, buoyancy depends on the displaced volume and the surrounding mass density, whereas the body's own mass density decides how its force from gravity compares with that support.

For a Poisson random measure $\Pi$ with intensity $\mu$ and measurable nonnegative $h$, $\mathbb{E}\int hd\Pi =\int hd\mu$, allowing both sides to be infinite. For signed $h$, the same identity holds if $\int |h|d\mu <\infty$. This first-moment statement does not require square integrability. Applying it to a nonnegative volume mark gives the expected total volume in a marked Poisson model.

The capacitor energy is the electrostatic energy stored when electric charge is separated. For a linear capacitor of fixed positive capacitance $C$, plate electric charge magnitude $Q$, and terminal electric potential difference $V=Q/C$, it isThe zero is the uncharged state. Thus the capacitor energy is positive for nonzero $Q$, even though the total electric charge of the two plates is zero. ^[ref].

For the parallel-plate capacitor example, capacitance $C=8.854\times 10^{-11}\mathrm{F}$ and terminal electric potential difference $V=10\mathrm{V}$ giveThe plate electric charge magnitude is $Q=0.8854\mathrm{nC}$. Doubling terminal electric potential difference with capacitance unchanged doubles the plate electric charge magnitude and quadruples the capacitor energy.

The electric charge is a linear function of terminal electric potential difference, while capacitor energy is a quadratic function. The second curve in each plot uses twice the capacitance: at a given terminal electric potential difference, both plate electric charge magnitude and capacitor energy double. These relations let us calculate how much energy an electrical circuit can receive when a capacitor discharges.

A brief charging argument explains the factor $1/2$. If the plate electric charge magnitude has reached $q$, the terminal electric potential difference is $q/C$. Transferring a further amount $dq$ of electric charge quasistatically requires work $dW=(q/C)dq$. With the geometry and permittivity fixed, the integral isUsing $Q=CV$ gives the other two forms. This integral accounts for the gradually rising terminal electric potential difference; it is the work stored in the capacitor's electric field, rather than a claim that all energy drawn from a fixed-voltage battery during charging ends up stored.

The field picture gives the same result. In the vacuum gap of a parallel-plate capacitor, the electric field has energy density $u={ϵ}_0{E}^2/2$. Multiplying by the gap volume $Ad$ gives the electrostatic energyFor the worked example, $u=4.427\times 10^{-4}J/{\mathrm{m}}^3$ and $Ad=10^{-5}{\mathrm{m}}^3$ reproduce $U=4.427\mathrm{nJ}$. The electrostatic energy resides in the electric field throughout the gap, despite overall charge neutrality.

When capacitance changes, specify the constraint. At fixed plate electric charge magnitude $Q$, increasing capacitance decreases capacitor energy $Q^2/(2C)$; doubling capacitance halves it. At fixed terminal electric potential difference $V$, increasing capacitance increases capacitor energy $C{V}^2/2$; doubling capacitance doubles it. In the latter case a connected battery supplies additional electric charge and energy, and there may also be mechanical work. Use the fixed-voltage capacitor energy balance to account for all transfers before inferring a force from changing capacitor energy.

A simple motivating comparison is visible gas evolution from hydrogen peroxide, whose net chemical equation isThe products are water and oxygen. The Royal Society of Chemistry's teaching resource uses small test tubes and droppers, hydrogen peroxide labelled 5–10 volumes, solutions of metal salts including copper(II) sulfate, and approximately $1\mathrm{mol}{\mathrm{L}}^{-1}$ sodium hydroxide. Its qualitative procedure tests additions singly and in pairs to tubes containing about $1\mathrm{cm}$ depth of hydrogen peroxide. It reports the expected classroom result that the additions individually are not effective under those conditions, whereas the solids produced by mixing metal-salt solution with sodium hydroxide give effective heterogeneous catalysis. This is the resource's expected observation, not a newly measured ranking.^[ref]

A focused adaptation compares four matched tubes: no addition, copper(II) sulfate alone, sodium hydroxide alone, and the pair. Use equal initial hydrogen peroxide amounts, identical tubes and the same starting temperature. Record stock concentrations and added volumes; add water to the other tubes to match the total added liquid. Additions can first be checked without hydrogen peroxide to distinguish precipitation from gas evolution. Start a timer at contact, mix consistently, and observe gas evolution over the same interval. These matching controls are proposed improvements to the qualitative resource, not claimed details of its original trials. Follow its supervised chemical-handling requirements; the stated strengths describe its teaching protocol rather than an unrestricted recipe.

The immediate readout is relative bubbling, together with whether a solid appears. More vigorous bubbling in the paired tube supports faster conversion under the comparison conditions; it does not identify the solid's exact composition or establish a unique reaction mechanism. Bubble counts are not a calibrated reaction rate: bubble sizes, gas retention and warming can differ. For a quantitative extension, use a freely moving gas syringe to record collected volume $V(t)$ and compare early slopes $dV/dt$ at matched temperature and pressure; check for leaks and repeat runs. This extension is a measurement proposal, not source-reported gas traces.

The paired treatment also changes pH and produces a surface, so the four tubes alone cannot assign the whole effect to one microscopic catalytic step. A filtered-liquid comparison and a separated, washed-solid comparison would help distinguish dissolved and solid contributions, although washing itself can change the active material. More gas at one time establishes neither a changed equilibrium constant nor indefinite catalyst reuse. The open gas-evolution experiment is especially unsuitable as a demonstration that two closed mixtures reach the same chemical equilibrium: the escaping oxygen changes the constraints. The reversible model above supplies that separate explanation. No numerical experimental rate constants, barrier heights or gas volumes are asserted here.

At chemical equilibrium, a reversible chemical reaction has equal forward and reverse reaction rates, so its macroscopic composition stays constant. Individual molecules can keep changing identity: the reaction has not stopped. This dynamic balance is the definition described by the ^[ref]. Equal reaction rates also need not mean equal concentrations. A small population converting rapidly can balance a large population converting slowly.

This distinction gives two useful questions. Which composition is favored at the specified temperature and other constraints? Thermodynamics answers through chemical potentials and an equilibrium constant. How quickly does a prepared mixture approach that composition? Chemical kinetics answers through reaction rates. Knowing the destination does not determine the journey's duration. A composition that barely changes during observation may reflect extremely slow chemical kinetics, so constancy alone does not establish chemical equilibrium.

Consider the idealized elementary chemical reactionAssume a well-mixed closed system at fixed temperature and volume, with first-order law of mass action rates in both directions and no competing chemical reactions. Write $a=[\mathrm{A}]$ and $b=[\mathrm{B}]$ for concentrations in $\mathrm{M}=\mathrm{mol}/\mathrm{L}$. The total $a+b=C=1\mathrm{M}$ is conserved because each conversion replaces one molecule by one molecule. This conservation is special to the chosen stoichiometry.

The forward and reverse reaction rates, measured as conversions per unit volume per unit time, are $J_f=k_{f}a$ and $J_r=k_{r}b$. HenceSetting this derivative to zero givesWith $a(0)=1\mathrm{M}$ and $b(0)=0$, solving the ordinary differential equation yieldsAt $t=5\mathrm{s}$, these are approximately $0.3515\mathrm{M}$ and $0.6485\mathrm{M}$. Initially $J_f=0.3M/s$ and $J_r=0$. At chemical equilibrium, both are $0.075M/s$, while the net reaction rate $J_f-J_r$ is zero. The persistent exchange is visible in the lower panel even after the upper panel has nearly flattened.

Why does chemical equilibrium also involve a free energy minimum? For a closed system at fixed temperature and pressure, without imposed non-expansion work, stable equilibrium minimizes Gibbs free energy over compositions allowed by conserved elemental inventories. See W. C. Carter, MIT thermodynamics notes, sections 2-1.14 and 2-1.19. This is constrained Gibbs minimization for chemical equilibrium: freely minimizing over unrelated species amounts would change the inventory. At fixed temperature and volume, the appropriate potential is Helmholtz free energy. In either setting, varying an allowed extent of reaction gives the corresponding free energy slope ${\sum }_i{\nu }_i{\mu }_i$, with molar chemical potentials and signed stoichiometric vector entries. An interior equilibrium has zero slope; stability requires a minimum. For A converting to B, this says ${\mu }_{\mathrm{B}}={\mu }_{\mathrm{A}}$.

The beauty of this connection is that molecular exchange, a macroscopic composition, and a geometric minimum describe the same balance. In the ideal concentration model, let $x=b/C$ and choose the standard molar chemical potential difference consistent with $K=3$. Up to a composition-independent constant, the fixed-volume Helmholtz free energy then obeyswhere $n$ is the conserved total amount of substance and $R$ the molar gas constant. Its derivative is $\ln [x/(1-x)]-\ln 3$, vanishing at $x=3/4$. Its second derivative is $1/x+1/(1-x)>0$ inside $0<x<1$, so this balance is the unique minimum. The mixing entropy terms explain why the favored composition still contains A.