Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Einstein (1905) is often cited as giving the first widely accepted theoretical proof of
the existence of atoms and molecules by way of his studies into Brownian motion;
the following physical revolution made certain the idea that, at its most fundamental
level, nature is essentially discrete. All matter is composed of atoms, which in turn
are composed of subatomic particles, but mostly empty space. The continuum
hypothesis, however, has proved indispensible in mechanics for a number of
reasons. For many physical systems, it is reasonable to completely ignore the
molecular and atomic make-up of the structure under analysis; mathematically, the
assumption of a continuum allows for infinitesimal divisions of an object, permitting
the application of analysis and governing differential equations with continuous
solutions. Discrete mechanics requires either the interactions of mathematical
points of matter under the influence of continuous field, or of the application of
statistical methods. One might think that the mechanics of the discrete and the
continuous therefore naturally provide a clean partition of mechanics as a whole.
This is not the case. Maugin (2014) describes much of his work in Generalized
Continuum Mechanics as lying “between two a priori antagonistic occupations,”
being the discretization and continualization of specific physical problems. Instead
of these occupations being mutually disjoint, this author describes the two activities
as a “two-level back-and-forth mutual enriching,” as a dialectic approach which
motivates forward expansion in the single field of GCM. There have been numerous
attempts to blur the lines between these two approaches. Attempts have been made
to show that fundamentally discrete models (those that include a specific number of
discrete particles) obey the governing equations of continuum mechanics. On the
other hand, models that are fundamentally based in the continuum hypothesis have
included generalizations that phenomenologically mimic the microstructure of the
material. We will here recount some basic results of two specific examples, one for
each of these scenarios.
In 1950, J. H. Irving and John G. Kirkwood published a seminal paper in which the
authors derived the classical (continuum) equations of hydrodynamics from the
principles of statistical particle mechanics; in particular,
¶
r ( r, t ) = -Ñr × [ r (r, t)u(r, t)]
¶t
the Equation of Motion,
¶
¶t
[ ru] + Ñr × [ ruu] = X + Ñr × s
¶
E + Ñr × [ Eu + q - u ×s ] = 0
¶t
These are the classical equations derived from the classical theory of fluid dynamics,
where of course the fluid material is treated under the continuum hypothesis. The
authors treat a statistical-mechanical system of N molecules, each with 3
translational degrees of freedom. The instantaneous state of such a system is
described as a point in a 6N-dimensional phase space, representing the 3N
coordinates of the particles contained in position vectors (R1, R2..., RN ) and the 3N-
componenets of their momenta vectors ( p1, p2 ..., pN ) . It is derived that for an
arbitrary dynamical variable a ( R1...RN , p1...pN ) , the rate of change of the expectation
value of a is
¶ N
p
a ; f = å k ×ÑRka - ÑRkU ×Ñpka ; f
¶t k=1 mk
Note the use of the ordinary inner product within the phase space (there will be a
total of 6N integrations). This relation is then employed in showing that the
governing equations mentioned hold true for the statistical system of particles
analyzed in the phase space. We give as an example the derivation of the continuity
equation. Setting
N
a = å m jd (R j - r)
j=1
where d is the Dirac Delta-Function, we see that the following equality holds.
pk
×ÑRka - ÑRkU ×Ñpka = pk × ÑRkd (Rk - r) = -Ñr × [ pkd (Rk - r)]
mk
Then, from the derivation for the rate of change of expectation value of a , we see
that
¶ ¶ N
r ( r, t ) = a ; f = å -Ñr × éë pkd ( Rk - r )ùû ; f = -Ñr × [ r (r, t)u(r, t)]
¶t ¶t k=1
Then it is proved that the continuity equation is satisfied for the system of discrete
particles when analyzed statistically through the method of a phase space. The other
equations mentioned are proved valid by Irving and Kirkwood in a similar manner.
This result is our first example of a mutual enriching between the processes of
“discretization” and “continualization” as described by professor Maugin. These
results are comforting, in a sense. The general governing equations discussed, while
formulated as differential equations of functions of continuous variables, in fact
express laws of nature which are empirically verifiable. Since it is known that nature
is in a sense discontinuous or discrete, it is quite well that our discrete mathematical
models obey these laws as accurately as those that are constructed under the
continuum hypothesis.
ui = xi - Xi
Then, as Mindlin describes, we have, along with the usual linear-elastic strain e ij
there exists a micro-strain y (ij ) , the symmetric part of the micro-deformation tensor
y ij (using Mindlin’s notation). Corresponding to these definitions are the relative
deformation g ij = ¶iu j - y ij and the micro-deformation gradient xijk = ¶iy jk .
It can be imagined that the constitutive equations for this system will vary
considerably from the classical, “purely macroscopic” linear-elastic continuum.
Mindlin derives a potential energy density function from the above motion-
deformation components, which requires 18 independent coefficients, of the
following form:
1 1 1 1
W = le ii e jj + me ij e ij + b1g iig jj + b2g ijg ij + b3g ijg ji + g1g ii e jj
2 2 2 2
( ) 1
2
1
+g2 g ij + g ji e ij + a1 xiik xkjj + a2 xiik x jkj + a3 xiik x jjk + a4 xijj xikk + a5 xijj xkik
2
1 1 1 1 1
+ a8 xiji xkjk + a10 xijk xijk + a11 xijk x jki + a13 xijk xikj + a14 xijk x jik + a15 xijk xkji
2 2 2 2 2
¶W ¶W ¶W
t ij = t ji = , s ij = , mijk =
¶e ij ¶g ij ¶xijk
Works Cited:
4. Mindlin, R.D., Micro-structure in Linear Elasticity, Arch. Rat. Mech. Anal. 16,51-78
(1964)