This paper illustrates how an experimental discovery can prompt the search for a theoretical explanation and also how obtaining such an explanation can provide heuristic benefits for further experimental discoveries. The case considered begins with the discovery of Poiseuille’s law for steady fluid flow through pipes. The law was originally supported by careful experiments, and was only later explained through a derivation from the more basic Navier–Stokes equations. However, this derivation employed a controversial boundary condition and also relied on a contentious approach to viscosity. By comparing two editions of Lamb’s famous Hydrodynamics textbook, I argue that explanatory considerations were central to Lamb’s claims about this sort of fluid flow. In addition, I argue that this treatment of Poiseuille’s law played a heuristic role in Reynolds’ treatment of turbulent flows, where Poiseuille’s law fails to apply.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
This law is sometimes called the Hagen–Poiseuille law due to Hagen’s priority in discovering it. See Sect. 3 for some discussion.
Another episode of this sort is emphasized by Heidelberger: early in the twentieth century Prandtl “found a way to bring together the purely empirical engineering tradition of hydraulics and the purely theoretical mathematical tradition of rational mechanics as it had developed in the 18th century” (Heidelberger 2006, p. 50). See also (Darrigol 2005, ch. 7) for more on Prandtl as well as Darrigol (2008) for Darrigol’s discussion of the philosophical import of this history.
Lamb (1879), p. 5.
See Darrigol (2005), pp. 135–140 for discussion of Stokes.
See Kundu and Cohen (2008), pp. 6–8, pp. 100–104 for some discussion.
See, e.g., the discussion of Regnault in Chang (2004, pp. 96–102).
All page references to these papers are from the reprinted versions in Reynolds (1901).
Reynolds varied the viscosity by varying the temperature of the fluid.
This shift in Lamb’s treatment of the no slip boundary condition is noted by Day (1990).
Lamb also here notes the work by Maxwell on the kinetic theory of gases that informed the note to the 1879 edition that I discuss below in Sect. 5. This note, however, does not appear in the 1895 edition.
I am grateful to an anonymous referee for urging me to make clearer the links between this case and the accounts of explanation offered by Hempel and Kitcher.
See Bangu (2020) for another recent contribution to this debate.
The second sentence and the note are removed in the 1895 edition.
Lamb here notes that he is following Maxwell’s 1867 paper “On the Dynamical Theory of Gases”, which is reprinted in Maxwell (1890).
See Launder (2014) for some discussion of Lamb’s reactions to Reynolds’ theoretical innovations in an 1895 paper. Lamb emphasizes that the transition to turbulence is “the chief outstanding difficulty of our subject” (Lamb 1895, p. 572), and notes Reynolds’ proposal without endorsing it (Lamb 1895, p. 579). See Darrigol (2005, pp. 260–262) for some discussion.
Bangu, S. (2020). Mathematical explanations of physical phenomena. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, forthcoming.
Baron, S. (2019). Mathematical explanation by law. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 70, 683–717.
Bogen, J., & Woodward, J. (1988). Saving the phenomena. The Philosophical Review, 97, 303–352.
Bokulich, A. (2017). Models and explanation. In L. Magnini & T. W. Bertolotti (Eds.), Springer handbook of model-based science (pp. 103–118). Berlin: Springer.
Chang, H. (2004). Inventing temperature: measurement and scientific progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Darrigol, O. (2005). Worlds of flow: a history of hydrodynamics from the Bernoullis to Prandtl. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Darrigol, O. (2008). Empirical challenges and concept formation in the history of hydrodynamics. Centaurus, 50, 214–232.
Day, M. A. (1990). The no-slip condition of fluid dynamics. Erkenntnis, 33, 285–296.
Heidelberger, M. (2006). Applying models in fluid dynamics. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 20, 49–67.
Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.
Kitcher, P. (1989). Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In P. Kitcher & W. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific explanation (pp. 410–505). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Kundu, P. K., & Cohen, I. M. (2008). Fluid mechanics (4th ed.). Cambridge: Academic Press.
Lamb, H. (1879). A treatise on the mathematical theory of the motion of fluids. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lamb, H. (1895). Hydrodynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Langhaar, H. L. (1951). Dimensional analysis and theory of models. Hoboken: Wiley.
Launder, B. E. (2014). Horace Lamb & Osborne Reynolds: Remarkable Mancunians ... and their interactions. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 530, 012001.
Love, A. E. H., & Glazebrook, R. T. (1935). Sir Horace Lamb, 1849–1934. Obituary Notices of the Fellows of the Royal Society, 1, 374–392.
Maxwell, J. C. (1890). The scientific papers of James Clerk Maxwell (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Milnor, W. R. (1989). Hemodynamics (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Williams and Wilkins.
Pincock, C. (2021). A defense of truth as a necessary condition on scientific explanation. Erkenntnis, forthcoming.
Poiseuille, J. L. M. (1846). Recherches expérimentales sur le mouvement des liquides dans les tubes de très-petits diamètres. Mémoires presentés par divers savants à l’Académie Royale des Sciences de l’Institut de France, 9, 433–544.
Potochnik, A. (2017). Idealization and the aims of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rayleigh, J. W. S. (1900). Scientific papers (Vol. II, 1881–1887). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reynolds, O. (1901). Papers on mechanical and physical subjects (Vol. II, 1881–1900). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salmon, W. (1989). Four decades of scientific explanation. In P. Kitcher & W. Salmon (Eds.), Scientific explanation (pp. 3–219). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Sutera, S. P., & Skalak, R. (1993). The history of Poiseuille’s law. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 25, 1–19.
Whetham, W. C. D. (1890). On the alleged slipping at the boundary of a liquid in motion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 181, 559–582.
Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen: a theory of causal explanation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
This case was central to a paper presented during a symposium at the Pacific Division Meeting of the American Philosophical Association in March 2016 and the Philosophy Colloquium at the Leibniz Hannover University in June 2016. I am grateful to both audiences for their feedback, especially Alisa Bokulich, Uljana Feest, Mathias Frisch and Michael Strevens. This paper was substantially revised for this special issue. I am very much indebted to the two anonoymous referees and the editors for their help in developing the paper for publication.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article belongs to the topical collection ”Explanatory and Heuristic Power of Mathematics”, edited by Sorin Bangu, Emiliano Ippoliti, and Marianna Antonutti.
About this article
Cite this article
Pincock, C. The derivation of Poiseuille’s law: heuristic and explanatory considerations. Synthese (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03306-1
- Fluid dynamics