How can simple physical "proofs" of mathematical facts be made rigorous? Mark Levi's The Mathematical Mechanic is a book of examples of how physical reasoning can be used to solve mathematical problems; another couple of examples is in this blog post at Concrete Nonsense.  Many of these proofs rely on conservation laws and other physical facts which, at least as I understand it, can be made rigorous by appealing to Noether's theorem.  So these proofs themselves ought to be presentable in a mathematically rigorous way.  But how?
There are many examples, so I will focus my question on two, one of which is in Levi's book and one of which I recently encountered on a friend's homework.


*

*Problem: prove the Pythagorean theorem.  Solution: imagine a fish tank in the shape of a triangular prism.  The triangle is a right triangle with side lengths $a, b, c$; call the vertices of the two copies of the triangle $A, B, C$ and $A', B', C'$, where the right angle is at $C$ (resp. $C'$).  Drive a rod through $BB'$ and fill the tank with water.  This system is at equilibrium (by conservation of... angular momentum?), so the net torque through the rod is zero.  On the other hand the net torque through the rod is proportional to $c^2 - a^2 - b^2$.

*Problem: on each face of a tetrahedron, not necessarily regular, place a vector pointing normal to and out from the face with magnitude equal to the area of the face.  Prove that the sum of these vectors is zero.  Solution: fill the tetrahedron with an ideal gas.  This system is at equilibrium (by conservation of... energy?), so the net force exerted by the gas on the tetrahedron is zero.  On the other hand the net force exerted on each face is proportional to its area and points normal to and out from each face.
As you can see, I'm not even totally clear what conservation law(s) I'm invoking at the crucial step of the physical arguments.  I would really appreciate mathematical insight into what's going on here.  
 A: Dear Qiaochu,
This is an interesting question.  One way to solve the second question is by applying
(some appropriate version of) Stokes's theorem.  You are integrating a unit normal over the surface of
the tetrahedron; it is a closed surface (or perhaps more relevantly, it is a boundary), so the answer is zero.
This interpretation of the second problem is essentially how one would mathematize the physics of flux, pressure, and so on, and, at least based on my experience in undergraduate physics
classes, this is in fact how physicists will think about it.  Of course, the converse applies,
namely, that when confronted with various surface integrals and so on, physicists have the ability to think of them in physical terms, as computing a flux or the like, and this gives
an insight into their meaning.  
As for the first problem, I'm a little worried that if one mathematizes it too much, the
proof will vaporize, because the mathematics of computing moments of inertia and so on is
surely going to involve many applications of Pythagoras's theorem.   On the other hand,
at least formally, I would guess that one can again set it up as some kind of Stokes's theorem type computation.
I guess the point of view that I am suggesting is that these conservation-law type arguments are mathematized by integral formulas of the Stokes's theorem type.
A: Both proofs in the question are of the following type. Suppose you want to prove a certain identity among numbers $X$, say $f(X)=0$. If you can find another function $g(X,Y)$ such that $f(X)=g(X,Y)$ for some $Y$. Then, proving that $g(X,Y)=0$ for this choice of $Y$, independent of $X$, automatically proves $f(X)=0$.
In the case of the Pythagorean theorem, $X=(a,b,c)$ are the dimensions of the triangular base of the water tank, $Y$ are all the other details of the physical setup and $g(X,Y)$ is the total torque about $BB'$ exerted on the tank. As long as $Y$ contains the fact that there are no torques acting on the tank other than the different parts of the tank acting on each other, physical law dictates that the total torque must be zero, hence $g(X,Y)=0$. The Kut-the-knot page linked from one of jc's comments shows why $g(X,Y)$ is proportional to $c^2-a^2-b^2$.
The case of the tetrahedron is similar, $X$ are the dimensions of the tetrahedron and $g(X,Y)$ is the total force acting on the gas container. The physical situation $Y$ is set up such that no forces act on the container external to the container itself, hence physical law dictates that the total force must be zero.
Now, what is it that allows us to conclude something about the value of $g(X,Y)$ in each case, given only $Y$ and independent of $X$? One way to think about it is to consider the physical world as a giant computer or oracle, $W$. If you set up a physical situation $Z$ and measure some observable quantity $G$, the world will give you a numerical answer $W(G,Z)$. The goal of physics, of course, is to build mathematical models of $W$, so that we don't have to consult the oracle every time we need an to know the value of $W(G,Z)$. But a mathematical model is not necessary if we are happy with just consulting the oracle when needed. Still, observation of the answers that we get from $W$ allows us to identify certain regularities in its output: these are the laws of physics.
Thus, supposing that we can find $G$ and $Z=(X,Y)$ such that $g(X,Y)=W(G,Z)$, the kind of of proof I outlined in the first paragraph can be carried out, appealing to the laws of physics as properties of the oracle $W$. To convert this kind of proof into a sequence of logical deductions, as a usual proof should be, requires a mathematical model for $W$, at least a restricted one that suffices for the purposes of making deductions about $g(X,Y)$. In both cases the model that does the job is plain old Newtonian mechanics of particles, solid bodies and fluids (if desired, solid bodies and fluids may be seen as a limiting cases of large assemblies of particles). The equality $g(X,Y)=f(X)$ follows from direct application of Newton's second law (an axiom of this mathematical model) and the identity $g(X,Y)=0$, independent of $X$, follows from Newton's third law (another axiom).
Personally, I think the appeal of such "physical" proofs is the fact that they rely only on some properties of $W$, and not on the details of a mathematical model for it. However, the validity of the proof only follows if one can show that a detailed mathematical model exists.
Hope this helps.
A: Though I'm not sure I understand the solutions yet, the assertion "this system is at equilibrium" perhaps should be more properly interpreted as "an equilibrium configuration of the aforementioned system exists" (and depending on how closely you want to model the physics, showing this could be incredibly nontrivial).  The rest of the solutions then appear to follow from properties of systems in equilibrium.
As an example of what I mean by nontrivial, a silly question that has always bugged me about ideal gases is that if they are noninteracting, how could they possibly equilibrate?  The resolution in my mind to this is that despite talk about ergodicity, statistical mechanics in practice is not about dynamics, but rather about properties of configurational averages.  But this is probably too far afield.
