Pressure in Hydrostatic Equlibrium

zachzach
Messages
257
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



Find the pressure as a function of r for the region r<< R where R is the radius of the object. The density goes as \rho = \rho_o {(\frac{r_o}{r})}^2.

Homework Equations


I know how to get to the answer my problem is dealing with the infinite density at r = 0.

The Attempt at a Solution



My pressure integrates to an equation that is inversely proportional to the square of r. But at r = 0 the central pressure, will be infinite. How can you deal with this infinite. It makes sense since the density is infinite at r = 0, but there must be an answer. If the r_o was an R you could do a taylor expansion but it is not.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Then just take it as an approximate model :wink: A better model may look somewhat like this: \rho = \rho _0 (\frac{r_o}{r+\epsilon})^2 where \epsilon &lt;&lt; R (I devise it, so don't take it for real :biggrin:). If you're interested in the pressure at r=R, r=R/2, etc, then the model given by the problem might be sufficient. If you're interested in the pressure near the center of the object, then there is a need for another model.
In short, don't take the formula given in the problem too seriously :smile:
 
Hi,
Sorry, I overlooked the r<<R part, which made my reply above rather stupid :biggrin: But then, my conclusion is still the same: this model is not sufficient for calculating pressure near r=0. It's very non-intuitive to have the density to go to infinity, and thus, this non-intuitive model will probably lead to non-intuitive result.
 
Thread 'Need help understanding this figure on energy levels'
This figure is from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by Griffiths (3rd edition). It is available to download. It is from page 142. I am hoping the usual people on this site will give me a hand understanding what is going on in the figure. After the equation (4.50) it says "It is customary to introduce the principal quantum number, ##n##, which simply orders the allowed energies, starting with 1 for the ground state. (see the figure)" I still don't understand the figure :( Here is...
Thread 'Understanding how to "tack on" the time wiggle factor'
The last problem I posted on QM made it into advanced homework help, that is why I am putting it here. I am sorry for any hassle imposed on the moderators by myself. Part (a) is quite easy. We get $$\sigma_1 = 2\lambda, \mathbf{v}_1 = \begin{pmatrix} 0 \\ 0 \\ 1 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_2 = \lambda, \mathbf{v}_2 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} \sigma_3 = -\lambda, \mathbf{v}_3 = \begin{pmatrix} 1/\sqrt{2} \\ -1/\sqrt{2} \\ 0 \end{pmatrix} $$ There are two ways...
Back
Top