4
$\begingroup$

I've been banging my head against this particular derivation of hydrostatic equilibrium in a star for the last few days, from Carroll and Ostlie's Introduction to Modern Astrophysics (2nd ed. p. 286):

The authors consider an infinitesimal cylinder of gas (dimensions $A, dr$) aligned on an r-axis pointing away from the center of the star. Equilibrium demands that acceleration be zero, so we get

$$F_{bottom} + F_{top} + F_G = 0,$$

Where the first two terms are the forces, taken normal to the surface, due to pressure, and $F_G$ is the gravitational force on the cylinder. The top of the cylinder is away from the center.

Alternative derivations I have found from this point onward make perfect sense- substitute $-\rho A dr$ for the cylinder mass $dm$ in the $F_G$ term, substitute $P_{bottom}$ and $P_{top}$, the rest is straightforward (this is the derivation on Wikipedia).

However, Carroll and Ostlie take an approach I haven't been able to understand. At this point they define $$F_{top} = -(F_{bottom} + dF_P)$$ where $dF_P$ -I'll write it $dF$ hereafter- is called the differential force caused by the change in pressure due to a change in $r$. Substitution into the first equation and a few other steps here ($dF = A dP$) lead to $dP/{dr} = -\rho g$ as needed.

I have had trouble with the following: $dF$ needs to be negative because otherwise $F_{top}$ is greater in magnitude than $F_{bottom}$ which makes no sense- if $|F_t| > |F_b| $ then pressure isn't acting against gravity, is it? Pressure itself would be pushing the cylinder down in that case. ($b$ is 'bottom', $t$ is 'top'.)

But if $dF$ is negative, then the way the (second) equation is written makes no sense. Wouldn't it make more sense to say $F_t = -F_b + dF$ ?

Partially motivated by this question and partially trying to approach the problem from a slightly different angle, I decided to define $dF = F_b + F_t$ as the net outward force due to the infinitesimal change in pressure between the top and bottom of the cylinder. Then, as $F_{net} = 0,$ we get $dF + F_G = 0$, but this leads to an incorrect equation, namely $$ dF + F_G = 0 \implies dP/dr = \rho g . $$

My main issue is that I do not understand why trying to define a positive $dF$ fails to produce the correct hydrostatic equilibrium equation. Furthermore, if we view $dF$ as an infinitesimal quantity, trying to ensure its sign is consistent with the directions of the forces (outward being positive), we once again get the wrong answer.

Can we only take $dF$ as an inward force? If so, why? If not, how can I establish a positive/outward differential force that will let me derive the correct hydrostatic equilibrium equation?

Edit:

I think I can illustrate my dilemma a bit more succinctly.

Considering the equation $F_t = -(F_b + dF)$, we can try out 2 different possibilities: $dF$ being positive or negative.

If $dF > 0$ then $F_t$ is bigger in magnitude than $F_b$, in which case I don't understand how the pressure gradient creates an outward force because $|F_t|>|F_b|$ implies the downward force is stronger.

If $dF < 0$ then $F_t = -F_b + -dF = -F_b + |dF|$ but as far as I can understand, this form cannot, like any of my attempts to define a positive $dF$, output the correct sign in the final equilibrium equation. So computing the signs (that is, saying $(-dF) = |dF|$) somehow makes the equation incorrect. (Additional edit: For me, this also begs the question, if $dF = A dP$ then is $dP$ negative, and what does that signify?)

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't all due to a mixing of vectorial and modulus notations? $\endgroup$ – Alchimista Dec 15 '19 at 9:10
  • $\begingroup$ Huh? $F_G$ is $- GMm/r^2$. Use vectors. $\endgroup$ – ProfRob Dec 15 '19 at 9:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Alchimista I don't understand what you mean by 'modulus notation'. (My apologies.) $\endgroup$ – ygtozc Dec 15 '19 at 19:13
  • $\begingroup$ @RobJeffries Yes, $F_G$ is negative, but my point is then if you take a positive $dF$, you get the wrong answer, and I don't understand why. This problem is one-dimensional anyhow, so I see no need to use $\hat{r}$. $\endgroup$ – ygtozc Dec 15 '19 at 19:18
  • $\begingroup$ I think I have finally understood the way $dF$ was defined by the text: $dF$ is a negative force along a positive change in pressure $dP$, that is to say, the force is negative along a direction in which dP increases. $\endgroup$ – ygtozc Dec 15 '19 at 21:59
2
$\begingroup$

The whole exercise illustrates the usefulness of vectors in addressing problems.

$$\vec{F_g} = -\frac{GM(r)\delta m}{r^2}\ \hat{r}$$ $$\vec{F_P} = -\left(\frac{dP}{dr}\right) \delta r \delta A\ \hat{r}$$ $$\vec{F_P} + \vec{F_g} = 0$$ leads to the scalar equation of hydrostatic equilibrium $$ \frac{dP}{dr}=- \rho g,$$ where $\vec{g}= -g\hat{r}$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Why does $\overrightarrow{F_P}$ have a negative sign? As far as I understand it describes the net force of pressure, so I don't understand where the negative sign comes in. (In hindisght, of course, $dP/dr < 0$ lets us say that but how can we claim the $-$ sign has to be there before deriving the formula?) $\endgroup$ – ygtozc Dec 15 '19 at 19:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @ygtozc because the force due to a pressure gradient acts in the opposite direction to the pressure gradient. $\endgroup$ – ProfRob Dec 15 '19 at 19:24
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, I understand- intuitively at least. As pressure force is essentially 'pushing', increasing pressure means force increases (in magnitude) in the opposite direction. Then in terms of differential forces, I suppose $dF = -AdP$ (instead of $AdP$) would provide the correct answer. $\endgroup$ – ygtozc Dec 15 '19 at 19:36
  • $\begingroup$ You've been a great help, thanks. $\endgroup$ – ygtozc Dec 15 '19 at 21:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.