Physics Forums Insights
  • Physics
    • Physics Articles
    • Physics Tutorials
    • Physics Guides
    • Physics FAQs
  • Math
    • Math Articles
    • Math Tutorials
    • Math Guides
    • Math FAQs
  • Bio/Chem/Tech
    • Bio/Chem Articles
    • Computer Science Tutorials
    • Technology Guides
  • Education
    • Education Articles
    • Education Guides
  • Interviews
  • Quizzes
  • Forums
  • Search
  • Menu Menu
earthgravity

Learn All About Earth’s Gravity

January 2, 2016/18 Comments/in Physics Articles/by Alex Klotz
Estimated Read Time: 6 minute(s)
Common Topics: gravitational, gravity, surface, earth, due

Earth’s gravitational field at the surface is approximately 9.8 Newtons/kilogram or 9.8 meters/second/second. But how does that change due to its shape, rotation, composition, and various locations along its surface and interior? This article will answer those questions.

Table of Contents

  • Latitude dependence due to Earth’s shape and rotation
  • Anomalies from rock density and topography
  • The Geoid
  • Gravity in Earth’s interior
  • Relativistic effects on Earth’s surface
  • Research methods
    • More Related Articles

Latitude dependence due to Earth’s shape and rotation

One can simply calculate the centripetal acceleration at Earth’s equator, given by (6378 km) x (2##\pi##/24 hours)##^2##, and see that it is roughly one part in three hundred of Earth’s average gravitational field. This leads to an expectation that on a spherically symmetric but rotating Earth, the apparent gravity varies due to the centrifugal force by 0.3%. The picture, however, is slightly more complicated and the variation is slightly stronger.

The Earth is not incompressible, and its rotation has caused it to bulge at the equator, such that its radius at the equator is 6378 km and its radius pole-to-pole is 6356 km. The farthest point from Earth’s center is not Mt. Everest, but Chimborazo in Ecuador. Earth’s shape can be described as an oblate spheroid where the gravitational field deviates from the mean with latitude according to the relation ##1-3\cos^2\theta##, and combining the effect of the bulge and the rotation, the total variation in Earth’s surface gravity due to latitude is about 0.7%.

Earth's absolute surface gravity variation

Earth’s absolute surface gravity variation. It mainly varies due to latitude and a little bit due to topography.

Anomalies from rock density and topography

The Earth is more than just a uniform oblate spheroid. Further deviations from symmetry can be described with additional spherical harmonic terms. After these are taken into account, there are variations in Earth’s surface gravity due to the local density and topography of the land. These tend to be an order of magnitude weaker compared to the latitude dependence, on the order of 0.02% deviation from the mean. Looking at a map of these anomalies, it is clear that they tend to be strongest around mountain ranges and geological hotspots, and also a weak spot in the ocean near Sri Lanka the origin of which I do not know.

A map of Earth's gravity anomalies

A map of Earth’s gravity anomalies, which is roughly what remains when you account for its rotational bulge. The unit “Gal” is 1 cm/s/s, so the difference between red and blue is about 0.0002 g. Source.

It has become common practice to present maps such as the ones above when discussing Earth’s gravity, but really the variation due to latitude shown in the first image is much stronger.

The Geoid

The geoid is the hypothetical shape that the Earth would take if its surface were completely covered in the ocean, such that the gravitational and centrifugal potential is the same at every point on the surface. It is actually at this surface that the sea level is defined. Its shape is generally described in terms of spherical harmonics, with a greater and greater number of terms being used as more precise data becomes available. Relevant xkcd.

 

An example geoid

An example of an Earth geoid. The scale is exaggerated, I doubt anyone could squint-deduce that the Earth is not spherical. Source.

Gravity in Earth’s interior

In addition to knowing the gravitational field at different points on the surface, we also have information about how the gravitational field changes as you go deeper toward the center of the Earth. Within a spherically symmetric mass, the shell theorem tells us that only the mass enclosed below our current radius matters and that anything “above” us does not contribute to the gravitational field. A naive assumption of a uniformly dense Earth would imply a linearly decreasing gravitational field. Looking at the interior profile of the Earth, there are two layers of high-density core, a sharp discontinuity in density at the mantle, and then the crust and oceans. Because the discontinuity at the core-mantle boundary is so sharp, the gravitational field increases as we look deeper into the Earth, getting closer to a higher-density sphere. It reaches a local maximum of about 10.6 meters/second/second about halfway between the center and the surface.

The density (red) and gravitational field (black) as a function of the distance from Earth's center

The density (red) and gravitational field (black) as a function of the distance from Earth’s center. Because of the sharp discontinuity in the density at the core-mantle boundary, gravity increases as you go deeper. This is from the arxiv version of my paper.

Relativistic effects on Earth’s surface

This may be out-of-scope but I find it interesting.

When the atomic clock research group at the National Institute of Standards and Technology had created a sufficiently precise clock, they took two identical models and raised one of them about a foot higher than the other. They were able to observe the differences over time due to the differing gravitational potentials as predicted by Einstein’s general theory of relativity. If you consider a clock on the equator and a clock on one of the poles, what difference can you expect in the rate of ticking? The clock on the equator is moving faster than the one on the pole, so you might expect it to tick slower. However, it has a weaker gravitational potential, so you might expect it to tick faster. It turns out, the effects cancel for non-coincidental reasons and there is no latitude-dependent time dilation.

Naively, one could calculate the Lorentz factor between the pole and the equator, which is about ##1+10^{-12}##, and also calculate the difference in gravitational time dilation at the polar and equatorial radius of the Earth. This is about ##2\cdot10^{-12}##, so you can see that the two effects are in the same order of magnitude as the Lorentz factor but not naively the same.

The reasons that the two effects cancel are explained in this Socratic dialogue by S.P. Drake and laid out by Lubos Motl in a Stack Exchange post. The crux of the argument is that because the Earth’s surface is (roughly) stationary, it must have equal gravitational potential at all points, thus the time dilation relative to a free-falling observer (Lubos points out that a geocentric orbit would be a good reference frame in which to analyze this) must be the same at all points. An explicit calculation in Drake’s paper demonstrates, that the gravitational potential at the poles, and the gravitational plus centrifugal potential at the equator, are the same.

Research methods

How do we know all this information about Earth’s gravity? It started just by geographers and surveyors measuring the gravitational field as they explored the land. As an example, Canada’s first official astronomer and surveyor, Otto Klotz, whom I know of because he has the same last name as me (but no relation), traveled through the country around the year 1900 making gravity measurements with a pendulum as he went. Nowadays the more precise maps of Earth’s gravity come from satellites such as GOCE that use orbiting accelerators to map out the surface gravity and higher-order spherical harmonic contributions. The knowledge about Earth’s interior comes mainly from measuring earthquake arrival times at various locations and figuring out where seismic waves are reflected and refracted and how fast they’re going, although now satellite accelerometers can independently verify this.


Alex Klotz

Ph.D. McGill University, 2015

Assistant Professor, California State University, Long Beach

My research is at the interface of biological physics and soft condensed matter. I am interested in using tools provided from biology to answer questions about the physics of soft materials. In the past I have investigated how DNA partitions itself into small spaces and how knots in DNA molecules move and untie. Moving forward, I will be investigating the physics of non-covalent chemical bonds using “DNA chainmail” and exploring non-equilibrium thermodynamics and fluid mechanics using protein gels.

More Related Articles

  • What Planck Length Is and It’s Common Misconceptions
  • Why Is Acceleration Due to Gravity a Constant?
  • Is Pressure A Source Of Gravity?
  • Understanding the General Relativity View of Gravity on Earth
  • Does Gravity Gravitate? Part 2
  • Does Gravity Gravitate?
Tags: earth, gravity
Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/earthgravity.png 135 240 Alex Klotz https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Physics_Forums_Insights_logo.png Alex Klotz2016-01-02 02:15:352025-02-11 19:46:09Learn All About Earth’s Gravity
You might also like
spacetime2Struggles With The Continuum: Quantum Mechanics of Charged Particles
gravity collapseOppenheimer-Snyder Model of Gravitational Collapse: Implications
gravity3Does Gravity Gravitate: The Wave
gravitateDoes Gravity Gravitate?
spacetime7Struggles with the Continuum: General Relativity
11dgravity11d Gravity From Just the Torsion Constraint
18 replies
  1. Wayan Dadang says:
    December 25, 2017 at 8:13 am

    Great article! Thanks.

    Log in to Reply
  2. QuantumQuest says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    A really good insight, thanks Alex!

    Log in to Reply
  3. JorisL says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Great insight, really enjoyed it.

    “This being a physics forum, stating the field in terms of spherical harmonics is perfectly ok, imho. Again, explicitly stating that (1-3 cos^2 theta) is the leading term in the deviation from the average might help.”

    This makes it harder for high school students (for example).
    So it all depends on the target of the insights (e.g. for the layperson or for the undergrad physics major)

    Log in to Reply
  4. M Quack says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Thank for this nice article.

    “That is a good point. I will consider a better way to describe that.”

    It might be clearer to explicitly say “it deviates from its average value by (1-3 cos^2 theta)”. The deviation has to average out to zero, by definition, and therefore has to be part negative, part positive.

    This being a physics forum, stating the field in terms of spherical harmonics is perfectly ok, imho. Again, explicitly stating that (1-3 cos^2 theta) is the leading term in the deviation from the average might help.

    Log in to Reply
  5. Jonathan Scott says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    After the earlier improvement, there’s now a reference to a “weaker” potential which is not really meaningful; I’d say “higher” potential in this context.

    Log in to Reply
  6. phinds says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    “Gravity pulls you down. Duh!”
    Is this comment supposed to be helpful in some way? If it’s a joke, it falls flat.

    Log in to Reply
  7. jerromyjon says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    “That’s why it’s important to understand that gravitational time dilation depends on the potential, not the gravitational acceleration.”
    That’s the direction I was heading into the shell theorem where the deeper inside the Earth you travel the effects would be opposite? Less acceleration AND lower potential?

    Log in to Reply
  8. A.T. says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    “higher potential (and therefore less acceleration)”
    Note that higher potential doesn’t always imply less gravitational acceleration. That’s why it’s important to understand that gravitational time dilation depends on the potential, not the gravitational acceleration.

    Log in to Reply
  9. jerromyjon says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Very informative and a certainly useful set of data to add to the noggin!
    “potential as determining the time dilation.”
    That exact point caught me off guard the day prior to this insight, I believe it was, regarding dilation of the ISS at a higher potential than the average surface of the Earth. (Zero on the gravity anomaly chart?) Being on the ISS you are moving at a faster relative velocity so clocks tick slower and being at a higher potential (and therefore less acceleration) clocks tick faster but of less magnitude than the velocity contribution. It may be the other way around? I’m not sure. This is where I need to clarify details and likely ask questions in a topic of a new thread…

    Log in to Reply
  10. A.T. says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Thanks for the post.

    “The geoid is the hypothetical shape that the Earth would take if its surface were completely covered in ocean, such that the gravitational and centrifugal potential is the same at every point on the surface.”

    Maybe this would be clearer:

    “…, such that the sum of gravitational and centrifugal potential is the same at every point on the surface.”

    Log in to Reply
  11. nikkkom says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    typo

    “the gravitational field actually increases as look deeper into the Earth”

    you meant “as WE look deeper…”?

    Log in to Reply
  12. Jonathan Scott says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    “… differences in the passage of time due to the differing gravitational fields …”
    “… However, it is in a weaker gravitational field, so you might expect it to tick faster. ”
    Both of these statements appear to be based on a common misconception. The rate of a clock does not depend on the gravitational field, but rather on the gravitational potential. Although the field is weaker at a higher potential when relating to a single central source, it is the difference in potential rather than the strength of the field which determines the time dilation. This problem seems to be limited to one paragraph, in that the following paragraphs correctly refer to the potential as determining the time dilation.

    Log in to Reply
  13. Borek says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    “wthahat” is a funny typo.

    Log in to Reply
  14. phinds says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Fascinating Insight. Thanks.

    Log in to Reply
  15. klotza says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    That is a good point. I will consider a better way to describe that.

    Log in to Reply
  16. Orodruin says:
    May 19, 2016 at 3:45 pm

    Nice Insight, but I am afraid the ##1-3cos^2theta## might baffle anyone not familiar with Legendre polynomials and spherical harmonics. The text may be read as the gravitational field being proportional to this, which it is clearly not since it becomes negative. The next question popping up will then be if we are talking about the lattitude dependence only, why write out the constant term. For the layman, it may be more straightforward to simply say that there is a part varying proportional to ##-cos(2theta)##.

    Log in to Reply
  17. Drakkith says:
    January 3, 2016 at 12:20 pm

    Great article! Very interesting!

    Log in to Reply
  18. Greg Bernhardt says:
    January 2, 2016 at 6:37 pm

    Great article as usual Alex!

    Log in to Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trending Articles

  • Why Division by Zero is a Bad Idea
  • Approximate LCDM Expansion in Simplified Math (Part 4)
  • Learn Simple Python Debugging with Pdb
  • Interview with Astrophysicist Adam Becker
  • Learn Lie Algebras: A Walkthrough – The Structures
  • 3 Possible Models For Why Uranus Spins on Its Side
  • How Quantum Information Theorists Revealed the Relativity Principle at the Foundation of Quantum Mechanics
  • Why ChatGPT AI Is Not Reliable
  • Learn A Short Proof of Birkhoff’s Theorem
  • Things Which Can Go Wrong with Complex Numbers

Physics Forums

  • Classical Physics
  • Atomic and Condensed Matter
  • Quantum Physics
  • Special and General Relativity
  • Beyond the Standard Model
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
  • Cosmology
  • Other Physics Topics

Receive Insights Articles to Your Inbox

Enter your email address:

Blog Information

  • Become a Member!
  • Write for Us!
  • Table of Contents
  • Blog Author List

Popular Topics

astronomy (17) black holes (17) classical physics (35) cosmology (16) education (23) electromagnetism (19) general relativity (19) gravity (24) interview (22) mathematics (39) mathematics self-study (21) Physicist (26) programming (18) Quantum Field Theory (31) quantum mechanics (36) quantum physics (23) relativity (39) Special Relativity (16) technology (19) universe (21)
2024 © Physics Forums, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - Contact Us - Privacy Policy - About PF Insights
  • X
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Youtube
Was the Early Universe in a Disordered State?earlyuniversemicro3An Intro on Real Numbers and Real Analysis
Scroll to top