How is Density Related to Depth in the Ocean?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between water density at a certain depth in the ocean and surface density, expressed by the equation ρ(z) ≈ ρ_s [1 + (ρ_s g/B)z]. Participants explore how pressure increases with depth, leading to a differential equation that relates density to depth. A participant struggles with the solution, initially deriving an incorrect formula that suggests infinite density at a certain depth, prompting a discussion on the limitations of the model. It is noted that the approximation remains valid for depths up to 1000 meters, but becomes less reliable at greater depths, such as the 11,000 meters of the Mariana Trench. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the model's constraints when applying it to deep ocean conditions.
bigplanet401
Messages
101
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that the density of water at a depth z in the ocean is related to the surface density rho_s by
<br /> \rho(z) \approx \rho_s [1 + (\rho_s g/B)z]<br />
where B is the bulk modulus of water.

Homework Equations



B = -V (dP/dV)
B = rho (dP/d rho)

3. The Attempt at a Solution


I've been trying to get this problem for 4 hours...aaargh.

I started by relating the change in pressure to the change in depth: pressure increases with depth.
<br /> \frac{dP}{dz} = \rho(z) g<br />


so

<br /> dP = \rho(z) g \, dz<br />

Then, substituting this expression for dP into the second formula above, I got

<br /> B = \rho^2 g \frac{dz}{d\rho}<br />

Then I got
<br /> \frac{d\rho}{dz} = \frac{\rho^2 g}{B}<br />


This is a separable differential equation, but I don't think it's the right one. I tried solving it with the initial condition rho(0) = rho_s and got
<br /> \rho(z) = \frac{\rho_s}{1 - \frac{\rho_s g}{B}z}<br />


which doesn't make sense because density should not become infinite at a certain depth. What did I do wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For the answer you got, take a Taylor expansion about ## z = 0 ##. As for the infinite density at a certain depth, maybe it would be good to think about the limitations of the model. Also, you might want to calculate what that depth is for water.
 
Geofleur said:
For the answer you got, take a Taylor expansion about ## z = 0 ##. As for the infinite density at a certain depth, maybe it would be good to think about the limitations of the model. Also, you might want to calculate what that depth is for water.

Hmm...yes, it does look like the second term in the denominator stays small for depths up to 1000 m. At 11000 m (the Marianas trench is about as deep), the denominator is 1 - 0.049, which to me means the model ought not to be used here. Thanks! That was not obvious to me at all.
 
bigplanet401 said:
Hmm...yes, it does look like the second term in the denominator stays small for depths up to 1000 m. At 11000 m (the Marianas trench is about as deep), the denominator is 1 - 0.049, which to me means the model ought not to be used here. Thanks! That was not obvious to me at all.
Even at that depth, it's not a bad approximation.

Chet
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top