Variation of potential energy with height

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the variation of gravitational potential energy with height using the potential function V = mgz(1+z/re). Participants clarify that gravitational potential energy is relative to a reference point, typically the Earth's surface, and can include a constant term. The initial calculations led to an extra term, -mgR, which is explained as a gauge choice for gravitational potential energy. The correct potential energy formula should reflect the difference from the surface level, which resolves the confusion regarding the constant. Ultimately, the formula provided is for potential energy relative to the Earth's surface, not the center.
jasonchiang97
Messages
72
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Show that the variation of gravity with height can be accounted for approximately by the following potential function

V = mgz(1+z/re)

in which re is the radius of the Earth. find the force given by the above potential function.

Homework Equations



V = GM/r

The Attempt at a Solution


Let z be a point above the surface of the Earth and R be the radius of the earth

V(z) = -GM/(R+z) = (-GM/R)(1+z/R)-1

Using the binomal expansion of (1+x)n ≈ 1 +nx +n(n-1)x2/2

I get

V = (-Gm/R)(1-z/R + (z/r)2

Expanding gives

V = -GM/R + GMz/R2 - GMz2/R3

but the force is given by

F = GM/R2 = mg

replace GM/R2 with mg to get

V = -mgR + mgz - mgz2/R

= -mgR + mgz(1-z/R)

I'm not sure why I have an extra -mgR term.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gravitational potential energy, like gravitational and electrical potential, has no absolute level, so we can add any constant we like to it.
Gravitational potential energy near the Earth's surface is usually given a gauge (choice of a constant added) such that te value at the Earth's surface is 0. In that gauge, the gravitational PE of an item of mass m that is z metres above the Earth's surface, which is distance R from the centre, is the formula you got, minus the grav PE it would have at the Earth's surface, which is -mMG/R. Taking the difference removes the unwanted term.

Strictly speaking, the formula is for the grav PE of the mass relative to what it would have at the Earth's surface.

By the way, the function given in the OP is of Potential Energy, not potential. To get potential we have to divide by m.
 
Okay, so I multiply by m to get the potential energy, but I don't understand what you mean by adding a constant. So my first term in my expansion should just be 0 somehow?
 
jasonchiang97 said:
Okay, so I multiply by m to get the potential energy, but I don't understand what you mean by adding a constant. So my first term in my expansion should just be 0 somehow?
Your expansion is fine. But the potential energy your formula gives is relative to what the object's PE would be at the centre of the Earth. The formula you are asked to prove is for PE relative to what it would be at the surface of the Earth. Since the latter is -mMG/R, you subtract that from what you got, to get the PE relative to the Earth's surface.
 
I see. Thanks!
 
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