Why is the potential of Earth not always equal to zero?

gandharva_23
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
we take the potentisl of the Earth to be equal to zero for solving some problems though the potential of Earth is not equal to zero . why is that ? or when can we do that ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Potential is relative to an arbitrary datum. You just define the zero potential surface wherever it is convenient for the calculations. So differences in potential are real, but an absolute potential does not exist. Think of it in terms of voltages -- you can define any place as zero volts, and then use your DVM to measure the voltage of other things with respect to that spot. Wherever you put the "-" lead of your DVM is automatically defined as the zero potential spot for that particular measurement.
 
we have 2 concentric spheres of radius a and b carrying charge q each . now the inner sphere is earthed . to calculate the final charge in each surface i kept the potential of the inner shell = 0 and used gauss law . am i doing a wrong thing by putting the p[otential of the inner shell = 0 ? if i m justified in doing that then that potential is zero wrt what ?
 
Zero with respect to zero. It is your reference or datum. Often, we refer to "Earth" as zero volts, but only because we use it as our voltage reference so often. The "Earth" is not at the same potential as the Sun, so we could use the voltage at the surface of the sun as our zero reference, but that wouldn't be very convenient, eh? :-)
 
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