Why is g larger at the poles? Mario Iona Department of Physics, University of Denver, Dem (Received 8 February 1977; accepted 18 March 1978) Colorado 80208 It is frequently stated that the value of the acceleration due to gravity at the pole is larger than at the equator because the poles are closer to the center of the earth due to the earth's, oblateness. This statement seems misleading in that it attributes significance to the center of It will be shown that the increase of g due to flattening of a uniform sphere would be only 1/10 as large a8 would be expected from a 1/r? relation, and is only about 1/3 of the ‘observed value. The measured value is larger because the earth's density is not uniform but increases toward the center. The fact that the acceleration due to gravity g and therefore the weight of an object varies with latitude is “explained” in many physics textbooks with arguments such as: "You would weigh more at the earth’s poles than you do, at the equator; itis some 21 km closer to the earth’s center at the poles than at the equator.”! This kind of discussion is usually found in connection with a discussion of Newton’s 1/7? law of gravitation, This connection is somewhat mis- leading since it is likely to give the impression that the change in g can be calculated from this law directly. In some books this reference to the 1/r? law is even misleadingly extended to changes in the weight of an object descending in a mine shaft? or incorrectly applied by stating that the “force of the earth's gravitational pull is strongest at its center of mass,” where, of course, itis equal to zero. All these examples show that there is possibly a misconception as to the way in which the flattening of the earth affects the value of g. Not all of the variation of g between the polar and equatorial value of 5.2 cm/s? is due toa gravitational effect. Most authors discuss that the observed value of g varies with latitude primarily because of the rotation of the earth. This, rotational effect accounts for 3.4 cm/s? of the difference between the polar and equatorial value of g. This leaves difference of 1.8 cm/s? that has to be explained in terms of gravitational effects due to flattening. Only two thirds of, this,4 or 1.2 m/s?, would be due to changes of the polar radius from that of a sphere of equal volume. The direct application of the | /r? relation gives a vari tion of g with distance from the center of the earth which is known as the “free air” correction and can be considered as an idealized altitude effect. One can obtain the magni- tude of this effect by direct substitution of different radii into the law of gravitation or one can differentiate the 1/7? relation and substitute the difference in radius values for the differential. Using the relation g = GM/R®, dne ob- tains Ag = —(2e/R)AR. o Substituting the 14.3 km for the difference between the radii ofa sphere of equal volume and the polar radius gives 4.4 cm/s? as the change in g values for the pole due to flattening, This amount is greatly in excess of the 1.2 cm/s? that has to be accounted for. The 1/r? relation should, however, not be expected to be applicable. One should be aware of the fact that Newton's law of gravitation applies. only to point masses and spherically symmetric objects, exterior to each other, and cannot, in general, be applied to 790 Am. J. Phys. 468), Aug. 1978 (0002-9505 /78/4608-0790800.50 extended objects. Also, the center of mass has, in general, no significance in connection with the law of gravitation, The distance from the center of mass is of no concern; for a nonspherical object, one has to consider the mass distri- bution. Looking first qualitatively at the effect of flattening, it does not seem to be obvious that flattening of the earth, which is assumed to be of uniform density, would lead to.an increase of g at the pole. Although for a point at the pole the. distance to the center of mass is decreased, the flattening could result in a decreasing of g since it results in a reduction of the mass directly underfoot; on the other hand, this mass. has been displaced into an equatorial bulge where it still contributes to the “downward” value of g even at the pole. It can easily be seen that in the extreme case of flattening toa thin disk, further flattening will lead to a decrease of the field strength g. This case is well known from the analogous case of a uniform charge distribution on a disk in electrostatics, where the field strength near the surface is proportional to the charge density. The corresponding gravitational term would be the mass per unit area of the disk which decreases as the thickness of the disk is reduced while the radius of the disk is increased to keep the volume constant. Although, as the thickness of the disk decreases a point at the surface near the center will approach the center of mass, the field intensity will decrease. In order to establish whether g will increase or decrease with only slight deformation of a sphere seems to require a more de- tailed calculation. The problem can be analyzed in general by computing the gravitational potential of the ellipsoidal mass distribu- tion and from this, the field. This involves the use of spherical harmonics, usually in terms of moments of inertia, and an analysis of the validity of the approximations used. For the purpose of the present discussion, which emphasizes the fact that the “free air” calculation is not adequate and that the center of mass analysis is not justified in such cases, the direct integration of the field for the highly symmetrical case of g at the pole will be adequate (see the Appendix). The gencral form for the oblate ellipsoid, however, is dif- ficult to interpret for the case of a sphere, s0 also is the ex- pression of the derivative because of indeterminate terms. However, since the concern is only with small deformations, the various terms can be expanded in a power series of @ deformation parameter such as f = (a ~ 6)/a, where b is, the semiminor axis ofthe rotational ellipsoid along the axis of rotation and a is the semimajor axis at right angles. One obtains for the value of g at the pole gp in terms of go, the value of g at the surface of a sphere of equal volume, (© 1978 American Association of Physics Teachers 790gp = Boll + 2f/15 +++). @) Since fis approximately AR/R with AR being the differ- ence between equatorial and polar radius, AR = a — 6, this, leads to a change of gp with change of radius Agp = —(2go/R) AR(1/15). GB) Since the change of polar radius R,, is only % as much, the rate factor has to be ¥2 times as large or Ag = —(280/R) ARp(1/10), @) i.e. the change is only Yio the “free air” value given by Eq, (1). Namely, 0.44 cm/s?. This is approximately Ys of the 1.2.em/s? that has to be accounted for. This larger observed gravitational effect must then be due to the fact that the earth’s density is not uniform, but is larger near the center of the earth. This is, of course, the same kind of argument that explains why there is an increase of g ina mine shaft, as discussed in detail by Zaidins.® The derivative of the gp vs relation can be set equal to zero to find at which degree of flattening of a uniform sphere g, would begin to decrease by further flattening. The resulting equation has to be evaluated numerically. The maximum value of g would be reached when f is approximately 0.28, or when the minor axis of the ellipsoid is about ¥4 as large as the major axis. Fora sphere with greater density near the center, the value of g at the pole would show an increase even for greater flattening. These considerations then show that it would be more appropriate to explain the larger value of g at the poles by the fact that one is closer to the dense interior of the earth, rather than by emphasizing the distance to the center of the earth, since the deformation of a uniform sphere would only contribute Ys of the observed variation of g. jensity g = F/m ata point a distance D along the axis from the center of a uniform ro- tational ellipsoid with semiaxes @ and b (see Fig. 1) is ob- tained from dg, = d?Flm = 2xyGp dy dz (cosa)/r? (5) 791 Am. Phys, Vol. 46, No.8, August 1978 where p is the density as . fp = 2x06 Sie (D-2) Feely Se ease For D = b this becomes Bp = 4pG a2b(a? — b2)-! «(Ix b mize), Fat — pHa MOO (6) In terms of the value of g at the surface of a sphere of the same volume, go 4xpGR/3, and using the equal volume R® this becomes, in terms of f = (a — 8 = 801301 APF /f2—-N) X10 =)/22 - Ni X arecos[1— 2f2-)). (7) For small values of f this reduces to Eq. (2). 1R. Stollberg and F.F_Hill, Physics, Fundamentals and Fromters, 2nd 4. (Houghton Mitfin, Boston, 1975), p. 60. 24. D. Barnard and C. B. Lavatell, Seience, Measuring Things (Mac- Millan London, 1970) p. 11 34. L. Carter, P. M. Bajama, R. W. Heck, and P. L. Lucero, Physical ‘Science, A Problem Solving Approack (Gin, Boston, 1974), p. 114 “In smal ellipsoidal flattening of s sphere, keeping the volume constant, the polar radius is shortened by twice as much asthe equatorial radius ‘is increased, The product ofthe thre semiaxes must equal the cube of| the radius ofthe sphere. 5C.S. Zaidins, Am. J. Phys. 40, 204 (1972), Mariotona 791