## Why magnetic field from a current carrying conductor obey inverse-square law?

I have read that the electric field from a point charge fall off as 1/(r*r) since it is analogous to
variation of intensity of radation from source (whose geometric proof depends on solid-angle), similarily is there any geometric explanation why magnetic field in the stated case fall off as 1/(r*r).

 PhysOrg.com physics news on PhysOrg.com >> Promising doped zirconia>> New X-ray method shows how frog embryos could help thwart disease>> Bringing life into focus
 Bizarre "proof" that the static electric field is analoguous to a radiation... What about the gluon force? It increases over distance. What tells the previous reason in this case? As for the static magnetic field... It cannot decrease as 1/R^2 because this would need a permanent current in an open wire. Either it's static, and then you need to close the circuit, and this loop creates a field as 1/R^3, or you have an antenna which accepts only AC current, and radiates an electromagnetic field, not a static magnetic one. So 1/R^2 exists only as a computation intermediate of static magnetic fields.

 Quote by NANDHU001 similarily is there any geometric explanation why magnetic field in the stated case fall off as 1/(r*r).
It doesn't, does it?
The magnetic field of an infinite, linear conductor goes like 1/r where r is the distance from the wire (along the radius of a cylinder coaxial with the wire).
Maybe you mean a different geometry of the current carrying conductor?