Showing that the inverse sqaure law is true.


by misogynisticfeminist
Tags: inverse, showing, sqaure
misogynisticfeminist
misogynisticfeminist is offline
#1
Dec15-05, 07:14 PM
P: 387
Is there a theoretical way to show that the inverse square law is true for say, just electric fields alone, without referring to any empirical observation?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on Phys.org
The hemihelix: Scientists discover a new shape using rubber bands (w/ video)
Mapping the road to quantum gravity
Chameleon crystals could enable active camouflage (w/ video)
Tide
Tide is offline
#2
Dec15-05, 11:18 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 3,149
The short answer is "no." One can come up with various arguments based on geometry and other concepts that make inverse square seem plausible but they are meaningless without the data. Moreover, we know inverse square is wrong anyway particularly when dealing with very massive objects and cosmological scales.
arildno
arildno is offline
#3
Dec16-05, 05:42 AM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
PF Gold
P: 12,016
Laws in physics are true (or valid) because we see (or hear or smell or register in some other manner) that they hold in reality.

There doesn't really exist any other criterion for the (ultimate) truth of a postulated law.

vanesch
vanesch is offline
#4
Dec16-05, 05:44 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 6,238

Showing that the inverse sqaure law is true.


Laws in physics are true when there is concensus amongst the knowledgeable members of PF that they are true
TriTertButoxy
TriTertButoxy is offline
#5
Dec16-05, 06:31 AM
P: 194
Wait a second; you can't show this based on quantum electrodynaimcs?


Register to reply

Related Discussions
IMP: chi sqaure & the confidence interval Engineering, Comp Sci, & Technology Homework 2
chi sqaure & confidence interval Calculus & Beyond Homework 4
Transformation of unit sqaure to circle Precalculus Mathematics Homework 6
Having troubles showing A has no inverse or finding the inverse, matrices. Introductory Physics Homework 0