Inverse square law in gravitation

In summary, the conversation discusses the application of the inverse square law to gravitation and whether it can be justified based on pure reasoning rather than empirical evidence. Some arguments are presented, including one that uses dimensions to explain the force in one, two, and three-dimensional spaces. However, it is ultimately concluded that physics is an empirical science and experimental guidance is necessary for understanding and generalizing observations. The conversation also touches on the question of whether someone has tried to find the Einstein field equations through rationalization attempts.
  • #1
janein
4
0
Help!

Has anybody made a case as to why the inverse square law should apply to gravitation, a case that is based on pure reasoning, instead of empirical evidence? I have been trying to find such arguments, but no luck so far.

Janein
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Physics, unlike mathematics, is an empirical science. Theories are based on observation and the best thing you can hope is to find a good description at as basic level as possible. You cannot do physics based on logic alone, you will always need experimental guidance and verifications. The ancient Greeks tried doing science using reasoning only and got a lot of things wrong.
 
  • #3
janein said:
Help!

Has anybody made a case as to why the inverse square law should apply to gravitation, a case that is based on pure reasoning, instead of empirical evidence? I have been trying to find such arguments, but no luck so far.

Janein
You are right to ask this. It is easy to just assume that the inverse square law applies to all sorts of phenomena, but it is not always true. For instance, the electric field associated with EM radiation follows an inverse law.
 
  • #4
I've always found the following argument satisfactory:

Let's say that any mass produces some 'interaction' proportional to its magnitude, which when encountered by another mass produces acceleration proportional to the magnitude of the interaction.

Imagine you've got a one-dimensional space, i.e. a line. In this space, there exists a massive point ##M##, from which interaction propagates in all possible directions. In the one-dimensional space this means the interaction total 'produced' by the point must be split in two, shared between the two possible directions. So if we were to write an equation for the force felt by a test particle ##m## in this 1D space, it'd look like ##F=AmM/2##, where ##A## is some constant. We'd probably want to fold the '2' into the constant, so we'd end up with ##F=BmM##. The force in one dimension is independent of distance from the source.

Now, let's add another dimension. A 2D space is a plane. A massive point on a plane emanates its interaction in all possible directions, which in a 2D space means that it has to be shared between all points of a circle surrounding the point. The circumference of a circle is given by ##2πR##. ##R## is the distance from the massive point. Again, all of the interaction 'produced' by point ##M## must be shared between all points on the circle. We end up with the equation of gravitational force ##F=AmM/2πR##. Combining all constants together, we get ##F=CmM/R## - the force in two dimensions falls linearly with distance.

In three dimensions, the interaction produced by the central point is spread out and shared by points surrounding the point, i.e. on a sphere. Surface of a sphere is given by ##4πR^2##. The equation of force looks like ##F=AmM/4πR^2##. Combining the constants we get: ##F=DmM/R^2##. I.e., in 3D the force from ##M## on a test particle ##m## falls with the square of the distance.
As a final touch, we rename the constant ##D## to ##G##, because it's the initial letter of the word 'gravity'.
 
  • #5
Orodruin said:
Physics, unlike mathematics, is an empirical science. Theories are based on observation and the best thing you can hope is to find a good description at as basic level as possible. You cannot do physics based on logic alone, you will always need experimental guidance and verifications. The ancient Greeks tried doing science using reasoning only and got a lot of things wrong.

Thank you Orodruin

I can't argue with that. After all, we are trying to understand what we observe. But we generally do attempt to understand and generalize what we observe and want to be able to say: "See that is why."

Somebody must have tried that?

Janein
 
  • #6
janein said:
Thank you Orodruin

I can't argue with that. After all, we are trying to understand what we observe. But we generally do attempt to understand and generalize what we observe and want to be able to say: "See that is why."

Somebody must have tried that?

Janein
You can always try to go deeper and find a more fundamental description. The question is whether or not this will be successful. I mean, I could say it is because the Newtonian limit of the Einstein field equations turn out to be the Poisson equation, whose fundamental solution goes as 1/r^2, but that then just begs the question "has someone tried to find the Einstein field equations by pure reasoning?"
 
  • #7
OK, pure reason may be too much to ask. I guess I better settle for, say "rationalization attempts" instead. I really wonder what people think about that.
J.
 
  • #8
Bandersnatch said:
I've always found the following argument satisfactory:

Let's say that any mass produces some 'interaction' proportional to its magnitude, which when encountered by another mass produces acceleration proportional to the magnitude of the interaction.

Imagine you've got a one-dimensional space, i.e. a line. In this space, there exists a massive point ##M##, from which interaction propagates in all possible directions. In the one-dimensional space this means the interaction total 'produced' by the point must be split in two, shared between the two possible directions. So if we were to write an equation for the force felt by a test particle ##m## in this 1D space, it'd look like ##F=AmM/2##, where ##A## is some constant. We'd probably want to fold the '2' into the constant, so we'd end up with ##F=BmM##. The force in one dimension is independent of distance from the source.

Now, let's add another dimension. A 2D space is a plane. A massive point on a plane emanates its interaction in all possible directions, which in a 2D space means that it has to be shared between all points of a circle surrounding the point. The circumference of a circle is given by ##2πR##. ##R## is the distance from the massive point. Again, all of the interaction 'produced' by point ##M## must be shared between all points on the circle. We end up with the equation of gravitational force ##F=AmM/2πR##. Combining all constants together, we get ##F=CmM/R## - the force in two dimensions falls linearly with distance.

In three dimensions, the interaction produced by the central point is spread out and shared by points surrounding the point, i.e. on a sphere. Surface of a sphere is given by ##4πR^2##. The equation of force looks like ##F=AmM/4πR^2##. Combining the constants we get: ##F=DmM/R^2##. I.e., in 3D the force from ##M## on a test particle ##m## falls with the square of the distance.
As a final touch, we rename the constant ##D## to ##G##, because it's the initial letter of the word 'gravity'.

Thanks Bandersnatch,

That is the kind of stuff I was looking for.

Janein
 
  • #9
Bandersnatch said:
if we were to write an equation for the force felt by a test particle mmm in this 1D space, it'd look like F=AmM/2

That is an assumption about how the world operates, upon which reason is applied. This argument is therefore not "pure reason," as nice as it is. Pure reason is far too high a standard for physical theory. All statements of physical law are based upon reason applied to results of experiment/observation, at minimum.
 
  • #10
spamanon said:
That is an assumption about how the world operates, upon which reason is applied. This argument is therefore not "pure reason," as nice as it is. Pure reason is far too high a standard for physical theory. All statements of physical law are based upon reason applied to results of experiment/observation, at minimum.
This was precisely the point of my post #2. You will always need an underlying assumption which ultimately has to be verified by experiment.
 
  • #11
Aristotle thought he could do physics largely by pure reason. He was very wrong and adherence to his philosophy set back scientific understanding a thousand years. I'm not sure if he looked into gravitational force vs distance, but he did think about gravitational acceleration vs mass. Too bad Tycho Brahe wasn't around to throw fruit at him to show him he was wrong.
 

What is the inverse square law in gravitation?

The inverse square law in gravitation states that the force of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This means that as the distance between two objects decreases, the force of gravity between them increases.

Why is the inverse square law important?

The inverse square law is important because it explains the relationship between the force of gravity and the distance between two objects. It is also a fundamental law in physics and is used to calculate the gravitational force between planets, stars, and other celestial bodies.

How does the inverse square law affect the motion of objects in space?

The inverse square law affects the motion of objects in space by determining the strength of the gravitational force acting on them. As objects move closer to each other, the force of gravity increases, causing them to accelerate towards each other. This is why planets orbiting a star follow an elliptical path.

Does the inverse square law apply to all objects in the universe?

Yes, the inverse square law applies to all objects in the universe. This is because gravity is a fundamental force of nature and acts between all objects with mass. The law applies to objects of any size, from atoms to planets and galaxies.

Are there any exceptions to the inverse square law?

There are some situations where the inverse square law does not apply, such as when objects are very close together or when they are moving at extremely high speeds. In these cases, other factors, such as the curvature of space-time, may come into play. However, for most practical purposes, the inverse square law is a very accurate description of the force of gravity between objects.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
32
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Mechanics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
8
Views
856
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
7K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
670
Back
Top