Inverse-Square Law: Isotropic vs Anisotropic Radiation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GRB 080319B
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 reply · 2K views
GRB 080319B
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
If the intensity of electromagnetic radiation (I) is equal to the power emitted (P) divided by the area of the sphere (4pi(r^2)) that it radiates, why is the inverse-square law 1/(r^2) instead of P/(4pi(r^2))? Shouldn't the radiation emitted propagate isotropically in all directions (sphere) instead of anisotropically (cube)? I apologize for the notation; I don't know how to write in latex. Thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
the [itex]4 \pi[/itex] factor can just be folded into the "k" or "G" factor we see in inverse-square laws. either way, they're inverse-square.

but, i agree with your sentiments, which is why i think that more natural Planck Units would be those that normalize [itex]4 \pi G[/itex] instead of just [itex]G[/itex] and it would be better to choose a natural unit of charge that would normalize [itex]\epsilon_0[/itex] instead of normalizing [itex]4 \pi \epsilon_0[/itex].