Newton's Law Of Universal Gravitation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the rationale behind the inverse square law in Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation, exploring its implications for planetary motion and drawing parallels to light intensity. Participants examine theoretical underpinnings, historical context, and alternative explanations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that using r^2 instead of r is necessary for the predictions of planetary movements to align with observational data.
  • Others argue that the inverse square law is the only central force law that produces elliptical orbits with the Sun at one focus, highlighting the uniqueness of this relationship.
  • A participant mentions that while linear force laws can also yield elliptical orbits, they would require the Sun to be at the center, which contradicts observations.
  • One contributor discusses the historical significance of Newton's achievements in demonstrating these concepts using Euclidean geometry, although they express uncertainty about the details of the proofs.
  • A hypothetical analogy is presented comparing gravitational forces to light intensity, suggesting that if mass radiates gravitons like a light bulb radiates photons, the inverse square law becomes clearer.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the reasons for the inverse square law and its implications, indicating that multiple competing explanations and models remain in the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some claims rely on assumptions about the nature of forces and orbits, and there are unresolved questions regarding the derivation of the inverse square law from other theoretical frameworks.

sheenktk
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Can anyone tell me that why we take r square instead of r?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because if we took r instead of r^2 then predictions of such theory would not fit to experimental results. Especially plredicted planet movements would not fit to observations. If we take r^2 - they fit perfectly well.
 
The original reason why Newton did that is that the only central force law (in terms of powers of r--and this might be valid for any function of r, but I'm not sure) that produces elliptical orbits for the planets with the Sun at the focus of the ellipse. So, it's basically the only option, to the extent that the orbits really are elliptical (which is really only a good approximation).

A linear force law also produces elliptical orbits, but then the Sun would have to be at the center of the ellipses, which is not what we see.

Newton's law of gravity was one of his greatest achievements because he was able to demonstrate these facts using Euclidean geometry. His proofs are complicated, but they are described in a somewhat readable form in Brackenridge's book, The Key to Newton's Dynamics (I say it's complicated, but it's possible to give a fairly simple outline of the main points, which is done in the first few chapters--unfortunately, I am too rusty on it to describe it here, and I never found the time to finish the rest of the book).There may also be other explanations for the r^2 (I saw one in a book about quantum field theory, and you could derive it as some sort of limiting case in general relativity).
 
Last edited:
Imagine we are talking about light instead of gravity for a moment...

A bulb emits light at a rate of 1 watt. If you construct a sphere around the bulb with a radius of 1 meter then the total interior surface area of the sphere is 4pi and the intensity of the light striking the interior is 1/4pi watts per square meter.

If the sphere were 2 meters in diameter then the surface area would be 16pi and the intensity of the light striking the interior is 1/16pi watts per square meter.

As you can see, the intensity of light striking the interior of the sphere is inversely proportional to the square of it's radius.

Now if we imagine that a mass is a source radiating gravitons just like a light bulb radiates photons the reason for the inverse square law becomes obvious.
 
homeomorphic said:
A linear force law also produces elliptical orbits, but then the Sun would have to be at the center of the ellipses,

Yeah, like shown here:

[URL]http://bluelyon.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/isaac-Newton-pound-note.jpg[/URL]

Trajectories for different laws of gravity:

http://megaswf.com/serve/1161536
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K