Proof of the inverse proportionality of R^2 to the attraction force

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on proving that the attraction force between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Participants emphasize the significance of the inverse square law in Euclidean geometry, noting that as force spreads out over the surface of a sphere, it must decay in this manner to maintain a constant total force. There is debate about whether the inverse square law holds in non-Euclidean geometries, with some questioning the mathematical proof of this law versus its empirical confirmation through measurements. The conversation also touches on Newton's demonstration that gravity follows this law by showing it leads to elliptical orbits for planets. Overall, the relationship between force and distance remains a fundamental topic in physics and geometry.
parsa418
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Could anyone tell me how to exactly prove that the distance between two objects squared is inversely proportional to the attraction force between them?
Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A heuristic approach is to think of the force spreading out on the surface of an expanding sphere. In order for the total force to stay constant, it needs an inverse square law, as long as the geometry is Euclidean.
 
mathman said:
A heuristic approach is to think of the force spreading out on the surface of an expanding sphere. In order for the total force to stay constant, it needs an inverse square law, as long as the geometry is Euclidean.

I'm glad you posted this- that's exactly how I was taught to think of the relationship. That is, the relationship between inverse-square laws and 3 spatial dimensions is as fundamental as the relationship between symmetries and conservation laws.

However, when I said this to a colleague in the Math Department a few weeks ago (in the context of experiments looking for extra dimensions, for example

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007gras.conf...9P
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l64187120j67q780/

), he scoffed, said "No, that's not right", and wandered off. Was he referring to non-Euclidean geometry, could he have thought of something else, or was he just giving me a hard time?
 
I can't read his mind! If it does not obey an inverse square law, then the explanation has to be in the physics, not mathematics.
 
Andy Resnick said:
Was he referring to non-Euclidean geometry, could he have thought of something else, or was he just giving me a hard time?

Well I think it's fairly elementary that a field radiating symmetrically outwards in N euclidian dimensions decays like 1/r^(N-1). Pick any part of what I just said that you could possibly poke holes in and perhaps that's what he meant... Euclidian geometry is usually the one people bring up most often, though...
 
Has the inverse-square law of gravity ever been proven in a mathematical sense? I thought it was only "proven" in the sense that measurements confirm it.
 
The way Newton showed that gravity obeys an inverse square law was toshow that that is the only force law that results in elliptic orbits for the planets.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top