Showing that the inverse sqaure law is true.

  • Thread starter Thread starter misogynisticfeminist
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inverse Law
AI Thread Summary
The inverse square law cannot be theoretically proven for electric fields without empirical observation, as any geometric arguments lack substance without data. It is acknowledged that the inverse square law fails in the context of very massive objects and cosmological scales. The validity of physical laws relies on their consistent observation in reality, rather than purely theoretical constructs. Consensus among knowledgeable physicists also plays a role in establishing the truth of these laws. Ultimately, empirical evidence remains essential for validating physical theories.
misogynisticfeminist
Messages
370
Reaction score
0
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?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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.
 
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.
 
Laws in physics are true when there is consensus amongst the knowledgeable members of PF that they are true :biggrin: :-p :approve:
 
Wait a second; you can't show this based on quantum electrodynaimcs?
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'

Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'

I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
View full post »

Thread 'Why is the 3 body problem unsolvable? And what will happen if someone solves it?'

I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
View full post »

Similar threads

I Field Strength of Permanent Magnets -- Inverse square or inverse cube?
Replies
9
Views
1K
I Gauss' theorem and inverse square law
Replies
2
Views
5K
Inverse square law in gravitation
Replies
10
Views
2K
I Electricity and Magnetism: Verifying the Inverse Square Law
Replies
3
Views
1K
I A "continous" gravitational field formula r=0 to infinity
Replies
16
Views
593
Is Biot-Savart inverse cube or inverse square law?
Replies
5
Views
7K
I Sound pressure and inverse distance law
Replies
5
Views
2K
I Physical approximation to inverse square law using magnet(s)
Replies
12
Views
1K
I Coulomb’s Law in a Moving Reference Frame
Replies
24
Views
2K
I Are Newton's Laws just definitions?
Replies
11
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top