The attraction between every two objects

  • Thread starter Thread starter Khadar Mariano
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Attraction
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the gravitational attraction between two objects, emphasizing that the force is directly proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This inverse square relationship is rooted in the three-dimensional nature of our universe, where gravitational force dissipates over the surface area of expanding spheres. Historical figures like Kepler, Galileo, and Newton are credited with foundational contributions to understanding these principles. Experiments confirm that as distance increases, the gravitational force diminishes according to the inverse square law, which can be intuitively understood through spatial dimensions. The mathematical reasoning behind this relationship highlights the importance of dimensionality in gravitational interactions.
Khadar Mariano
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
There is an attraction between every two objects,the strength of the the attraction is directly proportional with the masses of the to objects and indirectly proportional with the distance between the two objects squared, so where this is square came from, why not only distance. :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Khadar,
You can blame at least three individuals for that. Kepler, with his laws of planetary motion, Galileo, who changed the world view on heliocentrism and of falling objects, and Newton who came up with the law of universal gravitation.

As you have said, the attraction is proportional to the masses of the objects. Double the mass and the force of attraction also doubles, no problem there.

But double the distance. Well, we logically assume it should vary inversely, but how - inversely to distance, to distance squared, maybe distance cubed, or even some other power. To find out we can do some experiment and vary the distance and measure the force. It turns out the force is indirectly proportional to distance squared.

In Newton's words “I deduced that the forces which keep the planets in their orbs must [be] reciprocally as the squares of their distances from the centers about which they revolve: and thereby compared the force requisite to keep the Moon in her Orb with the force of gravity at the surface of the Earth; and found them answer pretty nearly." ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation

Mathematically, if we take a certain size sphere1 of diameter r, and then double the radius to obtain another sphere2 with radius 2r, the surface area of sphere2 will be found to be 4 times the surface area of sphere1. Since we live in a 3-D world or universe, gravity also behaves the same way - the strength of gravity will also follow the inverse square law.
 
IMO, the last paragraph in 256bits' post is the most important for getting an intuitive understanding as to the why. Let me repeat my elaboration on this topic from an earlier thread(https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=697273):


As far as the inverse sqare law goes, that's the result of the world being (spatially) three-dimensional.
It's easy to see why, when you begin by considering a source of whatever you want(e.g., radiation, force) in one-dimensional space.

So, we've got a line(1d space) with a point-like source located somewhere on it. The source is causing some sort of interaction to propagate from it in all directions. In 1d space, that means all the output is divided equally between the two directions. Whichever point on the line you choose, no matter how distant from the source, the strength of the interaction measured there will always be the same as at any other point, and equal to half the source strength. There's nowhere else for the interaction to dissipate but being split in half.
So in such a space, e.g. the gravitational force would not have \frac{1}{R^2} in it. It would have no R at all, as the strenght is distance independent.

Now let's take a 2d space(a plane). In this case, the interaction propagates in the form of expanding circles centered around the source. If you pick one point somewhere on the plane, you'll find out that the interaction has been spread thinner, as the same amount of it needs to cover more space. At any given distance R, there are 2\pi R points that equally share the original interaction between them. Since the interaction has to be divided between all the points on the circle with size dependent on an R variable, the force of gravity would have the factor \frac{1}{R} in it.

Three-dimensional space adds another dimension into which the interaction must spread, so that at any given distance R there is 4\pi R^2(concentric spheres) points sharing what the source had produced. Hence the \frac{1}{R^2} factor in the equations.
 
thank you guys
 
comparing a flat solar panel of area 2π r² and a hemisphere of the same area, the hemispherical solar panel would only occupy the area π r² of while the flat panel would occupy an entire 2π r² of land. wouldn't the hemispherical version have the same area of panel exposed to the sun, occupy less land space and can therefore increase the number of panels one land can have fitted? this would increase the power output proportionally as well. when I searched it up I wasn't satisfied with...
Back
Top