The above Ad will no longer appear after you Sign Up for Free!

Inverse Square Law or Law of Inverse Squares

Discussion in 'Question of the Day' started by ship, Dec 26, 2005.

  1. ship

    ship Senior Team Emeritus Premium Member

    Likes Received:
    What is each of these, or are they the same?
  2. jwl868

    jwl868 Active Member

    Likes Received:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    This question looked so lonely. And I'll admit I looked things up on the internet to find an answer. I was surprised that they weren't the same thing. (Although it appears that the two phrases are occasionally interchanged; from a practical standpoint, there is no misunderstanding if one phrase is substituted for the other.)

    Inverse square law: The intensity of light falls off as the square of the distance from the observer. (also applicable to other radio waves, radiation, and I think sound, too.) This I suppose has applications theatrical lighting.

    Law of Inverse Squares: (paraphrased from several citations) This applies to gravity in that the degree of attraction between two objects varies inversely with the square of the distance between their centers. In addition, the degree of repulsion (or attraction) between two like (or opposite) charged particles varies inversely with the square of the distance between the two. This phrase (in its application to gravity) is usually attributed to Isaac Newton and Robert Hooke. Later, Joseph Priestley showed that it applies to static electrical charges.

    I suppose its an academic difference in the naming. The inverse square of the distance relation is common to both. A subtle difference is that the first applies to a point source and an observer, and in the second, two objects interact with each other.

  3. kingfisher1

    kingfisher1 Active Member

    Likes Received:
    law of inverse square i think is more generaly applied to any funtion where if one side is squared the inverse occurs on the other side makingnot really a law

    Now, that is jsut what mjy math teacher said..
    i think that he was more refering to In'vers ssquare rather then the "Law" of inverse square which i agree is what is stated above

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice