Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

Go Home

American physicist Edward Witten explains why it wasn’t until Einstein's work that we fully understand the reason behind the inverse square law, and why it's specifically a square rather than some arbitrary decimal 1 / distance² vs. 1 / distance¹·⁷⁴⁸²²⋅⋅⋅

427,896 views • 2 years ago •via X (Twitter)

10 Comments

A Cerbic's profile picture
A Cerbic2 years ago

I'm not sure what he means by "Newton could have used a different law." As he says, the inverse square is the result of geometry, so how could it be anything but inverse square?

C S Yogananda's profile picture
C S Yogananda2 years ago

Newton had to postulate inverse square law but in Einstein's theory it drops as a natural consequence! Great to know that.

Peter Saveliev, enemy of fractions and communism's profile picture
Peter Saveliev, enemy of fractions and communism2 years ago

It's 2 because the universe is 3-dimensional. It's 1 in a 2-dimensional universe (and 0 on the line).

David Thomson's profile picture
David Thomson2 years ago

That's just babblespeak. The inverse square law applies to Newtonian gravitational physics, Coulomb's electrostatic physics, and the physics of light irradiance. The inverse square law has nothing to do with Einstein's ontologies or complex calculus equations.

The Moon's profile picture
The Moon2 years ago

There's a rather intuitive way of considering it; How is the influence of a mass m distributed in homogeneous space at some distance r? Evenly across the surface of the bounding sphere. f = k * m/(πr^2)

Eccles's profile picture
Eccles2 years ago

Gravity requires an inverse square law if the attraction of a spherical ball is the same as that of a point mass at the centre. Newton knew that.

Roy's profile picture
Roy2 years ago

Correct however it still fails to correspond to what we witness in some observations and does not provide a full unified framework i.e quantum gravity, Ed knows we need a new idea @Cornell

Red the Raider's profile picture
Red the Raider2 years ago

I thought Gauss was the guy who figured out why it was an inverse square law...and isn't it only an inverse square in Einstein's theory in the weak gravitational field approximation?

Michael Pakaluk's profile picture
Michael Pakaluk2 years ago

No, this does not explain it, because it does not explain why the spreading of the field needs to be a constant.

Emmanuel Kant's profile picture
Emmanuel Kant2 years ago

What is this clip from?

Related Videos