My Math Forum Why are things squared in formulas about light, space etc.

 Physics Physics Forum

 January 24th, 2019, 11:18 AM #1 Newbie   Joined: Aug 2015 From: USA Posts: 17 Thanks: 0 Why are things squared in formulas about light, space etc. As a beginning math student I've wondered: why is the square prominent in math formulas about the natural world, instead of the circle? Circular light beams, elliptical solar systems and galaxies, Inverse Square Law, seem to me better defined in terms of the circle than squares, which don't appear in the natural world. Thanks in advance for explanation.
 January 24th, 2019, 11:38 AM #2 Senior Member     Joined: Sep 2015 From: USA Posts: 2,452 Thanks: 1337 the square in inverse square law simply means that the field strength varies as $\dfrac{1}{r^{\Large 2}}$ as opposed to say $\dfrac 1 r$ or $\dfrac{1}{r^{3.5}}$ where $r$ is the distance between the source and observer It has nothing to do with the polygon that is a square. In 3D space this does generate spheres of equal field strength so your intuition regarding circles is somewhat correct. Thanks from topsquark and paulm
January 24th, 2019, 12:54 PM   #3
Math Team

Joined: Dec 2013
From: Colombia

Posts: 7,663
Thanks: 2642

Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra
Quote:
 Originally Posted by romsek It has nothing to do with the polygon that is a square.
I rather think that it (often) does.

This one is also interesting and slightly related.

Last edited by skipjack; January 24th, 2019 at 08:20 PM.

January 24th, 2019, 01:31 PM   #4
Math Team

Joined: May 2013
From: The Astral plane

Posts: 2,194
Thanks: 897

Math Focus: Wibbly wobbly timey-wimey stuff.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by paulm As a beginning math student I've wondered: why is the square prominent in math formulas about the natural world, instead of the circle? Circular light beams, elliptical solar systems and galaxies, Inverse Square Law, seem to me better defined in terms of the circle than squares, which don't appear in the natural world. Thanks in advance for explanation.
What is a "circular light beam?"

Actually, it all depends on what part of Physics you are looking at. For example, there are crystals that have symmetries of triangles, squares, and hexagons (speaking in only 2D). Magnetic fields, though also of an inverse square nature, have dipolar fields, not spherical ones.

And, of course, the ellipses in orbital motion are derived from an inverse square law, but Newtonian gravity in the Solar System is better approximated by a law that can be modeled as an inverse square plus inverse cubed formula in certain cases.

The inverse square laws, though common, are far from the only ones useful. As always, Nature is full of surprises.

-Dan

Last edited by skipjack; January 24th, 2019 at 08:23 PM.

January 24th, 2019, 05:22 PM   #5
Newbie

Joined: Aug 2015
From: USA

Posts: 17
Thanks: 0

Quote:
 Originally Posted by romsek the square in inverse square law simply means that the field strength varies as $\dfrac{1}{r^{\Large 2}}$ as opposed to say $\dfrac 1 r$ or $\dfrac{1}{r^{3.5}}$ where $r$ is the distance between the source and observer It has nothing to do with the polygon that is a square. In 3D space this does generate spheres of equal field strength so your intuition regarding circles is somewhat correct.
Thanks, I now see distinction between polygon square and squaring distance (inverse intensity) or increasing velocity (gravity).

Those 3blue1brown videos are inspiring to learn math.

 January 26th, 2019, 08:22 AM #6 Newbie   Joined: Aug 2015 From: USA Posts: 17 Thanks: 0 After understanding that squaring time, distance (gravity) or speed (light) has to do with intensity, not a geometric square, I'm still confused why these things are squared and not cubed or some value * pi. Like E = mc^2 for example: why is speed of light squared and not cubed, or multiplied * e or pi to some power? Same question goes for Inverse Square Law and 9.8 m/sec^2. Why is square all over the place?
 January 26th, 2019, 08:27 AM #7 Math Team   Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,663 Thanks: 2642 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra That was covered in the first 3Brown1Blue video above. The effects of gravity and light from a point source are shared over a surface a distance $r$ from the source. This surface has an area which is proportional to $r^2$ (because it's an area) and therefore the intensity of the effect is proportional to $\frac1{r^2}$. This is required so that the total strength of the effect over the area isproportional to $r^2 \cdot \frac1{r^2} = 1$, the strength of the source, not the distance from it. Thanks from topsquark
 January 26th, 2019, 08:48 AM #8 Newbie   Joined: Aug 2015 From: USA Posts: 17 Thanks: 0 Why not the surface area of a circle or some multiple of pi?
January 26th, 2019, 08:55 AM   #9
Senior Member

Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,310
Thanks: 551

Quote:
 Originally Posted by paulm Why not the surface area of a circle or some multiple of pi?
$\pi r^2.$

You are still confusing the meaning of square computationally and spatially.

Notice r squared in the formula for a circle's area.

You are creating a problem in your own mind because a word has more than one meaning and you keep trying to pretend it has one meaning.

Last edited by JeffM1; January 26th, 2019 at 09:02 AM.

January 26th, 2019, 09:33 AM   #10
Newbie

Joined: Aug 2015
From: USA

Posts: 17
Thanks: 0

Quote:
 Originally Posted by JeffM1 $\pi r^2.$ You are still confusing the meaning of square computationally and spatially. Notice r squared in the formula for a circle's area. You are creating a problem in your own mind because a word has more than one meaning and you keep trying to pretend it has one meaning.
Good point, I'll try to work it out in my head a while. Thanks.

 Tags formulas, inverse square law, light, relativity, space, squared, things

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post BenFRayfield Number Theory 0 October 15th, 2016 11:46 AM Ganesh Ujwal Physics 4 December 14th, 2014 06:25 PM moore778899 Elementary Math 0 January 16th, 2011 07:20 AM bortkiew Real Analysis 1 October 27th, 2009 09:14 AM andy Algebra 1 July 31st, 2007 11:39 AM

 Contact - Home - Forums - Cryptocurrency Forum - Top