Newton’s law of universal gravitation posits that every pair of mass elements attracts each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers of mass. In its usual quantitative form,
F = G m1 m2 / r^2,
where F is the magnitude of the mutual gravitational force, m1 and m2 are the masses, r is the separation of their centers of mass, and G is the gravitational constant. For bodies that are well separated or spherically symmetric, the interaction is equivalent to that between point masses located at their centers.
Newton presented this relation within the framework of classical mechanics in Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (first published 5 July 1687), deriving it by inductive argument from observed motions. The Principia thereby unified terrestrial and celestial dynamics under a single inverse-square law, a synthesis often regarded as the first major unification in physics. Quantitative laboratory confirmation of the gravitational interaction between masses came with Henry Cavendish’s experiment in 1798, which enabled measurement of G some 111 years after the Principia and roughly 71 years after Newton’s death.
Mathematically the law is analogous to Coulomb’s electrostatic law: both are inverse-square forces and share the same spatial dependence, but Coulomb’s law depends on electric charge rather than mass and involves a different constant. Although Einstein’s general theory of relativity later provided a broader conceptual framework in which gravity is described as spacetime curvature, the Newtonian formula—with the universal constant G—remains extremely accurate for most practical purposes. General relativity is required when extreme precision is needed or when gravitational fields are very strong or spatial scales are extreme, for example in the vicinity of very massive compact objects or to account for small but measurable effects such as the anomalous precession of Mercury’s orbit.
Read more Government Exam Guru
History
Explanations for why bodies fall evolved from teleological accounts in antiquity to a precise, mechanistic science by the late seventeenth century. Classical thinkers, most prominently Aristotle, treated downward motion as an intrinsic tendency of heavy bodies; this qualitative, purpose‑driven view persisted until experimental and mathematical methods began to reshape natural philosophy around 1600. Descartes recast matter and its interactions in non‑theological, mechanistic terms, Galileo quantified terrestrial motion through systematic experiments, and Kepler reduced Tycho Brahe’s observational corpus to empirical laws governing planetary orbits, together laying the groundwork for a unified dynamical account of both celestial and terrestrial phenomena. Beginning around 1666 Newton recognized that Kepler’s planetary laws ought to apply to the Moon and, by implication, to bodies on Earth; his dynamical reasoning depended on treating a spherical Earth’s mass as if concentrated at its center, and his initial calculation of the Moon’s period agreed with observation to within about 16%. Improved measurements of the Earth’s size by 1680 narrowed that discrepancy to roughly 1.6% and enabled Newton to show (and subsequently to prove) that a spherically symmetric mass distribution produces the same inverse‑square attraction at external points as a point mass. In the Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687) Newton combined his three laws of motion with mathematical analysis and formulated the law of universal gravitation—that mutual attraction between two masses varies with the product of their masses and inversely with the square of the distance between their centers. Turning the stated proportionality into a quantitative law required a universal multiplicative constant whose empirical determination was necessary to fix the law’s absolute scale. The public emergence of Newton’s synthesis also engendered contemporary disputes over priority—most notably Robert Hooke’s April 1686 assertion that Newton had borrowed the inverse‑square idea from him, a charge later judged without solid foundation but indicative of the contentious intellectual climate surrounding the Principia.
In correspondence with Richard Bentley (1692) Newton rejected the notion that bodies could exert influence across empty space without any intervening agency, describing such “action at a distance” as philosophically unacceptable and thus framing a fundamental tension between empirically derived regularities and their causal explanation.
Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
In the General Scholium to the 1713 Principia Newton elaborated an operational account of gravity while deliberately separating mathematical description from hypothesized mechanisms. He treated the motions of celestial and terrestrial fluids and bodies as governed by a single universal force that acts toward the mass-centers of the Sun and planets and penetrates the internal extent of those bodies. This force, he insisted, scales with the quantity of matter (what we now call mass) rather than with surface area, and it diminishes with distance according to an inverse‑square law, transmitting influence across the vast reaches of the heavens. Concluding that the ultimate cause of these properties could not be deduced from phenomena, he refused to invent speculative causes—summarized by his dictum Hypotheses non fingo.
Taken together, Newton’s remarks establish the core empirical and conceptual elements of universal gravitation—central, mass-proportional attraction with 1/r^2 attenuation across immense distances—while simultaneously instituting a methodological divide between precise description of spatial phenomena and the restraint against unverified causal speculation that shaped subsequent debates in celestial mechanics and physical geography.
Modern form
Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that every pair of point masses attracts one another with a force directed along the line joining their centers and whose magnitude varies inversely with the square of their separation: F = G m1 m2 / r^2. In this expression F is the mutual gravitational force, m1 and m2 are the two masses, and r is the distance between their centers (the force acts along the line of centers). Using SI units, F is measured in newtons (N), masses in kilograms (kg) and distance in metres (m), so the gravitational constant G has units m^3⋅kg^−1⋅s^−2. The accepted laboratory value is approximately G = 6.674×10^−11 m^3⋅kg^−1⋅s^−2, more precisely reported as 6.67430(15)×10^−11 m^3⋅kg^−1⋅s^−2, where the parenthetical figures indicate the uncertainty on the final digits. Experimental determinations of G show noticeable scatter between different measurements, reflecting persistent practical difficulties in obtaining high precision in terrestrial experiments. The first successful laboratory test of Newtonian gravity between known masses was Cavendish’s torsion‑balance experiment (1798), which provided the empirical foundation enabling later numerical determination of G; because Cavendish’s work—and all subsequent measurements—postdated Newton by many decades (the Cavendish experiment occurred 111 years after the Principia and 71 years after Newton’s death), Newton himself did not have a measured numerical value of G and therefore expressed gravitational effects comparatively rather than as absolute magnitudes using G.
The gravitational acceleration observed near Earth’s surface arises from the cumulative attraction of the planet’s distributed mass. For extended bodies the net force on any element is obtained by summing the vector contributions of all constituent point masses; in practice this sum is taken to the continuum limit and expressed as an integral of the gravitational force density over the volumes of the interacting bodies. Treating bodies as point masses is therefore an idealization justified only when the spatial extent of the source can be neglected relative to the separation of interest.
A central simplification applies when the source mass distribution is spherically symmetric. In that case the field at any external point is identical to that which would be produced by concentrating the total mass at the center of symmetry; this result underlies the common practice of using a point-mass approximation for planets and stars. More generally, Newton’s shell theorem quantifies the contributions of mass inside and outside a spherical radius r0: the gravitational effect of all mass at radii r < r0 equals that of the enclosed mass concentrated at the center, while all mass at radii r > r0 exerts zero net force at the interior point because the vector contributions from the outer shell cancel exactly. A direct corollary is that a uniform spherical shell produces no net gravitational acceleration anywhere in its hollow interior. These conclusions rely on spherical symmetry and do not hold for arbitrarily shaped bodies, for which the full volume integral of the vector force must be evaluated.
Newton’s law of universal gravitation in vector form is
F_{21} = −G m_1 m_2 / |r_{21}|^2 \,\hat r_{21} = −G m_1 m_2 \,r_{21} / |r_{21}|^3,
which combines the scalar inverse‑square dependence with directional information. Here F_{21} denotes the force on body 2 due to body 1, G is the gravitational constant, and m_1, m_2 are the two masses. The displacement vector r_{21} = r_2 − r_1 points from the position r_1 of body 1 to the position r_2 of body 2; its Euclidean norm |r_{21}| is the separation distance. The unit vector \hat r_{21} ≡ r_{21}/|r_{21}| gives direction from body 1 toward body 2, and the leading negative sign ensures that the force on body 2 is directed toward body 1 (attraction).
Writing the law as G m_1 m_2 / |r_{21}|^2 times the unit vector emphasizes the scalar magnitude and the inverse‑square decay with distance, while the alternative form −G m_1 m_2 r_{21}/|r_{21}|^3 incorporates the same magnitude together with the full displacement vector to produce the directed force. For an isolated pair the mutual forces satisfy the action–reaction relation F_{12} = −F_{21}, so the two bodies experience equal and opposite gravitational forces.
Applied as a field, the gravitational acceleration experienced by body 2 is g = F_{21}/m_2 = −G m_1 / |r_{21}|^2 \,\hat r_{21}, showing that acceleration due to gravity is independent of the test mass and points along the radial line toward the source mass. In common geographic and near‑Earth problems, Earth can be treated as a spherically symmetric (or point) mass m_Earth; r_{21} is then measured from Earth’s center to the object, |r_{21}| = r is the radial distance, and the gravity vector points radially inward with magnitude G m_Earth / r^2.
Read more Government Exam Guru
In summary, the vector formulation explicitly links spatial location (position and separation vectors), mass distribution (the source and test masses), and the inverse‑square spatial decay to yield a spatially varying gravitational field that is both directionally specified and quantitatively determined by G and the interacting masses.
The gravitational field g(r) is a vector field that gives the gravitational force per unit mass at each point in space and is numerically equal to the local gravitational acceleration; it has the dimensions of acceleration and an SI unit of m s−2. For a point source of mass m1 located at the origin and a field point at position vector r (with unit vector r̂), the field is
g(r) = −G m1 |r|−2 r̂,
so a test mass m placed at r experiences a force F(r) = m g(r). Expressing gravity as a vector field facilitates treatment of multi‑body configurations (e.g., spacecraft between Earth and Moon); in simple two‑body notation one commonly writes r (or r12) for the separation vector and m (or m2) for the test mass.
Gravity is conservative: the work done by gravitational forces between two points does not depend on the path, which guarantees the existence of a scalar potential V(r) with g(r) = −∇V(r). For a point mass, and for the field exterior to any spherically symmetric mass distribution, the potential takes the form V(r) = −G m1 / r, so the external field is isotropic and depends only on the radial distance r from the center.
Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
In symmetric situations Gauss’s law for gravity provides a useful integral form:
∮ g · dA = −4πG Menc,
where the surface integral is over a closed surface and Menc is the total mass enclosed. This yields simple results for spherical distributions: a hollow thin spherical shell of radius R and mass M produces no gravitational field inside (|g| = 0 for r < R) and an inverse‑square field outside (|g| = GM / r2 for r ≥ R). A uniform solid sphere of radius R and total mass M produces a field that grows linearly with radius within the sphere (|g| = G M r / R3 for r < R) and matches the external inverse‑square law (|g| = GM / r2 for r ≥ R).
Note: the source section containing these statements was flagged as unsourced on March 2025.
Newtonian gravity is an excellent approximation whenever the dimensionless measures of gravitational strength and motion,
$\phi/c^{2}$ and $(v/c)^{2}$, are both much smaller than unity. Here $\phi$ denotes the Newtonian gravitational potential, $v$ a characteristic velocity of the system, and $c$ the speed of light. In this regime relativistic corrections are negligible and the inverse‑square law captures the dynamics to high accuracy.
A concrete example is the Earth–Sun system: the potential parameter evaluates to $\phi/c^{2}\approx GM_{\odot}/(r_{\rm orbit}c^{2})\sim10^{-8}$, and the kinematic parameter to $(v_{\oplus}/c)^{2}\approx\big(2\pi r_{\rm orbit}/(1\,{\rm yr}\cdot c)\big)^{2}\sim10^{-8}$. Both values are extremely small and of the same order, demonstrating that Earth’s orbital motion is deeply nonrelativistic and justifying the Newtonian treatment.
When either $\phi/c^{2}$ or $(v/c)^{2}$ is not ≪1—for example near compact objects or at relativistic speeds—the Newtonian description fails and the full machinery of general relativity is required. Conversely, general relativity reproduces Newtonian gravity in the combined weak‑field, slow‑motion limit, so Newton’s law should be regarded as the low‑gravity (weak‑field, slow‑motion) approximation of the relativistic theory.
Observations conflicting with Newton’s formula
Precise astronomical measurements accumulated after Newton’s lifetime revealed systematic departures from the predictions of his inverse-square law. The perihelion of Mercury advances at a rate that cannot be fully accounted for by Newtonian calculations including perturbations from the other planets: the residual advance is 43 arcseconds per century. Attempts to treat light within a Newtonian corpuscular framework likewise fail quantitatively: the classical prediction for gravitational angular deflection of light is only half the value actually measured. The relativistic theory of gravity yields light‑bending values in much closer agreement with observations, demonstrating the inadequacy of the Newtonian description for null trajectories in strong fields. At galactic scales both Newtonian gravity and general relativity, when applied to the distribution of visible matter, underpredict the orbital velocities of stars in spiral galaxies; to reconcile these rotation curves with gravitational theory, astronomers invoke extended halos of nonluminous “dark matter.” Together, these discrepancies expose limitations of Newton’s law in the relativistic and galactic regimes and motivated the development of general relativity and the dark‑matter paradigm.
Einstein’s solution
Spacetime is treated as a single four-dimensional physical arena whose conceptual and mathematical structure underpins both Special and General Relativity. Special Relativity analyzes physics in the absence of gravity, employing Lorentz transformations and the Minkowski metric to relate inertial observers and to establish invariant relations between space and time for matter and light.
Read more Government Exam Guru
Mathematically, spacetime is modeled as a manifold whose points represent individual events; understanding motion and causality therefore requires tools that permit local comparison of events and a description of allowable trajectories. The Equivalence Principle furnishes the conceptual bridge to a geometric theory of gravity by asserting that, locally, the effects of a gravitational field are indistinguishable from those of acceleration. This insight motivates replacing the Newtonian notion of a force acting at a distance with a description in which geometry encodes gravitational effects.
In General Relativity the distribution of energy and momentum determines the curvature of spacetime, and that curvature in turn dictates the motion of particles and light. Einstein’s field equations are the central mathematical statement of this relation, linking the energy–momentum content to geometric quantities that express curvature. Free-fall motion is then understood as inertial motion along geodesics of the curved manifold; the familiar gravitational “force” appears as a fictitious effect of following curved world lines rather than as a direct interbody interaction.
This geometric account yields a unified explanation for the trajectories of both massive bodies and light and reproduces experimentally verified phenomena that deviate from Newtonian predictions in regimes of strong curvature. Newton’s law of universal gravitation remains the historically antecedent framework—treating gravity as a force between masses—and provides an excellent approximation when spacetime curvature is negligible.
Free Thousands of Mock Test for Any Exam
The formalism employs four-vectors and spacetime diagrams to represent events and causal structure, and relies on differential geometry and global-topological considerations to describe curvature and large-scale properties of the manifold. Detailed mathematical derivations of the Einstein equations and their solutions complete the apparatus required to relate physical measurements to the geometric formulation of gravitation.
Neutron interferometry provides a precision experimental approach to test the functional form of gravity by measuring quantum-mechanical phase shifts of coherent neutron beams induced by gravitational potentials. By sending neutron wavepackets along separate, controlled paths through regions with differing gravitational potentials and recombining them, interferometers convert potential differences into measurable phase differences; any systematic deviation from the phase predicted by a 1/r^2 potential can indicate additional contributions to the gravitational interaction.
Deviations from the inverse-square law imply extra terms in the gravitational potential—commonly modelled as short-range Yukawa-like or alternative power-law additions—that change the local spatial gradient and curvature of the field. Because the interferometric phase responds directly to line integrals of the potential, the technique is intrinsically sensitive to spatially localized modifications at the laboratory length scales traversed by the neutrons. This makes neutron interferometry particularly well suited to detect very small, short-range departures from Newtonian gravity that would be effectively invisible to macroscopic torsion-balance or astronomical tests.
The extreme sensitivity of phase measurements also demands stringent control of environmental and instrumental perturbations (mechanical vibration, thermal gradients, electromagnetic fields, and nearby mass heterogeneities) so that any observed phase shift can be attributed to genuine gravitational effects. Those constraints confine experiments to carefully instrumented laboratory settings and mean that extrapolation of results to larger regional or global scales requires explicit modelling of scale-dependent behaviour. Were a non-inverse-square component convincingly detected at short range, near-surface gravity representations used in microgravimetry, site-specific surveys, and precision geodesy would need reassessment because local anomalies and gradients might no longer be fully described by Newtonian theory; however, applying laboratory-scale findings to practical geophysical corrections would necessitate rigorous cross-scale scaling and modelling across many orders of magnitude. Finally, because the present context contains no explicit spatial coordinates, elevations, dates, or quantitative distance ranges, spatial interpretation is limited to the general laboratory-scale regime and cannot be tied to specific geographic locations.
The n‑body problem in celestial mechanics asks how to predict the individual motions of a collection of masses that interact only by gravity. Formally it is an initial‑value problem: given the instantaneous state vectors (positions, velocities and epoch) of all bodies, determine the mutual gravitational forces and integrate the resulting equations of motion to obtain the trajectories for all future times.
Certain subclasses are analytically tractable: the two‑body problem admits a complete solution and the restricted three‑body problem is likewise solvable, so these cases serve as important benchmarks within the broader, generally nonintegrable n‑body context. Historically the problem has driven astronomical theory from the Greeks onward, motivated by the need to explain and predict the motions of the Sun, planets and visible stars. In the twentieth century interest expanded to include many‑body stellar systems — notably globular clusters — where collective gravitational interactions determine long‑term dynamical evolution and relaxation processes.
Extending the n‑body problem to general relativity introduces substantially greater mathematical and conceptual difficulty. The relativistic formulation replaces Newtonian pairwise forces with a coupled field–matter problem, rendering exact solutions rare and numerical or perturbative methods essential for practical prediction.