News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Coulomb's law remains tricky to test at home by amavect on Thursday September 24, 2026 @01:11PM (#49833716)
Show by experiment that the force of charge0 against charge1+charge2 equals the force of charge0 against charge1 plus charge0 against charge2. Induce an additive-homomorphic property F(r,q0,q1+q2) = F(r,q0,q1)+F(r,q0,q2). Then, exponent 1 follows.

I figured this out by listing a bunch of mathematical properties. I couldn't see how the author jumps from zero-preserving to multiply-charges, and I still don't know how, but we can call it out of scope lol

  r : distance between p and q
  q0 : charge 0
  q1 : charge 1
  F : coulomb force function
  charge-commutative: F(r,q0,q1) = F(r,q1,q0)
  zero-preserving: 0 = F(r,q0,0)
  additive-homomorphic: F(r,q0,q1+q2) = F(r,q0,q1)+F(r,q0,q2)
  
  homogenous-degree-1: F(r,q0,n*q1) = n*F(r,q0,q1)
  multiplicative-separability: F(r,q0,q1) = K*R(r)*Q(q0,q1)
  multiply-charges: F(r,q0,q1) = K*R(r)*(q0*q1)^a

  Given F(r,q0,q1) = K*R(r)*(q0*q1)^a, charge-commutative, zero-preserving, additive-homomorphic.
  Induction using additive-homomorphic proves homogenous-degree-1. (For example, F(r,q0,2*q1) = F(r,q0,q1+q1) = 2*F(r,q0,q1))
  Equational proof follows from homogenous-degree-1:
  K*R(r)*(q0*n*q1)^a = n*K*R(r)*(q0*q1)^a
  (q0*n*q1)^a = n*(q0*q1)^a
  n^a*(q0*q1)^a = n*(q0*q1)^a
  n^a = n
  n = 0 or a = 1
  n≠0, therefore a=1.
Re:Coulomb's law remains tricky to test at home by nh23423fefe on Thursday September 24, 2026 @05:34PM (#49837014)
Can you use the homomorphism to get that?

F(r,q0,q1) = F(r,q0,q1+0) = F(r,q0,q1)+F(r,q0,0) = F(r,q0,q1) + 0

Re:Coulomb's law remains tricky to test at home by amavect on Friday September 25, 2026 @11:50AM (#49846227)
Actually, yes! We can use homogenous-degree-1 (provable from the homomorphism) to prove it.

  F(r,q0,q1)
  = F(r,q0*1,q1*1)
  = q0*q1*F(r,1,1)
Very simple! It remains to show that F(r,1,1) = K/r^2, as intended.
Re:Coulomb's law remains tricky to test at home by nh23423fefe on Friday September 25, 2026 @12:23PM (#49846629)
I feel like that should be gettable from rotational symmetry and somehow mentioning L2 norm to get the square. Either that or conservation of E-field flux.
Re:Coulomb's law remains tricky to test at home by amavect on Friday September 25, 2026 @02:44PM (#49848362)
Rotational symmetry or L^2 norm only matter in vector formulations. I assumed a scalar formulation.

Conservation of E-field flux certainly implies additive-homomorphism (addition of charges equals addition of forces). But that seems a bit ahistorical because Maxwell would develop field theory 70 years after Coloumb. Either way, the axiom you choose requires empirical justification, and I think a home hobbyist could more easily demonstrate by experiment that adding charges will add the forces.

Or, if you meant F(r,1,1) = K/r^2, then yeah, conservation of E-field flux could give you an inverse square law. But again, that requires an experiment to justify the axiom.