The Inverse Cube Force Law
Posted by John Baez
Here’s a draft of my next column for the Notices of the American Mathematical Society. It’s about the inverse cube force law in classical mechanics.
Newton’s Principia is famous for his investigations of the inverse square force law for gravity. But in this book Newton also did something that was rarely discussed until the 1990s. He figured out what kind of central force exerted upon a particle can rescale its angular velocity by a constant factor without affecting its radial motion. This turns out to be a force obeying an inverse cube law.
Given a particle in Euclidean space, a central force is a force that points toward or away from the origin and depends only on the particle’s distance from the origin. If the particle’s position at time is and its mass is some number we have
where is a unit vector pointing outward from the origin at the point A particle obeying this equation always moves in a plane through the origin, so we can use polar coordinates and write the particle’s position as With some calculation one can show the particle’s distance from the origin, obeys
Here , the particle’s angular momentum, is constant in time. The second term in the equation above says that the particle’s distance from the origin changes as if there were an additional force pushing it outward. This is a “fictitious force”, an artifact of working in polar coordinates. It is called the centrifugal force. And it obeys an inverse cube force law!
This explains Newton’s observation. Let us see why. Suppose we have two particles moving in two different central forces and each obeying a version of equation (1), with the same mass and the same radial motion but different angular momenta and Then we must have
If the particle’s angular velocities are proportional we must have for some constant so
This says that equals plus an additional inverse cube force.
There are other interesting things about the inverse cube force law. Newtonian gravity is an attractive inverse square force, say with so in this case we have
Because grows faster than as as long as the angular momentum is nonzero the repulsion of the centrifugal force will beat the attraction of gravity for sufficiently small and the particle will not fall in to the origin. The same is true for any attractive force with But an attractive inverse cube force can overcome the centrifugal force and make a particle fall in to the origin.
In fact there are three qualitatively different possibilities for the motion of a particle in an attractive inverse cube force depending on the value of . With work we can solve for as a function of (which is easier than solving for ). There are three cases depending on the value of
They are vaguely analogous to the elliptical, parabolic and hyperbolic orbits of a particle in an inverse square force law:
The third case occurs when the attractive inverse cube force is strong enough to overcome the centrifugal force: Then the particle can spiral in to its doom, hitting the origin in a finite amount of time after infinitely many orbits, like this:

All three curves in the equation above are called Cotes spirals, after Roger Cotes’ work on the inverse cube force law, published posthumously in 1722. Cotes seems to have been the first to compute the derivative of the sine function. After Cotes’ death at the age of 33, Newton supposedly said “If he had lived we would have known something.”
The subtlety of the inverse cube force law is vastly heightened when we study it using quantum rather than classical mechanics. Here if is too large the theory is ill-defined, because there is no reasonable choice of self-adjoint Hamiltonian. If is smaller the theory is well-behaved. But at a certain borderline point it exhibits a remarkable property: spontaneous breaking of scaling symmetry. I hope to discuss this in my next column.
For more on the inverse cube force law, see:
- N. Grossman, The Sheer Joy of Celestial Mechanics, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1996, p. 34.
For more on Newton’s work involving the inverse cube force law, see:
Wikipedia, Newton’s theorem of revolving orbits.
S. Chandrasekhar, Newton’s Principia for the Common Reader, Oxford U. Press, Oxford, 1995, pp. 183–200.
Cotes’ book is
- Roger Cotes, Harmonia Mensuarum, Cambridge, 1722.

Re: The Inverse Cube Force Law
The following comment might put your remarks in context. If we write the equation for an orbit in the unorthodox form as you do, then this corresponds to a power law if and only if is proportional to a power of , more precisely, for constants and . This is then an orbit for an law. We can regard the above as an ODE ( non linear except for two significant values of ) and we have four parameters in the solution, , and two since second order. A three parameter family of solutions was already known to the Scottish mathematiciam Maclaurin . The corresponding curves are known as MacLaurin spirals (although they are not always spirals!). Thus we have three quarters of the solutions in all cases, i.e., all power laws ( by the way, the same curves are also catenaries and brachistones for suitable power laws). There are three cases where all solutions can be found explicitly: our universe, i.e., the inverse square law, simple harmonic motion, i.e., a linear law, and your case where the equation is . This can, of course, be solved trivially and we, more tidely, have three cases, trigonometric, linear or hyperbolic trigonometric, depending on which side of lies.
As a coda, related methods can be used to solve the corresponding problem for flat earthers, i.e., to find all curves in the upper half plane which are trajectories to laws. Again we use special parametrisations to reduce to ode‘s of a similar type.