Talk:Laws of science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] laws and theories

Theories CANNOT become laws because laws are general statements about nature. That is why gravity's principles is a law, while gravity itself is a theory. I will fix this. -intranetusa

Subscript textHow about, "Thou shalt not fudge the data"?

Hmm, isn't computer simulation and modelling an institutionalized form of fudging?

(Sorry for my bad English!) Would it be posible to distinguish between "real" laws, ie those which may be used as "axiom" by well-established subfields of physics, and "theorems"?


" "law" differs from those as hypotheses, theories, postulates, and principles, etc., in that a law is a general statement about nature that is considered proven beyond doubt." Corrected it, taking out theories of the statement. Not the way it should be corrected, but better than leaving people thinking theories might not reflect truth.

A law is an analytic statment, the law may be empirically determined or the law maybe the result of a theory. Also a theory could be the result of a law. A law is NOT a theroy which is know really well. The article of scientific law makes this distinction much better. Aiden Fisher 23:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page move query

I suggest we move this page (List of laws in science) to: Laws of science. Any objections? --Sadi Carnot 09:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's moved. --Sadi Carnot 14:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Per wiki policy, this article should be renamed to "Law of Science". Right? --68.122.193.47 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about biological laws?

They are not laws of science? Laws of nature? Mendel's laws? Hardy-Weinberg principle? --Filll 18:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Universal laws apply anywhere in the universe; earth-related genetic mutation laws, for example, might not apply in other parts of the universe. --Sadi Carnot 01:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Lots of things we call laws might not apply everywhere in the universe and for all time.--Filll 01:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess you could classify this page as the "laws of hard science". --Sadi Carnot 21:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question on einsteins laws

I thought they were theories but that newtons general law of gravitation was the law that the theory of einsteins general relativity was based on and so i thought it would be consider a theory.

Relativity is based on the idea that the laws of physics are of the same form in every reference frame, which actually leads mathematically to Einsteins formula for gravitation. It is not based on Newton's equation, although at low energies the two formulas are pretty much the same. Newton's law has been found to not always hold in certain situations and so no longer is a law in that sense, although the idea of universal gravitation is still a law, but you must use Einstein's formula to describe it if it is to be valid everywhere. Roy Brumback 05:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the assumption that nothing can travel faster than light in Einstein's general/special theory of relativity? I understand that it is a pretty obvious postulate that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame is certainly reasonable but to suddenly assume that nothing that travel faster than light brings some speculation over if it can be proven or not. Then going into quantum mechanics. Like the existance of super high energy gamma rays contradicts that there will be a limit as to how much hv a light wave/particle can carry. even if it was a proton going .99999 the speed of light the theory of relativity says that it would be incredibly massive and that there is not enough energy to make a proton go that fast. Scientist are planing to make protons go that fast at a particle accelerator to create a higgs particle to see if it exist and have made protons go near the speed of light not using the incredible amount of energy required by the special theory of relativity says as protons do have a rest mass. Just some thought on that aspect. Oh well back on Newtons laws, (taken out of "A History of Pi")"Contrary to widespread belief, Newton's laws of motion are not contradicted by Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity. Newton never made the statement that the force equals mass times acceleration. His Second Law says F=d(mv)/dt and Newton was far to cautious a man to take the m out of the bracket. When mass, in Einstein's interpretation, became a function of velocity, not an iota in Newton's laws needed to be changed. It is therefore incorrect to regard relativistic mechanics as refining or even contradicting Newton's laws: Einstein's building is still anchored in the 3 Newtonian foundation stones, but the building is twisted to accommodate eletromagnetic phenomena as well. True Newton's law of gravitation turned out to be (very slightly) inaccurate; but this law even though it led to Newton to the discovery of the foundation stones, is not a foundation stone itself." written by Petr Beckmann. Even thought Newtons general law of gravitation may not be true his 3 laws of motion are laws.Barry White 03:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect description about force

Force is not always equal to rest mass times acceleration divided by Lorentz Factor. Indeed this only holds true when the force is parallel to the velocity. In Special Relativity, force may not be parrallel to the acceleration. Thljcl 09:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC) ]]

[edit] ...a law is ...?

"...a law is an analytic statement, usually with an empirically determined constant...."

I have no idea what this means.

Is "an analytic statement" as used here the same as an analytic statement of logical positivism? It doesn't seem to be. Ivar Y (talk) 07:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)