For example, why is called Newton's First Law and not Newton's First Theorem?
Posted on 2003-12-17 21:24:13 by clippy
cuz a law is proven?
Posted on 2003-12-17 22:52:04 by Qages

cuz a law is proven?

On the contrary! How would you 'prove' Newton's laws? They are just observations...

Theorems, on the other hand, assume the laws are true to prove new things with them. Often they very much show the usability of the laws they are based on, but they never prove them. For example there's a tremendous amount of theorems based on Netwon's laws, showing that they are really useful, but at the same time Einstein showed they don't work any more when getting near the speed of light. But that doesn't mean Newton's laws and every theorem based upon it suddenly becomes false. It only proves they have a limited usability but down on earth that's sufficient.
Posted on 2003-12-18 03:54:42 by C0D1F1ED
Its basically the weight of proof. Information in physics tends to become "laws" once the information to support them becomes overwhelming or until something else shows that its wrong.

Newtons laws of motion did the job for about 300 years but Einstein's relativity showed that it is not fully correct.

An object at rest tends to stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force or is hit by a shaped charge.

An object in motion tends to stay in motion until it hits a brick wall. :tongue:

Regards,
http://www.asmcommunity.net/board/cryptmail.php?tauntspiders=in.your.face@nomail.for.you&id=2f46ed9f24413347f14439b64bdc03fd
Posted on 2003-12-18 04:07:14 by hutch--
:grin:

Laws are what the In-Laws taught your spouse before the marriage. Theorems are what you have told your spouse from the time you met.
Posted on 2003-12-18 10:15:25 by bitRAKE
I really dont get it?
How does one get to know that there is now enough proof to make it a law?
And can i just find out any pattern in the universe and say that this and this is my theorem, cause as i get it, a theorem is not fully tested so i can jsut make anything i say which might be partially true to be a theorem???:confused:

Also when is it that you have enough information to publish a 'technical paper' and when is that the info is not worth a paper but just deserves to be put on say a personal homepage?:confused:
Posted on 2003-12-18 11:54:40 by clippy
clippy, I think it is highly subjective. Everything is really just a theory because we can never really know anything. Truth is an illusion to make doing anything possible. :)
Posted on 2003-12-18 12:20:29 by bitRAKE
Hi clippy,

Publishing a technical paper is not just printing it up and passing it out. The paper must pass the scrutiny of your peers and the "experts" in the field. A very good example is string philosophy, Susskind's original paper for string philosophy was refused publishing and only circulated via word of mouth for years before it was finally accepted for publishing. By the time it was published in 1970 two other physicists had independantly discovered Veneziano's resonance model and he will always be grouped with them because though he is credited with it he was not published.

All theories must have a definitive set of proofs before they can determined to be laws. For example Einstein's theories have not met all of the proofs needed for it to become a law. For the most part the problem is in developping the technology to do the tests or in some cases waiting for an event that will be determined as a proof. Recently a regular pulsar passed directly behind Jupiter and allowed us to measure the speed of gravity for the first time, it was equivalent to the speed of light in a vacuum, adding yet another proof to Eistein's general theory. That is an example of an event driven proof, because we do not have the technology to measure gravity and speed on anything less than planetary in scale we had to wait for an event that allowed us to proove it.

There can be no exceptions to a law, a theory can have exceptions. For example with the General Theory, there are a miriad of exceptions at the quantum level so it can never become a law, as with all of Einstein's work it is relegated to the level of theory forever. In reality all of the current "laws" are theory until we can find the true nature of the universe, that is the holy grail of physics as it will provide a true base-line for determining the provability of all other theories. Once someone can develop a model of the universe that is provable and no exceptions can be demonstrated then we will truly understand the universe.
Posted on 2003-12-18 12:50:04 by donkey