Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Scientific law
View on WikipediaScientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.[1] The term law has diverse usage in many cases (approximate, accurate, broad, or narrow) across all fields of natural science (physics, chemistry, astronomy, geoscience, biology). Laws are developed from data and can be further developed through mathematics; in all cases they are directly or indirectly based on empirical evidence. It is generally understood that they implicitly reflect, though they do not explicitly assert, causal relationships fundamental to reality, and are discovered rather than invented.[2]
Scientific laws summarize the results of experiments or observations, usually within a certain range of application. In general, the accuracy of a law does not change when a new theory of the relevant phenomenon is worked out, but rather the scope of the law's application, since the mathematics or statement representing the law does not change. As with other kinds of scientific knowledge, scientific laws do not express absolute certainty, as mathematical laws do. A scientific law may be contradicted, restricted, or extended by future observations.
A law can often be formulated as one or several statements or equations, so that it can predict the outcome of an experiment. Laws differ from hypotheses and postulates, which are proposed during the scientific process before and during validation by experiment and observation. Hypotheses and postulates are not laws, since they have not been verified to the same degree, although they may lead to the formulation of laws. Laws are narrower in scope than scientific theories, which may entail one or several laws.[3] Science distinguishes a law or theory from facts.[4] Calling a law a fact is ambiguous, an overstatement, or an equivocation.[5] The nature of scientific laws has been much discussed in philosophy, but in essence scientific laws are simply empirical conclusions reached by the scientific method; they are intended to be neither laden with ontological commitments nor statements of logical absolutes.
Social sciences such as economics have also attempted to formulate scientific laws, though these generally have much less predictive power.
Overview
[edit]A scientific law always applies to a physical system under repeated conditions, and it implies that there is a causal relationship involving the elements of the system. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[6]
Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, the applicability of a law is limited to circumstances resembling those already observed, and the law may be found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks; Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields; the early laws of aerodynamics, such as Bernoulli's principle, do not apply in the case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight; Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit; Boyle's law applies with perfect accuracy only to the ideal gas, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the specified conditions where they apply.
Many laws take mathematical forms, and thus can be stated as an equation; for example, the law of conservation of energy can be written as ΔE = 0, where E is the total amount of energy in the universe. Similarly, the first law of thermodynamics can be written as dU = δQ − δW, and Newton's second law can be written as F = dp/dt. While these scientific laws explain what our senses perceive, they are still empirical (acquired by observation or scientific experiment) and so are not like mathematical theorems which can be proved purely by mathematics.
Like theories and hypotheses, laws make predictions; specifically, they predict that new observations will conform to the given law. Laws can be falsified if they are found in contradiction with new data.
Some laws are only approximations of other more general laws, and are good approximations with a restricted domain of applicability. For example, Newtonian dynamics (which is based on Galilean transformations) is the low-speed limit of special relativity (since the Galilean transformation is the low-speed approximation to the Lorentz transformation). Similarly, the Newtonian gravitation law is a low-mass approximation of general relativity, and Coulomb's law is an approximation to quantum electrodynamics at large distances (compared to the range of weak interactions). In such cases it is common to use the simpler, approximate versions of the laws, instead of the more accurate general laws.
Laws are constantly being tested experimentally to increasing degrees of precision, which is one of the main goals of science. The fact that laws have never been observed to be violated does not preclude testing them at increased accuracy or in new kinds of conditions to confirm whether they continue to hold, or whether they break, and what can be discovered in the process. It is always possible for laws to be invalidated or proven to have limitations, by repeatable experimental evidence, should any be observed. Well-established laws have indeed been invalidated in some special cases, but the new formulations created to explain the discrepancies generalize upon, rather than overthrow, the originals. That is, the invalidated laws have been found to be only close approximations, to which other terms or factors must be added to cover previously unaccounted-for conditions, e.g. very large or very small scales of time or space, enormous speeds or masses, etc. This, rather than unchanging knowledge, physical laws are better viewed as a series of improving and more precise generalizations.
Properties
[edit]Scientific laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiments and observations over many years and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. A scientific law is "inferred from particular facts, applicable to a defined group or class of phenomena, and expressible by the statement that a particular phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions be present".[7] The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science.
Several general properties of scientific laws, particularly when referring to laws in physics, have been identified. Scientific laws are:
- True, at least within their regime of validity. By definition, there have never been repeatable contradicting observations.
- Universal. They appear to apply everywhere in the universe.[8]: 82
- Simple. They are typically expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation.
- Absolute. Nothing in the universe appears to affect them.[8]: 82
- Stable. Unchanged since first discovered (although they may have been shown to be approximations of more accurate laws),
- All-encompassing. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations).
- Generally conservative of quantity.[9]: 59
- Often expressions of existing homogeneities (symmetries) of space and time.[9]
- Typically theoretically reversible in time (if non-quantum), although time itself is irreversible.[9]
- Broad. In physics, laws exclusively refer to the broad domain of matter, motion, energy, and force itself, rather than more specific systems in the universe, such as living systems, e.g. the mechanics of the human body.[10]
The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain laws.[11] For example, Zipf's law is a law in the social sciences which is based on mathematical statistics. In these cases, laws may describe general trends or expected behaviors rather than being absolutes.
In natural science, impossibility assertions come to be widely accepted as overwhelmingly probable rather than considered proved to the point of being unchallengeable. The basis for this strong acceptance is a combination of extensive evidence of something not occurring, combined with an underlying theory, very successful in making predictions, whose assumptions lead logically to the conclusion that something is impossible. While an impossibility assertion in natural science can never be absolutely proved, it could be refuted by the observation of a single counterexample. Such a counterexample would require that the assumptions underlying the theory that implied the impossibility be re-examined.
Some examples of widely accepted impossibilities in physics are perpetual motion machines, which violate the law of conservation of energy, exceeding the speed of light, which violates the implications of special relativity, the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, which asserts the impossibility of simultaneously knowing both the position and the momentum of a particle, and Bell's theorem: no physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics.
Laws as consequences of mathematical symmetries
[edit]Some laws reflect mathematical symmetries found in nature (e.g. the Pauli exclusion principle reflects identity of electrons, conservation laws reflect homogeneity of space, time, and Lorentz transformations reflect rotational symmetry of spacetime). Many fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences of various symmetries of space, time, or other aspects of nature. Specifically, Noether's theorem connects some conservation laws to certain symmetries. For example, conservation of energy is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time (no moment of time is different from any other), while conservation of momentum is a consequence of the symmetry (homogeneity) of space (no place in space is special, or different from any other). The indistinguishability of all particles of each fundamental type (say, electrons, or photons) results in the Dirac and Bose quantum statistics which in turn result in the Pauli exclusion principle for fermions and in Bose–Einstein condensation for bosons. Special relativity uses rapidity to express motion according to the symmetries of hyperbolic rotation, a transformation mixing space and time. Symmetry between inertial and gravitational mass results in general relativity.
The inverse square law of interactions mediated by massless bosons is the mathematical consequence of the 3-dimensionality of space.
One strategy in the search for the most fundamental laws of nature is to search for the most general mathematical symmetry group that can be applied to the fundamental interactions.
Laws of physics
[edit]Conservation laws
[edit]Conservation and symmetry
[edit]Conservation laws are fundamental laws that follow from the homogeneity of space, time and phase, in other words symmetry.
- Noether's theorem: Any quantity with a continuously differentiable symmetry in the action has an associated conservation law.
- Conservation of mass was the first law to be understood since most macroscopic physical processes involving masses, for example, collisions of massive particles or fluid flow, provide the apparent belief that mass is conserved. Mass conservation was observed to be true for all chemical reactions. In general, this is only approximative because with the advent of relativity and experiments in nuclear and particle physics: mass can be transformed into energy and vice versa, so mass is not always conserved but part of the more general conservation of mass–energy.
- Conservation of energy, momentum and angular momentum for isolated systems can be found to be symmetries in time, translation, and rotation.
- Conservation of charge was also realized since charge has never been observed to be created or destroyed and only found to move from place to place.
Continuity and transfer
[edit]Conservation laws can be expressed using the general continuity equation (for a conserved quantity) can be written in differential form as:
where ρ is some quantity per unit volume, J is the flux of that quantity (change in quantity per unit time per unit area). Intuitively, the divergence (denoted ∇⋅) of a vector field is a measure of flux diverging radially outwards from a point, so the negative is the amount piling up at a point; hence the rate of change of density in a region of space must be the amount of flux leaving or collecting in some region (see the main article for details). In the table below, the fluxes flows for various physical quantities in transport, and their associated continuity equations, are collected for comparison.
Physics, conserved quantity Conserved quantity q Volume density ρ (of q) Flux J (of q) Equation Hydrodynamics, fluids m = mass (kg) ρ = volumic mass density (kg⋅m−3) ρ u, where
u = velocity field of fluid (m⋅s−1)Electromagnetism, electric charge q = electric charge (C) ρ = volumic electric charge density (C⋅m−3) J = electric current density (A⋅m−2) Thermodynamics, energy E = energy (J) u = volumic energy density (J⋅m−3) q = heat flux (W⋅m−2) Quantum mechanics, probability P = (r, t) = ∫|Ψ|2d3r = probability distribution ρ = ρ(r, t) = |Ψ|2 = probability density function (m−3),
Ψ = wavefunction of quantum systemj = probability current/flux
More general equations are the convection–diffusion equation and Boltzmann transport equation, which have their roots in the continuity equation.
Laws of classical mechanics
[edit]Principle of least action
[edit]Classical mechanics, including Newton's laws, Lagrange's equations, Hamilton's equations, etc., can be derived from the following principle:
where is the action; the integral of the Lagrangian
of the physical system between two times t1 and t2. The kinetic energy of the system is T (a function of the rate of change of the configuration of the system), and potential energy is V (a function of the configuration and its rate of change). The configuration of a system which has N degrees of freedom is defined by generalized coordinates q = (q1, q2, ... qN).
There are generalized momenta conjugate to these coordinates, p = (p1, p2, ..., pN), where:
The action and Lagrangian both contain the dynamics of the system for all times. The term "path" simply refers to a curve traced out by the system in terms of the generalized coordinates in the configuration space, i.e. the curve q(t), parameterized by time (see also Parametric equation).
The action is a functional rather than a function, since it depends on the Lagrangian, and the Lagrangian depends on the path q(t), so the action depends on the entire "shape" of the path for all times (in the time interval from t1 to t2). Between two instants of time, there are infinitely many paths, but one for which the action is stationary (to the first order) is the true path. The stationary value for the entire continuum of Lagrangian values corresponding to some path, not just one value of the Lagrangian, is required (in other words it is not as simple as "differentiating a function and setting it to zero, then solving the equations to find the points of maxima and minima etc.", rather this idea is applied to the entire "shape" of the function, see calculus of variations for more details on this procedure).[12]
Notice L is not the total energy E of the system due to the difference, rather than the sum:
The following[13][14] general approaches to classical mechanics are summarized below in the order of establishment. They are equivalent formulations. Newton's is commonly used due to simplicity, but Hamilton's and Lagrange's equations are more general, and their range can extend into other branches of physics with suitable modifications.
Laws of motion Principle of least action: The Euler–Lagrange equations are: Using the definition of generalized momentum, there is the symmetry:
Hamilton's equations The Hamiltonian as a function of generalized coordinates and momenta has the general form:
Hamilton–Jacobi equation Newton's laws They are low-limit solutions to relativity. Alternative formulations of Newtonian mechanics are Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics.
The laws can be summarized by two equations (since the 1st is a special case of the 2nd, zero resultant acceleration):
where p = momentum of body, Fij = force on body i by body j, Fji = force on body j by body i.
For a dynamical system the two equations (effectively) combine into one:
in which FE = resultant external force (due to any agent not part of system). Body i does not exert a force on itself.
From the above, any equation of motion in classical mechanics can be derived.
Corollaries in mechanics:
Corollaries in fluid mechanics:
Equations describing fluid flow in various situations can be derived, using the above classical equations of motion and often conservation of mass, energy and momentum. Some elementary examples follow.
- Archimedes' principle
- Bernoulli's principle
- Poiseuille's law
- Stokes' law
- Navier–Stokes equations
- Faxén's law
Laws of gravitation and relativity
[edit]Some of the more famous laws of nature are found in Isaac Newton's theories of (now) classical mechanics, presented in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, and in Albert Einstein's theory of relativity.
Modern laws
[edit]The two postulates of special relativity are not "laws" in themselves, but assumptions of their nature in terms of relative motion.
They can be stated as "the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames" and "the speed of light is constant and has the same value in all inertial frames".
The said postulates lead to the Lorentz transformations – the transformation law between two frame of references moving relative to each other. For any 4-vector
this replaces the Galilean transformation law from classical mechanics. The Lorentz transformations reduce to the Galilean transformations for low velocities much less than the speed of light c.
The magnitudes of 4-vectors are invariants – not "conserved", but the same for all inertial frames (i.e. every observer in an inertial frame will agree on the same value), in particular if A is the four-momentum, the magnitude can derive the famous invariant equation for mass–energy and momentum conservation (see invariant mass):
in which the (more famous) mass–energy equivalence E = mc2 is a special case.
General relativity is governed by the Einstein field equations, which describe the curvature of space-time due to mass-energy equivalent to the gravitational field. Solving the equation for the geometry of space warped due to the mass distribution gives the metric tensor. Using the geodesic equation, the motion of masses falling along the geodesics can be calculated.
In a relatively flat spacetime due to weak gravitational fields, gravitational analogues of Maxwell's equations can be found; the GEM equations, to describe an analogous gravitomagnetic field. They are well established by the theory, and experimental tests form ongoing research.[15]
Einstein field equations (EFE): where Λ = cosmological constant, Rμν = Ricci curvature tensor, Tμν = stress–energy tensor, gμν = metric tensor
Geodesic equation: where Γ is a Christoffel symbol of the second kind, containing the metric.
GEM Equations If g the gravitational field and H the gravitomagnetic field, the solutions in these limits are:
where ρ is the mass density and J is the mass current density or mass flux.
In addition there is the gravitomagnetic Lorentz force: where m is the rest mass of the particlce and γ is the Lorentz factor.
Classical laws
[edit]Kepler's laws, though originally discovered from planetary observations (also due to Tycho Brahe), are true for any central forces.[16]
Newton's law of universal gravitation: For two point masses:
For a nonuniform mass distribution of local mass density ρ(r) of body of volume V, this becomes:
Gauss's law for gravity: An equivalent statement to Newton's law is:
Kepler's 1st law: Planets move in an ellipse, with the star at a focus where
is the eccentricity of the elliptic orbit, of semi-major axis a and semi-minor axis b, and ℓ is the semi-latus rectum. This equation in itself is nothing physically fundamental; simply the polar equation of an ellipse in which the pole (origin of polar coordinate system) is positioned at a focus of the ellipse, where the orbited star is.
Kepler's 2nd law: equal areas are swept out in equal times (area bounded by two radial distances and the orbital circumference): where L is the orbital angular momentum of the particle (i.e. planet) of mass m about the focus of orbit,
Kepler's 3rd law: The square of the orbital time period T is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis a: where M is the mass of the central body (i.e. star).
Thermodynamics
[edit]Laws of thermodynamics First law of thermodynamics: The change in internal energy dU in a closed system is accounted for entirely by the heat δQ absorbed by the system and the work δW done by the system: Second law of thermodynamics: There are many statements of this law, perhaps the simplest is "the entropy of isolated systems never decreases",
meaning reversible changes have zero entropy change, irreversible process are positive, and impossible process are negative.
Zeroth law of thermodynamics: If two systems are in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they are in thermal equilibrium with one another. - As the temperature T of a system approaches absolute zero, the entropy S approaches a minimum value C: as T → 0, S → C.
For homogeneous systems the first and second law can be combined into the Fundamental thermodynamic relation: Onsager reciprocal relations: sometimes called the fourth law of thermodynamics
- Newton's law of cooling
- Fourier's law
- Ideal gas law, combines a number of separately developed gas laws;
- now improved by other equations of state
- Dalton's law (of partial pressures)
- Boltzmann equation
- Carnot's theorem
- Kopp's law
Electromagnetism
[edit]Maxwell's equations give the time-evolution of the electric and magnetic fields due to electric charge and current distributions. Given the fields, the Lorentz force law is the equation of motion for charges in the fields.
Maxwell's equations Gauss's law for electricity
Ampère's circuital law (with Maxwell's correction)
Lorentz force law: Quantum electrodynamics (QED): Maxwell's equations are generally true and consistent with relativity – but they do not predict some observed quantum phenomena (e.g. light propagation as EM waves, rather than photons, see Maxwell's equations for details). They are modified in QED theory.
These equations can be modified to include magnetic monopoles, and are consistent with our observations of monopoles either existing or not existing; if they do not exist, the generalized equations reduce to the ones above, if they do, the equations become fully symmetric in electric and magnetic charges and currents. Indeed, there is a duality transformation where electric and magnetic charges can be "rotated into one another", and still satisfy Maxwell's equations.
Pre-Maxwell laws:
These laws were found before the formulation of Maxwell's equations. They are not fundamental, since they can be derived from Maxwell's equations. Coulomb's law can be found from Gauss's law (electrostatic form) and the Biot–Savart law can be deduced from Ampere's law (magnetostatic form). Lenz's law and Faraday's law can be incorporated into the Maxwell–Faraday equation. Nonetheless, they are still very effective for simple calculations.
Other laws:
Photonics
[edit]Classically, optics is based on a variational principle: light travels from one point in space to another in the shortest time.
In geometric optics laws are based on approximations in Euclidean geometry (such as the paraxial approximation).
In physical optics, laws are based on physical properties of materials.
In actuality, optical properties of matter are significantly more complex and require quantum mechanics.
Laws of quantum mechanics
[edit]Quantum mechanics has its roots in postulates. This leads to results which are not usually called "laws", but hold the same status, in that all of quantum mechanics follows from them. These postulates can be summarized as follows:
- The state of a physical system, be it a particle or a system of many particles, is described by a wavefunction.
- Every physical quantity is described by an operator acting on the system; the measured quantity has a probabilistic nature.
- The wavefunction obeys the Schrödinger equation. Solving this wave equation predicts the time-evolution of the system's behavior, analogous to solving Newton's laws in classical mechanics.
- Two identical particles, such as two electrons, cannot be distinguished from one another by any means. Physical systems are classified by their symmetry properties.
These postulates in turn imply many other phenomena, e.g., uncertainty principles and the Pauli exclusion principle.
Quantum mechanics, Quantum field theory Schrödinger equation (general form): Describes the time dependence of a quantum mechanical system.
The Hamiltonian (in quantum mechanics) H is a self-adjoint operator acting on the state space, (see Dirac notation) is the instantaneous quantum state vector at time t, position r, i is the unit imaginary number, ħ = h/2π is the reduced Planck constant.
Wave–particle duality Planck–Einstein law: the energy of photons is proportional to the frequency of the light (the constant is the Planck constant, h).
De Broglie wavelength: this laid the foundations of wave–particle duality, and was the key concept in the Schrödinger equation,
Heisenberg uncertainty principle: Uncertainty in position multiplied by uncertainty in momentum is at least half of the reduced Planck constant, similarly for time and energy;
The uncertainty principle can be generalized to any pair of observables – see main article.
Wave mechanics Schrödinger equation (original form):
Pauli exclusion principle: No two identical fermions can occupy the same quantum state (bosons can). Mathematically, if two particles are interchanged, fermionic wavefunctions are anti-symmetric, while bosonic wavefunctions are symmetric: where ri is the position of particle i, and s is the spin of the particle. There is no way to keep track of particles physically, labels are only used mathematically to prevent confusion.
Radiation laws
[edit]Applying electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics, to atoms and molecules, some laws of electromagnetic radiation and light are as follows.
- Stefan–Boltzmann law
- Planck's law of black-body radiation
- Wien's displacement law
- Radioactive decay law
Laws of chemistry
[edit]Chemical laws are those laws of nature relevant to chemistry. Historically, observations led to many empirical laws, though now it is known that chemistry has its foundations in quantum mechanics.
The most fundamental concept in chemistry is the law of conservation of mass, which states that there is no detectable change in the quantity of matter during an ordinary chemical reaction. Modern physics shows that it is actually energy that is conserved, and that energy and mass are related; a concept which becomes important in nuclear chemistry. Conservation of energy leads to the important concepts of equilibrium, thermodynamics, and kinetics.
Additional laws of chemistry elaborate on the law of conservation of mass. Joseph Proust's law of definite composition says that pure chemicals are composed of elements in a definite formulation; we now know that the structural arrangement of these elements is also important.
Dalton's law of multiple proportions says that these chemicals will present themselves in proportions that are small whole numbers; although in many systems (notably biomacromolecules and minerals) the ratios tend to require large numbers, and are frequently represented as a fraction.
The law of definite composition and the law of multiple proportions are the first two of the three laws of stoichiometry, the proportions by which the chemical elements combine to form chemical compounds. The third law of stoichiometry is the law of reciprocal proportions, which provides the basis for establishing equivalent weights for each chemical element. Elemental equivalent weights can then be used to derive atomic weights for each element.
More modern laws of chemistry define the relationship between energy and its transformations.
Reaction kinetics and equilibria:
- In equilibrium, molecules exist in mixture defined by the transformations possible on the timescale of the equilibrium, and are in a ratio defined by the intrinsic energy of the molecules—the lower the intrinsic energy, the more abundant the molecule. Le Chatelier's principle states that the system opposes changes in conditions from equilibrium states, i.e. there is an opposition to change the state of an equilibrium reaction.
- Transforming one structure to another requires the input of energy to cross an energy barrier; this can come from the intrinsic energy of the molecules themselves, or from an external source which will generally accelerate transformations. The higher the energy barrier, the slower the transformation occurs.
- There is a hypothetical intermediate, or transition structure, that corresponds to the structure at the top of the energy barrier. The Hammond–Leffler postulate states that this structure looks most similar to the product or starting material which has intrinsic energy closest to that of the energy barrier. Stabilizing this hypothetical intermediate through chemical interaction is one way to achieve catalysis.
- All chemical processes are reversible (law of microscopic reversibility) although some processes have such an energy bias, they are essentially irreversible.
- The reaction rate has the mathematical parameter known as the rate constant. The Arrhenius equation gives the temperature and activation energy dependence of the rate constant, an empirical law.
Gas laws:
Chemical transport:
Laws of biology
[edit]Ecology
[edit]- Competitive exclusion principle or Gause's law
Genetics
[edit]- Mendelian laws (Dominance and Uniformity, segregation of genes, and Independent Assortment)
- Hardy–Weinberg principle
Natural selection
[edit]Whether or not Natural Selection is a "law of nature" is controversial among biologists.[17][18] Henry Byerly, an American philosopher known for his work on evolutionary theory, discussed the problem of interpreting a principle of natural selection as a law. He suggested a formulation of natural selection as a framework principle that can contribute to a better understanding of evolutionary theory.[18] His approach was to express relative fitness, the propensity of a genotype to increase in proportionate representation in a competitive environment, as a function of adaptedness (adaptive design) of the organism.
Laws of Earth sciences
[edit]Other fields
[edit]Some mathematical theorems and axioms are referred to as laws because they provide logical foundation to empirical laws.
Examples of other observed phenomena sometimes described as laws include the Titius–Bode law of planetary positions, Zipf's law of linguistics, and Moore's law of technological growth. Many of these laws fall within the scope of uncomfortable science. Other laws are pragmatic and observational, such as the law of unintended consequences. By analogy, principles in other fields of study are sometimes loosely referred to as "laws". These include Occam's razor as a principle of philosophy and the Pareto principle of economics.
History
[edit]The observation and detection of underlying regularities in nature date from prehistoric times – the recognition of cause-and-effect relationships implicitly recognises the existence of laws of nature. The recognition of such regularities as independent scientific laws per se, though, was limited by their entanglement in animism, and by the attribution of many effects that do not have readily obvious causes—such as physical phenomena—to the actions of gods, spirits, supernatural beings, etc. Observation and speculation about nature were intimately bound up with metaphysics and morality.
In Europe, systematic theorizing about nature (physis) began with the early Greek philosophers and scientists and continued into the Hellenistic and Roman imperial periods, during which times the intellectual influence of Roman law increasingly became paramount.
The formula "law of nature" first appears as "a live metaphor" favored by Latin poets Lucretius, Virgil, Ovid, Manilius, in time gaining a firm theoretical presence in the prose treatises of Seneca and Pliny. Why this Roman origin? According to [historian and classicist Daryn] Lehoux's persuasive narrative,[19] the idea was made possible by the pivotal role of codified law and forensic argument in Roman life and culture.
For the Romans ... the place par excellence where ethics, law, nature, religion and politics overlap is the law court. When we read Seneca's Natural Questions, and watch again and again just how he applies standards of evidence, witness evaluation, argument and proof, we can recognize that we are reading one of the great Roman rhetoricians of the age, thoroughly immersed in forensic method. And not Seneca alone. Legal models of scientific judgment turn up all over the place, and for example prove equally integral to Ptolemy's approach to verification, where the mind is assigned the role of magistrate, the senses that of disclosure of evidence, and dialectical reason that of the law itself.[20]
The precise formulation of what are now recognized as modern and valid statements of the laws of nature dates from the 17th century in Europe, with the beginning of accurate experimentation and the development of advanced forms of mathematics. During this period, natural philosophers such as Isaac Newton (1642–1727) were influenced by a religious view – stemming from medieval concepts of divine law – which held that God had instituted absolute, universal and immutable physical laws.[21][22] In chapter 7 of The World, René Descartes (1596–1650) described "nature" as matter itself, unchanging as created by God, thus changes in parts "are to be attributed to nature. The rules according to which these changes take place I call the 'laws of nature'."[23] The modern scientific method which took shape at this time (with Francis Bacon (1561–1626) and Galileo (1564–1642)) contributed to a trend of separating science from theology, with minimal speculation about metaphysics and ethics. (Natural law in the political sense, conceived as universal (i.e., divorced from sectarian religion and accidents of place), was also elaborated in this period by scholars such as Grotius (1583–1645), Spinoza (1632–1677), and Hobbes (1588–1679).)
The distinction between natural law in the political-legal sense and law of nature or physical law in the scientific sense is a modern one, both concepts being equally derived from physis, the Greek word (translated into Latin as natura) for nature.[24]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ "law of nature". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
- ^ William F. McComas (30 December 2013). The Language of Science Education: An Expanded Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts in Science Teaching and Learning. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 58. ISBN 978-94-6209-497-0.
- ^ "Definitions from". the NCSE. Retrieved 2019-03-18.
- ^ National Research Council (2008). The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st-Century Biology: Catalyzing Transformative Research. Ebook ISBN 978-0-309-13417-0. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/12026. ISBN 978-0-309-11249-9.
- ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (1981-05-01). "Evolution as Fact and Theory" (PDF). Discover. 2 (5): 34–37.
- ^ Honderich, Bike, ed. (1995), "Laws, natural or scientific", Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 474–476, ISBN 0-19-866132-0
- ^ "Law of nature". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
- ^ a b Davies, Paul (2005). The mind of God : the scientific basis for a rational world (1st Simon & Schuster pbk. ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-79718-8.
- ^ a b c Feynman, Richard (1994). The character of physical law (Modern Library ed.). New York: Modern Library. ISBN 978-0-679-60127-2.
- ^ Frisch, Mathias (May 2014). "Laws in Physics | European Review | Cambridge Core". European Review. 22 (S1): S33 – S49. doi:10.1017/S1062798713000768. S2CID 122262641.
- ^ Ehrenberg, Andrew (1993). "Even the social sciences have laws" (PDF). Nature. 365 (6445). Springer Science and Business Media LLC: 385. doi:10.1038/365385a0. ISSN 0028-0836.
- ^ Feynman, Richard Phillips; Leighton, Robert B.; Sands, Matthew Linzee (1963). The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Reading/Mass.: Addison Wesley Longman. ISBN 0-201-02117-X.
{{cite book}}: ISBN / Date incompatibility (help) - ^ Lerner, Rita G.; Trigg, George L. (1991). Encyclopedia of Physics. New York Weinheim Cambridge Basel: VCH Publishers. ISBN 0-89573-752-3.
- ^ Kibble, T. W. B. (1973). Classical Mechanics. London; New York: McGraw Hill. ISBN 0-07-084018-0.
- ^ Ciufolini, Ignazio; Wheeler, John Archibald (1995-08-13). Gravitation and Inertia. Princeton Physics. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03323-4.
- ^ Kibble, T. W. B. (1973). Classical Mechanics. European Physics. London; New York: McGraw Hill. ISBN 0-07-084018-0.
- ^ Reed ES: The lawfulness of natural selection. Am Nat. 1981; 118(1): 61–71.
- ^ a b Byerly HC: Natural selection as a law: Principles and processes. Am Nat. 1983; 121(5): 739–745.
- ^ in Daryn Lehoux, What Did the Romans Know? An Inquiry into Science and Worldmaking (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012), reviewed by David Sedley, "When Nature Got its Laws", Times Literary Supplement (12 October 2012).
- ^ Sedley, "When Nature Got Its Laws", Times Literary Supplement (12 October 2012).
- ^ Davies, Paul (2007-11-24). "Taking Science on Faith". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2016-10-07.
Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way.
- ^ Harrison, Peter (8 May 2012). "Christianity and the rise of western science". ABC.
Individuals such as Galileo, Johannes Kepler, Rene Descartes and Isaac Newton were convinced that mathematical truths were not the products of human minds, but of the divine mind. God was the source of mathematical relations that were evident in the new laws of the universe.
- ^ "Cosmological Revolution V: Descartes and Newton". bertie.ccsu.edu. Retrieved 2016-11-17.
- ^ Some modern philosophers, e.g. Norman Swartz, use "physical law" to mean the laws of nature as they truly are and not as they are inferred by scientists. See Norman Swartz, The Concept of Physical Law (New York: Cambridge University Press), 1985. Second edition available online [1].
Further reading
[edit]- Barrow, John D. (1992). Theories of Everything: The Quest for Ultimate Explanations. Ballantine Books. ISBN 0-449-90738-4.
- Dilworth, Craig (2007). "Appendix IV. On the nature of scientific laws and theories". Scientific progress : a study concerning the nature of the relation between successive scientific theories (4th ed.). Dordrecht: Springer Verlag. ISBN 978-1-4020-6353-4.
- Francis Bacon (1620). Novum Organum.
- Hanzel, Igor (1999). The concept of scientific law in the philosophy of science and epistemology : a study of theoretical reason. Dordrecht [u.a.]: Kluwer. ISBN 978-0-7923-5852-7.
- Lehoux, Daryn (2012-02-28). What Did the Romans Know? An Inquiry into Science and Worldmaking. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-47114-3.
- Nagel, Ernest (1984). "5. Experimental laws and theories". The structure of science problems in the logic of scientific explanation (2nd ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett. ISBN 978-0-915144-71-6.
- R. Penrose (2007). The Road to Reality. Vintage books. ISBN 978-0-679-77631-4.
- Swartz, Norman (20 February 2009). "Laws of Nature". Internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved 7 May 2012.
External links
[edit]- Physics Formulary, a useful book in different formats containing many or the physical laws and formulae.
- Eformulae.com, website containing most of the formulae in different disciplines.
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Laws of Nature" by John W. Carroll.
- Baaquie, Belal E. "Laws of Physics : A Primer". Core Curriculum, National University of Singapore.
- Francis, Erik Max. "The laws list".. Physics. Alcyone Systems
- Pazameta, Zoran. "The laws of nature". Archived 2014-02-26 at the Wayback Machine Committee for the scientific investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
- The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. "Laws of Nature" – By Norman Swartz
- Mark Buchanan; Frank Close; Nancy Cartwright; Melvyn Bragg (host) (Oct 19, 2000). "Laws of Nature". In Our Time. BBC Radio 4.
Scientific law
View on GrokipediaIntroduction
Definition
A scientific law is a statement, based on repeated experimental observations, that describes some aspect of the universe under certain conditions, often expressed in mathematical form.[5] These laws summarize consistent patterns observed in natural phenomena, providing a concise framework for understanding recurring behaviors without delving into underlying mechanisms. For example, Newton's law of universal gravitation describes the attractive force between two masses and separated by a distance as where is the gravitational constant; this equation captures the inverse-square relationship governing gravitational interactions.[11] Similarly, the ideal gas law relates the pressure , volume , amount of substance , and temperature of an ideal gas through where is the universal gas constant, illustrating how these variables interdepend in gaseous systems under specified assumptions.[12] Unlike explanatory frameworks, scientific laws focus on describing observable occurrences—"what happens"—rather than causal explanations for those events.[13] They apply within delimited domains or conditions where the observations hold, such as classical scales for gravitational laws or low-density approximations for ideal gases, and remain provisional, susceptible to revision or falsification if contradictory evidence emerges.[5][14] This tentative nature ensures laws evolve with advancing empirical knowledge, maintaining their role as reliable yet non-absolute descriptors of natural regularity.Role in Scientific Methodology
Scientific laws integrate into the scientific method as products of iterative hypothesis testing, where initial conjectures are subjected to empirical scrutiny through controlled experiments and observations. A hypothesis that consistently withstands attempts at falsification and demonstrates reliable predictive consistency across multiple contexts may be formulated as a law, serving as a concise descriptor of natural regularities. This process ensures laws are grounded in verifiable evidence rather than mere speculation, providing a stable foundation for subsequent investigations that build upon or extend these established patterns.[1] The predictive utility of scientific laws is central to their methodological role, enabling scientists, engineers, and astronomers to forecast outcomes with precision under defined conditions. For example, laws governing planetary motion allow accurate trajectory calculations for spacecraft launches, facilitating mission planning and risk assessment. Karl Popper emphasized that true scientific laws must be falsifiable, meaning they generate testable predictions that could be refuted by observation, thereby distinguishing robust science from pseudoscience and driving methodological rigor through potential disproof.[15][16] Despite their descriptive strength, scientific laws possess explanatory limits, as they primarily summarize observable patterns without delving into underlying mechanisms—a function reserved for broader theories. Laws articulate "how" phenomena occur, such as the consistent relationship between force and acceleration, but lack the interpretive depth to address "why" these relations hold, which theories provide by integrating multiple laws and hypotheses into coherent frameworks.[17][1] The iterative nature of scientific laws underscores their provisional status within methodology, allowing refinement or supersession as new data challenges their scope. Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation, once foundational, accurately approximate behaviors at everyday speeds and scales but are refined by Einstein's general relativity in regimes involving high velocities or intense gravity, where relativistic effects become significant. This evolution exemplifies how laws propel scientific progress by highlighting boundaries that invite deeper theoretical exploration.[18][19]Characteristics
Key Properties
Scientific laws exhibit universality, meaning they apply consistently and without exception across all instances of space, time, and relevant conditions within their scope. This property ensures that a law, once established, governs phenomena uniformly, regardless of location or epoch, provided the conditions hold. A core attribute of scientific laws is their predictability and testability, which allow for the derivation of specific, quantitative outcomes from given initial conditions that can be empirically verified or refuted. This enables laws to function as tools for forecasting natural events, distinguishing them from mere descriptions by requiring confrontation with observational data. Karl Popper's falsification criterion underscores this, positing that laws must generate testable predictions susceptible to potential disconfirmation, thereby ensuring their scientific status through rigorous empirical scrutiny.[16] Laws lacking such testability fail to advance scientific knowledge, as they cannot be systematically evaluated against reality.[15] Scientific laws balance immutability with provisionality: within their defined domains, they appear unchanging and reliable, yet they remain open to revision or replacement upon the emergence of compelling new evidence. This tension reflects the inductive foundation of science, where laws are highly corroborated generalizations but never absolutely proven, maintaining a provisional character to accommodate future discoveries. Popper emphasizes that laws' apparent immutability stems from repeated confirmation, but their logical structure—universal statements open to falsification—renders them inherently tentative, preventing dogmatism in scientific progress.[15] Many scientific laws take a mathematical form, often as concise equations or relations that encapsulate fundamental invariances in nature, facilitating precise computation and generalization. This formalization allows laws to transcend qualitative description, enabling the integration of complex variables into unified expressions of regularity. As noted in analyses of scientific methodology, such mathematical representations are prized for their economy and power in modeling phenomena, though not all laws require this structure—some remain qualitative—but the trend in mature sciences favors it for enhanced rigor.[20] Finally, scientific laws possess specificity, applying only within delimited domains or under particular qualifiers, such as environmental constraints or scales, rather than holding unconditionally across all contexts. This bounded applicability acknowledges the complexity of natural systems, where laws may include implicit ceteris paribus clauses (all else being equal) to account for idealizations. Philosopher Sandra D. Mitchell highlights how laws vary along a spectrum of specificity, with more general ones requiring additional assumptions for application, ensuring their relevance without overextension.[21] For instance, qualifiers like "in a vacuum" or "at low speeds" delineate the law's operational boundaries, preventing misapplication beyond validated regimes.Distinctions from Theories and Hypotheses
Scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses each play distinct roles in the scientific enterprise, with laws providing descriptive summaries of observed regularities rather than explanatory frameworks. A hypothesis represents a tentative, testable proposition proposed as a potential explanation for a phenomenon, often serving as the starting point for investigation but remaining unconfirmed until rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific law emerges from repeated empirical validation, articulating a concise, general description of invariant relationships or patterns in nature, such as the predictable behavior under specified conditions. This distinction ensures that hypotheses drive inquiry while laws encapsulate confirmed observations without implying causation.[22][23] The primary difference between scientific laws and theories lies in their scope and purpose: laws describe what occurs in a system, often in mathematical terms, whereas theories elucidate why and how those occurrences happen through integrated explanatory models supported by extensive evidence. For instance, Boyle's law states that the pressure of a gas is inversely proportional to its volume at constant temperature, offering a predictive description without addressing mechanisms, while the kinetic molecular theory provides the explanatory rationale by positing that gas behavior arises from the motion and collisions of molecules. Theories thus encompass multiple laws and hypotheses, forming a cohesive framework that can evolve with new data, but they do not "become" laws, as the two concepts address complementary aspects of scientific knowledge.[22][3][4] Unlike mathematical principles or axioms, which are abstract assumptions posited as self-evident foundations for deductive reasoning without requiring empirical justification, scientific laws are inherently empirical, grounded in inductive generalization from observational and experimental data and subject to potential falsification. Axioms in mathematics, such as Euclid's parallel postulate, serve as unproven starting points for theorem derivation, whereas laws like the conservation of energy must withstand ongoing scrutiny against real-world evidence to retain validity. This empirical basis distinguishes laws as products of the scientific method rather than logical necessities.[4] Misconceptions frequently arise when laws are misconstrued as explanatory rather than descriptive, such as interpreting Newton's law of universal gravitation as accounting for the attractive force between bodies when it merely quantifies the proportional relationship between gravitational force, masses, and distance. Another prevalent error is the notion that a well-tested theory ascends to the status of a law, implying a hierarchy of proof levels; in reality, laws and theories are parallel but distinct tools, with neither superior in substantiation but differing in function. These confusions often stem from everyday language where "law" connotes absolute authority and "theory" suggests speculation, undermining public understanding of science.[24][17] In the structure of scientific knowledge, laws frequently provide the bedrock upon which theories are constructed, offering reliable descriptive anchors that theories then interpret and unify. For example, fundamental conservation laws, such as those of mass and energy, underpin theoretical frameworks in physics by delineating invariant quantities that models must respect, enabling predictions and deeper causal insights without the laws themselves attempting explanation. This hierarchical integration highlights laws' role as enduring empirical cornerstones in advancing theoretical understanding.[3][22]Origins
Mathematical Symmetries
Many scientific laws, particularly in physics, emerge from fundamental mathematical symmetries inherent in the laws of nature. These symmetries represent invariances under certain transformations, such as shifts in time, space, or orientation, which underpin the structure of physical theories. A cornerstone connecting these symmetries to observable laws is Noether's theorem, formulated by mathematician Emmy Noether in 1918, which establishes that every continuous symmetry of the action principle in a physical system corresponds to a conserved quantity.[25] This theorem provides a profound theoretical foundation for deriving conservation laws, revealing why certain quantities remain unchanged in isolated systems.[26] Noether's first theorem specifically applies to variational principles in Lagrangian mechanics, where the action is stationary for the true path of a system, with denoting the Lagrangian. Under a continuous symmetry transformation parameterized by , the Lagrangian transforms such that its variation vanishes, , implying the existence of a conserved current or charge.[27] More formally, for infinitesimal transformations affecting generalized coordinates , the condition leads to the conserved quantity .[28] This framework extends naturally to field theories, where local symmetries yield Noether currents integrated over space.[29] Illustrative examples highlight the theorem's power. Time-translation symmetry, where physical laws are unchanged over time shifts, yields conservation of energy, as the system's total energy remains constant in isolated processes.[27] Translational symmetry in space implies conservation of linear momentum, explaining why a body's momentum persists without external forces.[28] Similarly, rotational symmetry leads to conservation of angular momentum, governing phenomena like planetary orbits or spinning particles.[28] These derivations assume the Lagrangian's explicit form, such as for kinetic minus potential energy in classical mechanics. In applications, Noether's theorem is indispensable in particle physics and quantum field theories, where gauge symmetries—local invariances under transformations varying by spacetime point—underpin the Standard Model.[30] For instance, U(1) electromagnetic gauge symmetry derives charge conservation. It also facilitates deriving the stress-energy tensor in general relativity from diffeomorphism invariance.[30] However, the theorem has limitations: it applies only to continuous symmetries and Lagrangian formulations, excluding discrete symmetries or non-variational laws; moreover, not all scientific laws stem from symmetries, as some, like Kepler's empirical planetary motion laws, arise primarily from observation rather than theoretical invariance.[31]Empirical and Experimental Basis
Scientific laws emerge primarily through an inductive process, wherein scientists generalize broad principles from numerous specific observations and controlled experiments. This method involves collecting data under varied conditions to identify consistent patterns, forming the empirical foundation for laws without relying on prior theoretical assumptions. For example, in the early 17th century, Galileo Galilei conducted experiments using an inclined plane to study the motion of rolling balls, effectively slowing the acceleration due to gravity for precise measurement. By timing the distances traveled in equal intervals, he observed that the distance increased proportionally to the square of the time elapsed, leading to the generalization of uniform acceleration for falling bodies—a key empirical law of motion.[32][33] Central to this process is the role of accurate measurement, reproducibility, and statistical validation. Precision in quantifying phenomena—through calibrated instruments and controlled variables—enables the detection of subtle patterns that might otherwise go unnoticed. Reproducibility ensures that results can be consistently replicated by independent researchers, building confidence in the observed regularities. Statistical methods, such as hypothesis testing and confidence intervals, further quantify the reliability of generalizations, distinguishing true laws from random variations or artifacts.[34][35] A critical aspect of empirical establishment is the falsification criterion, as articulated by philosopher Karl Popper, which requires that proposed laws be empirically testable and capable of being disproven. Laws are not proven absolutely but gain provisional acceptance by surviving attempts at refutation through targeted experiments. When anomalies arise—observations that contradict predictions—laws may be refined, extended, or supplanted, ensuring ongoing alignment with evidence. This iterative testing underscores the tentative nature of scientific laws, driving progress through empirical scrutiny.[15][16] The evolution of instrumentation has profoundly enhanced the empirical basis of laws by expanding observational capabilities and precision. For instance, the development of the telescope in the early 17th century allowed astronomers like Galileo to gather data previously inaccessible, such as the phases of Venus and the satellites of Jupiter, which empirically corroborated Johannes Kepler's laws of planetary motion—originally derived from Tycho Brahe's precise naked-eye measurements. Such technological advances enable broader, more accurate datasets, strengthening inductive generalizations across scales.[36][37] Empirical evidence interacts dynamically with theoretical constructs, where observations inform and constrain theoretical development, while theories guide experimental design and data interpretation. This interplay ensures laws are not isolated facts but integrated components of explanatory frameworks, remaining open to revision based on new evidence. Complementary to this data-driven induction, mathematical symmetries offer deductive perspectives that align with empirical findings, though the core validation stems from experimentation.[38][39]Laws in Physics
The laws of physics describe fundamental patterns and principles governing the physical universe, encompassing phenomena from the motion of celestial bodies to the behavior of subatomic particles. Key examples include Newton's laws of motion, which underpin classical mechanics, and the laws of thermodynamics, which dictate energy transformations and entropy in thermal systems. These laws, derived from empirical observations and mathematical formulations, provide a framework for understanding and predicting physical processes across scales.Conservation Laws
Conservation laws in physics assert that certain physical quantities remain invariant in isolated systems, forming foundational principles that underpin much of theoretical and experimental work. These laws include the conservation of energy, which states that the total energy in a closed system remains constant, expressed as ΔE = 0, where E represents the total energy.[40] This principle, also known as the first law of thermodynamics, implies that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed between forms such as kinetic, potential, and thermal energy.[41] The conservation of linear momentum dictates that the total momentum of an isolated system is constant, given by p = constant, where p = mv for a particle's momentum (mass m times velocity v), and in collisions with no external forces, the vector sum of the momenta before equals the vector sum after, preserving the total momentum.[42] Similarly, angular momentum conservation holds that the total angular momentum L remains unchanged in the absence of external torques, crucial for understanding rotational dynamics in isolated systems.[43] In relativistic contexts, mass-energy equivalence extends energy conservation to include rest mass, via E = mc², where the total energy encompasses both kinetic and rest energy contributions, ensuring invariance across inertial frames.[44] These laws derive from fundamental symmetries in the laws of physics, as formalized by Noether's theorem, which links continuous symmetries—such as time translation invariance to energy conservation—to corresponding conserved quantities.[45] Applications appear in particle collisions, where momentum conservation predicts outcomes without energy loss, and in electromagnetic fields, where these principles govern wave propagation and interactions while maintaining overall invariance. Apparent exceptions arise in open systems, where energy or momentum can exchange with the environment, leading to net changes, or in quantum processes like beta decay, where early observations seemed to violate energy conservation due to missing kinetic energy in emitted electrons; this was resolved by the discovery of the neutrino, which carries away the deficit, restoring the law via the weak interaction.[46] These conservation laws uniquely serve as the bedrock of physical theories, providing testable predictions and unifying diverse phenomena from classical to quantum regimes.[47]Classical Mechanics
In classical mechanics, the foundational laws governing the motion of macroscopic objects at non-relativistic speeds were articulated by Isaac Newton in his seminal work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica.[48] Newton's first law, known as the law of inertia, states that an object at rest remains at rest, and an object in uniform motion continues in a straight line at constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.[48] This principle establishes the concept of inertial reference frames and implies that forces are necessary to change an object's state of motion.[49] Newton's second law quantifies the relationship between force, mass, and acceleration, expressed as where is the net force, is the mass, and is the acceleration.[48] This vector equation indicates that the acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the applied force and inversely proportional to its mass, providing a predictive tool for dynamic systems. Newton's third law asserts that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, meaning forces between interacting objects are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.[48] This law underpins the conservation of momentum in isolated systems, where the total momentum remains constant. These laws enable derivations for specific motions, such as projectile motion under constant gravity. For an object launched with initial velocity at angle to the horizontal, the horizontal component remains constant due to the first law (no horizontal force), while the vertical component decelerates under gravity , yielding position equations derived from integrating via the second law. The trajectory is a parabola, with range maximized at , illustrating the laws' application to everyday phenomena like ballistics. Johannes Kepler's laws describe planetary motion within the classical framework, later explained by Newton's gravitation. The first law states that planets orbit the Sun in elliptical paths with the Sun at one focus.[50] The second law, the law of equal areas, posits that a line from the Sun to a planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times, implying varying orbital speeds.[50] The third law relates periods harmonically, stating that the square of a planet's orbital period is proportional to the cube of its semi-major axis.[51] These empirical laws, derived from Tycho Brahe's observations, revolutionized astronomy by replacing circular orbits with ellipses.[52] The principle of least action provides a variational formulation unifying these dynamics, stating that the path of a system minimizes (or extremizes) the action , where is the Lagrangian (kinetic minus potential energy), leading to the Euler-Lagrange equation and reproducing Newton's equations of motion.[53] Formulated rigorously by Joseph-Louis Lagrange, this principle shifts focus from forces to energy functionals, facilitating solutions for complex systems like pendulums or rigid bodies.[53] These laws apply to macroscopic systems at speeds much less than light, serving as approximations for terrestrial and solar system mechanics where relativistic or quantum effects are negligible.[54] They form the core of classical mechanics, enabling precise predictions in engineering and astrophysics within their valid regime.Thermodynamics and Electromagnetism
The laws of thermodynamics form a foundational set of principles governing energy, heat, and entropy in physical systems. The zeroth law establishes the concept of thermal equilibrium, stating that if two systems are each in thermal equilibrium with a third system, then they are in thermal equilibrium with each other, enabling the definition of temperature as a measurable property. This law, formalized in the early 20th century but rooted in 19th-century empirical observations, underpins thermometry and the transitive nature of heat flow absence.[55] The first law of thermodynamics articulates the conservation of energy specific to thermal processes, asserting that the change in internal energy of a closed system equals the heat added minus the work done by the system, mathematically expressed asThis principle, developed by Rudolf Clausius in the mid-19th century through analysis of heat engines, extends the broader conservation of energy to account for thermal transfers and mechanical work.[56] It implies that energy transformations, such as in combustion or compression, neither create nor destroy total energy but convert it between forms. The second law introduces directionality to these processes, stating that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, with the inequality
holding for irreversible processes, where equality applies to reversible ones. Formulated by Clausius in 1865 based on earlier work by Sadi Carnot on heat engine efficiency, this law explains why heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold bodies and why perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.[56] The third law of thermodynamics, proposed by Walther Nernst around 1912, specifies that the entropy of a perfect crystal approaches a minimum value—typically zero—as temperature nears absolute zero (0 K), implying that absolute zero is unattainable through finite processes.[57] This law sets a lower bound on entropy and enables the calculation of absolute entropies for substances, influencing low-temperature physics and cryogenics. Together, these laws dictate the behavior of heat engines, where efficiency is limited by the second law's entropy constraint, preventing complete conversion of heat to work.[56] In electromagnetism, James Clerk Maxwell unified electricity, magnetism, and optics through four fundamental equations published in his 1865 paper, describing the dynamics of electric and magnetic fields. These include Gauss's law for electricity,
which relates the divergence of the electric field to charge density; Gauss's law for magnetism, stating zero magnetic monopoles; Faraday's law of induction, expressing how a time-varying magnetic field induces an electric field; and Ampère's law with Maxwell's correction, incorporating displacement current to account for changing electric fields as sources of magnetic fields. Faraday's law, originally discovered experimentally in 1831, quantifies induced electromotive force as the negative rate of change of magnetic flux, foundational to generators and transformers.[58] Ampère's original 1826 circuital law linked magnetic fields to steady currents, but Maxwell's 1865 addition of the displacement term resolved inconsistencies in time-varying fields, enabling wave propagation predictions.[59] These electromagnetic laws find applications in electrical circuits, where Faraday's and Ampère's principles govern inductor and capacitor behaviors, and in devices like motors that convert electrical energy to mechanical work while respecting energy conservation. Heat engines, conversely, apply thermodynamic laws to cycle heat and work, with electromagnetic components in modern variants like thermoelectric generators. The interconnections arise in the thermodynamics of electromagnetic fields, where field energies contribute to internal energy in the first law, and entropy production occurs in irreversible processes like Joule heating in conductors.[60] This thermodynamic treatment ensures that electromagnetic phenomena, such as radiation pressure or field dissipation, align with overall energy conservation without violating entropy increase.[60]
Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
Special relativity, formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, establishes fundamental laws governing the behavior of objects moving at constant high speeds close to the speed of light, replacing Newtonian mechanics in such regimes. The theory's core laws are encapsulated in the Lorentz transformations, which describe how space and time coordinates transform between inertial frames: for velocity along the x-axis, the transformations are , , , , where and is the speed of light. A key consequence is the mass-energy equivalence law , linking an object's rest mass to its energy , which has been experimentally verified in processes like nuclear reactions.[61] General relativity, Einstein's 1915 extension, incorporates gravity as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass and energy, providing laws for accelerated frames and strong gravitational fields. The equivalence principle states that the effects of gravity are locally indistinguishable from acceleration, serving as the foundation for the theory's geometry. Spacetime curvature is described by the Einstein field equations , where is the Einstein tensor and the stress-energy tensor, dictating how matter influences geometry. Particle trajectories follow geodesic equations, the relativistic analogs of straight lines: , where are Christoffel symbols and proper time; these laws accurately predict phenomena like the perihelion precession of Mercury and gravitational lensing. Quantum mechanics introduces probabilistic laws for systems at atomic and subatomic scales, departing from classical determinism. The Schrödinger equation, postulated by Erwin Schrödinger in 1926, governs the time evolution of the wave function : , where is the Hamiltonian operator, , and Planck's constant; solutions yield probabilities for outcomes like electron positions. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle, articulated by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, imposes a fundamental limit on measurement precision: , where and are uncertainties in position and momentum, reflecting the intrinsic quantum indeterminacy rather than experimental limitations.[62][63] Additional quantum laws include the Pauli exclusion principle, proposed by Wolfgang Pauli in 1925, which forbids identical fermions (such as electrons) from occupying the same quantum state simultaneously, explaining atomic shell structures and the periodic table. Niels Bohr's complementarity principle, introduced in 1927, posits that quantum entities exhibit mutually exclusive wave-like and particle-like behaviors depending on the experimental context, both essential for a complete description but not observable together. These laws underpin quantum field theories, where particles are excitations of underlying fields.[64] Efforts to unify relativity and quantum mechanics face challenges, as general relativity's smooth spacetime conflicts with quantum discreteness, leading to infinities in naive quantizations. The Standard Model of particle physics, developed in the 1970s, successfully merges quantum electrodynamics, weak interactions, and quantum chromodynamics into a gauge theory framework describing electromagnetic, weak, and strong forces via symmetries like SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1), with 19 fundamental parameters fitted to data;[65] it excludes gravity and predicts particles like the Higgs boson, confirmed in 2012, but leaves open questions like neutrino masses and dark matter.[66]Laws in Chemistry
Conservation and Stoichiometry
In chemistry, conservation laws underpin the quantitative analysis of chemical reactions, ensuring that matter is neither created nor destroyed but rearranged. Lavoisier's law of conservation of mass states that in a closed system, the total mass of reactants equals the total mass of products, a principle established through precise gravimetric experiments on combustion and calcination. This law, formalized in Lavoisier's 1789 Traité Élémentaire de Chimie, revolutionized chemistry by shifting focus from qualitative observations to quantitative measurements, enabling the accurate tracking of substances during reactions.[67] Building on this foundation, Proust's law of definite proportions asserts that a chemical compound always contains its constituent elements in fixed mass ratios, regardless of the source or preparation method. Proust demonstrated this through extensive analyses of compounds like copper carbonate and oxides, publishing key findings in his 1794 paper "Researches on Prussian Blue" in the Journal de Physique. This law resolved debates with variable proportion advocates like Berthollet and provided empirical support for atomic theory by implying discrete, unchanging molecular compositions.[68] These principles manifest in the practice of balancing chemical equations, where coefficients are adjusted to equalize atom counts on both sides, reflecting conservation of mass and atoms. For example, the unbalanced equation for hydrogen and oxygen forming water, , balances to , ensuring two oxygen atoms and four hydrogen atoms overall. Stoichiometry extends this by using mole ratios from balanced equations to predict quantities in reactions; the mole, defined as entities, serves as the bridge between microscopic particles and macroscopic masses.[69] Dalton's law of partial pressures, applicable to ideal gas mixtures in chemical contexts, states that the total pressure exerted by a mixture equals the sum of the pressures each gas would exert alone at the same volume and temperature: Formulated by John Dalton in 1801 and detailed in his 1808 A New System of Chemical Philosophy, this law facilitates stoichiometric calculations for gaseous reactions, such as determining yields in gas-phase syntheses. Stoichiometric principles enable practical applications like predicting reaction outcomes and identifying limiting reagents, the reactant that is fully consumed first, constraining product formation. In industrial processes, such as ammonia synthesis via the Haber-Bosch reaction (), stoichiometry determines optimal ratios to minimize waste; if nitrogen is limiting, excess hydrogen remains unreacted. This approach optimizes efficiency in pharmaceuticals, materials synthesis, and environmental monitoring, where precise mole calculations ensure scalability and safety.[70]Periodic and Atomic Structure Laws
Dmitri Mendeleev formulated the periodic law in 1869, stating that the properties of the chemical elements recur periodically when the elements are arranged in order of increasing atomic weight.[71] This law provided the foundation for the modern periodic table, enabling predictions of undiscovered elements and their properties based on observed patterns in atomic weights and chemical behaviors.[71] Initially empirical, the law highlighted regular variations in properties such as valence, density, and reactivity across groups of elements. Henry Moseley refined the periodic law in 1913 by demonstrating that the frequencies of characteristic X-ray lines emitted by elements are directly related to their atomic numbers rather than atomic weights.[72] Specifically, Moseley's law expresses this relationship as , where is the X-ray frequency, is the atomic number, and is a screening constant approximately equal to 1.[72] This empirical relation confirmed the nuclear charge as the fundamental ordering principle, resolving inconsistencies in Mendeleev's table, such as the placement of argon and potassium, and establishing atomic number as the key descriptor of elemental identity.[72] In atomic structure, Hund's rule governs the arrangement of electrons in degenerate orbitals, stipulating that electrons occupy orbitals singly with parallel spins before pairing up to maximize the total spin multiplicity. Formulated by Friedrich Hund in 1925, this rule arises from the minimization of electron-electron repulsion and the stabilization of higher-spin states in ground configurations. For example, in the carbon atom, the three 2p electrons occupy separate orbitals with parallel spins, resulting in a triplet ground state rather than a lower-spin alternative. The octet rule, proposed by Gilbert N. Lewis in 1916, posits that atoms achieve chemical stability by attaining eight electrons in their valence shells, mimicking the electron configuration of noble gases.[73] This guideline explains the formation of covalent bonds through electron sharing, as seen in molecules like methane (CH), where carbon shares electrons with four hydrogens to complete its octet.[73] While primarily applicable to main-group elements, the rule underscores the tendency toward filled valence shells for thermodynamic stability, though exceptions occur in hypervalent or electron-deficient compounds.[73] These chemical laws find their quantum mechanical basis in the principles of orbital filling derived from physics, where electrons occupy atomic orbitals according to the Pauli exclusion principle, ensuring no two electrons share the same quantum state. The Schrödinger equation solutions yield these orbitals, with angular momentum quantum numbers defining s, p, d, and f subshells that underpin periodic trends and electron configurations.Laws in Biology
Genetics and Inheritance
The foundational principles of genetics and inheritance were established through Gregor Mendel's experiments with pea plants in the mid-19th century, leading to what are known as Mendel's laws of inheritance.[74] These laws describe how traits are passed from parents to offspring through discrete units, later termed genes. The law of segregation states that during gamete formation, the two alleles for a trait separate, so each gamete carries only one allele, which is randomly distributed to offspring.[75] The law of independent assortment posits that alleles for different traits segregate independently during gamete formation, assuming the genes are on different chromosomes.[76] The law of dominance indicates that one allele can mask the expression of another in a heterozygous individual, with the dominant allele determining the phenotype.[75] Mendel's monohybrid crosses, involving a single trait, demonstrated predictable ratios in offspring phenotypes. For a cross between a homozygous dominant (AA) and homozygous recessive (aa) parent, the F2 generation shows a 3:1 phenotypic ratio of dominant to recessive traits, reflecting the genotypic ratio of 1:2:1 (AA:Aa:aa).[74] This ratio arises because each parent contributes one allele randomly, and under dominance, three genotypes (AA and Aa) express the dominant trait while one (aa) expresses the recessive. To visualize these outcomes, the Punnett square, developed by Reginald Punnett in the early 1900s, is used as a diagrammatic tool for predicting allele combinations in offspring.[77] For a monohybrid cross between two heterozygotes (Aa × Aa), the Punnett square is:| A | a | |
|---|---|---|
| A | AA | Aa |
| a | Aa | aa |
