Scientific Laws: Unbreakable Or Flexible?

Scientific laws are statements that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. They are based on repeated experiments or observations and are developed from data. While scientific laws are generally understood to reflect causal relationships fundamental to reality, they are not absolute and can be broken. This is because all scientific knowledge is provisional and based on evidence, which may change over time. As new evidence emerges, scientific laws may be invalidated, proven to have limitations, or require reformulation to accommodate new knowledge. For example, many laws of physics have been broken or amended over the centuries as our understanding of the universe has evolved.

Laws of physics

The concept of "laws of physics" refers to models that scientists use to predict and describe the behaviour of the universe. These models are not infallible, and many of them have been broken or updated over the centuries as new evidence has emerged. For instance, Newton's law of universal gravitation, while groundbreaking, is considered incomplete.

The term "law" in physics is loosely defined and can refer to observed properties of the natural world or fundamental ideas that underpin complex theories. While some laws are central and deeply studied, such as the law of the conservation of momentum, even these foundational principles can be overturned if new evidence contradicts them. This is because all knowledge in science, including the laws of physics, is provisional and based on the evidence at hand. If the evidence changes, our understanding of physics must also evolve.

Quantum particles are often cited as examples of "violating" the laws of physics. However, this is not an accurate portrayal. While quantum particles may violate classical physics, they are fully described by quantum physics, which is a separate theoretical framework. This highlights the multifaceted nature of physics, where different models or theories may apply in different contexts.

It is important to acknowledge that our understanding of the laws of physics is inherently limited. We may never discover absolute certainty or prove the existence of absolute physical laws. Our goal as scientists is to develop a set of consistent and comprehensive laws that accurately describe the universe as we observe it. However, we must remain open to the possibility that there may be exceptions or phenomena that do not conform to our current understanding.

In conclusion, while it may not be accurate to say that the laws of physics can be "broken," it is more appropriate to view them as evolving frameworks that are continually refined and updated as our knowledge of the universe expands. This ongoing process of scientific discovery and revision is what enables us to deepen our understanding of the natural world.

Laws of nature

The laws of nature are scientific laws that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena. They are based on repeated experiments or observations, and they are implicit reflections of causal relationships fundamental to reality. The laws of nature are not absolute, and they can be contradicted, restricted, or extended by future observations.

The term "law" in physics and other natural sciences has a loose definition. It can refer to properties of the natural world that have consistently been observed to be true for long periods. It can also be attached to fundamental ideas that form the foundation of complex theories about the cosmos.

Many laws of physics have been broken over the centuries, and some are actively being broken now. For example, Newton's formulation of the law of gravity is widely used, but it is incomplete. It cannot completely describe the orbit of Mercury, and it is insufficient in scenarios involving black holes or when more precision is needed, such as when calculating GPS coordinates. In such cases, Newton's law must be "broken" and replaced with Einstein's theory of relativity.

While some laws are central and deeply studied, such as the law of the conservation of momentum, they could still be wrong. Scientists must always be prepared to set aside a law if new evidence contradicts it. Even well-established laws have been invalidated in certain cases, leading to new formulations that build upon the original laws while accounting for previously unconsidered factors.

In summary, the laws of nature are not set in stone. They are subject to change as new evidence and discoveries are made, leading to a more nuanced understanding of the universe.

Scientific laws are not absolute

For example, Newton's law of gravity is a powerful tool that has been used in calculating artillery ranges and even sending people to the moon. However, it has been found to have shortcomings, such as its inability to completely describe the orbit of Mercury. In such cases, a more universal and complex description, such as Einstein's theory of general relativity, is needed to provide a more accurate understanding of gravity.

The concept of "law" in science is often associated with the natural sciences, but it also applies to the social sciences. In the social sciences, laws may describe general trends or expected behaviors rather than being absolutes. For example, Zipf's law in social sciences is based on mathematical statistics and describes patterns in language and other social phenomena.

Furthermore, the validity of a scientific law is not static and can be challenged through new discoveries and advancements in technology. For instance, scientists at Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island briefly created a symmetry-breaking bubble of space where parity no longer existed, potentially breaking a fundamental law of nature for a tiny fraction of a second. This highlights the dynamic nature of scientific laws and the potential for them to be broken or extended.

While some laws, such as the conservation of momentum, are deeply studied and widely applied, the scientific community must remain open to the possibility of new evidence or observations that may require these laws to be modified or replaced. As scientific knowledge progresses, it is important to recognize that even the most fundamental laws are not absolute and are subject to revision or extension. This ongoing process of discovery and refinement is an essential aspect of scientific advancement.

Scientific laws vs. scientific theories

In science, the terms "law" and "theory" are distinct and have different meanings, although they are often used interchangeably in everyday life. Scientific laws and scientific theories are both well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. However, they serve different purposes and have distinct characteristics.

A scientific law is a statement that summarizes the relationship between variables in a group of data. In other words, it describes the patterns observed in large amounts of data, without explaining why these patterns exist. Laws are typically expressed as a single, specific equation and refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions. For example, if the temperature of a gas is increased, the volume of the gas also increases, which is known as a natural law.

On the other hand, a scientific theory provides overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are collections of laws, principles, concepts, and facts united into a self-consistent framework that has been verified experimentally. They contain a large number of proven statements and aim to explain why we observe what we do in the natural world. For instance, Einstein's theory of general relativity, which builds upon Newton's law of gravity, provides a more universal and accurate description of gravity.

It is important to note that the distinction between "law" and "theory" can be blurry, and even scientists sometimes use these terms interchangeably or with different connotations. Additionally, the exact definitions of these terms can vary slightly between different fields of science. For example, physics and chemistry tend to have more "laws" while biology has fewer laws and more "theories."

Both scientific laws and theories are subject to change or refinement if new evidence emerges. Many laws of physics, for example, have been "broken" or modified over time as new discoveries are made, such as in the case of black holes or the orbit of Mercury. This evolution of knowledge is a positive aspect of science, as it indicates that there is still more to learn and understand about the universe.

Social science laws

Scientific laws are based on repeated experimental observations and describe some aspect of the world. They always apply under the same conditions and imply a causal relationship between their elements. While the laws of nature are considered true universal generalisations, the laws of physics, for instance, are subject to change if the evidence changes.

Social scientists sometimes use the language of laws, but less frequently than physicists. The law of supply and demand, for instance, is often cited as an example of a social science law. It states that the market price of a good will increase or decrease based on the ratio of consumer demand to the quantity supplied by producers. However, some argue that social science is not a science because it does not produce laws. John Roberts claims that if there are any social laws, they are hedged laws, and since there are no hedged laws, there are no social laws. This argument rests on the idea that social structures always admit exceptions, and so any potential social laws are not very "law-like".

On the other hand, some social scientists argue that they have made progress and point to the law of supply and demand or Zipf's law as evidence of social science laws. While the subject matter of social science may be more enigmatic than the natural world, it does not mean that social science laws are not valid. The law of supply and demand, for example, holds up very well.

Overall, while there may be some resistance to the idea of social science laws, it is possible that social sciences can produce laws, even if they are more challenging to establish due to the complex nature of their subject matter.

Frequently asked questions