Proof of a law versus proof of a theorem

In summary, the distinction between laws and theories in physics is not significant and is often only talked about among the general public or historians. While there may be different labels for different ideas, such categorization does not change the fundamental concepts in physics. Ultimately, proof in physics is not the same as proof in mathematics, and the idea that laws can become theories or vice versa is a fallacy.
  • #1
kartikey
4
0
if I get proof of fundamental laws like Newton's laws of motion or fundamental laws of thermodynamics then will they be laws anymore or will they become theorem.
Please tell
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
kartikey said:
if I get proof of fundamental laws like Newton's laws of motion or fundamental laws of thermodynamics then will they be laws anymore or will they become theorem.
Please tell
There is no such thing as proof in physics. That's a math thing.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
  • #3
They will still remain 'laws'. A law is just a rule for something that works under certain conditions, while a theory usually contains several laws and explains how they work together.
 
  • #4
kartikey said:
if I get proof of fundamental laws like Newton's laws of motion or fundamental laws of thermodynamics then will they be laws anymore or will they become theorem.
Please tell

There is a fallacy here into thinking that laws somehow become theories, or theories become laws in physics. There is no such thing. And in fact, among physicists, naming such things as laws, theories, models, etc. is actually quite meaningless and has no significance. The BCS theory of superconductivity has often been referred to as a model, while the Standard Model of elementary particle consists of many theories.

Such categorization is only talked about among the general public, or maybe even historian and philosophers. Somehow, for these people, it is a rather big deal to compartmentalize something as a "model", a "law", or a "theory". I'm guessing that giving something a "label" allows them to think that they understand what it is.

But as far as physics goes, it has very little relevance.

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes nasu, sophiecentaur and PeroK

FAQ: Proof of a law versus proof of a theorem

1. What is the difference between a law and a theorem?

A law is a statement or principle that is universally accepted to be true and can be observed and tested in the natural world. On the other hand, a theorem is a statement that has been proven to be true using logical reasoning and mathematical methods.

2. How is a law or theorem proven?

A law is proven through repeated observations and experiments that consistently support the statement. A theorem is proven using a logical sequence of statements and mathematical proofs that demonstrate the truth of the statement.

3. Can a law be disproven?

Yes, a law can be disproven if new evidence or observations contradict the previously accepted statement. This is known as falsification and is an important part of the scientific method.

4. What makes a theorem stronger than a law?

A theorem is considered stronger than a law because it is based on mathematical proofs and logical reasoning, whereas a law is based on empirical evidence and observations. Theorems have a higher level of certainty and are less likely to be disproven.

5. Are laws and theorems interchangeable?

No, laws and theorems are not interchangeable. Laws are specific statements about how the natural world works, while theorems are mathematical statements that are based on logical reasoning. They serve different purposes and are used in different fields of study.

Back
Top