Proof of a law versus proof of a theorem

[kartikey]

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

 

[phinds]

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.

 

[Drakkith]

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.

 

[ZapperZ]

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.