Would there be a case example in which a Law is not only describing observable facts, or A Theory not just trying to give a reason behind an observation(s)?atyy said:Usually people don't use the terms with such strict definitions. One has to read in context.
CardKeeper said:Hi, I know this is a basic question however, I am seeking absolute verification on these two points.
1) Quantum Mechanics is a set of Laws.
2) Laws only describe what we see. Theories give us the reason behind them.
I don't really understand what you mean. Are you saying that there is no point to classification? I.E Law/Theory/Hypothesis.ZapperZ said:Special theory of relativity doesn't tell you the "reason behind" all of it postulates. They are just there as the starting point.
Just on that alone, your categorization is wrong.
As has been said, you should never pay too much attention to such labels. If you do, you'll learn all the wrong ideas and impression. Spend more time understanding the physics.
Zz.
CardKeeper said:I don't really understand what you mean. Are you saying that there is no point to classification? I.E Law/Theory/Hypothesis.
From my understanding, things can only either Describe an observational fact. Or attempt to make sense of observational facts. For anything else that does not fit in these two categorizations would end up as a Hypothesis. Correct?
Then how would you define a law and how would you define a theory, Are you saying that Special Theory Relativity is neither a set of Laws nor a theory?ZapperZ said:The labeling of something as "law" and "theory" is meaningless in physics. "Hypothesis" has a clearer definition in the sense that it is a starting guess work, i.e. it is not a "law" or "theory".
I mean, just look at your attempt at differentiating between a "law" and "theory". I've already falsified it. A law doesn't become a theory, or a theory doesn't graduate to be a law. BOTH of them are simply mathematical formalism to describe something. As a physicist, I have never worried about what is called what. Such a thing seems to be only of a "concern" to those outside of physics/science.
Zz.
CardKeeper said:Then how would you define a law and how would you define a theory, Are you saying that Special Theory Relativity is neither a set of Laws nor a theory?
ZapperZ said:BOTH of them are simply mathematical formalism to describe something.
Surely the classification seems to have great importance. Since a theory has to agree with a Law.
ZapperZ said:I don't know to whom it is of great importance. It had never been of any great importance to me. And a theory doesn't have to agree with a "law". Who made up this rule? The BCS theory of superconductivity is one of the most successful theory ever discovered. What "law" did it agree with?
A theory/law/etc. can ONLY be verified convincingly via experiment. Period. That is the only thing those theories, laws, etc. have to "agree" to.
CardKeeper said:From my understanding BCS theory of superconductivity is a theory because no fundamental law can be proven at this point that correlates physical and electrical parameters of superconductors. We don't fully understand what is the root cause of super conductivity it is mostly based off assumptions for now.
If a theory is not based on a Law(s) then what is it? A hypothesis. correct?
ZapperZ said:Sorry? We don't fully understand the root cause of superconductivity? Are you out of your mind?
Every theory has to be based off some fundamental Law to some degree. Can you create a theory that is based off nothing, no Fundamental Laws? That would be a hypothesis then.ZapperZ said:What theory is based on laws?
Clarify?ZapperZ said:Again, you never answered my questions, and you've never addressed the contradiction that I've shown of your point of view.
ZapperZ said:Please read this Helen Quinn's essay. Notice that she doesn't distinguish between her using the word "theory" and "law". She switches between the two freely!
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March07/Quinn/Quinn.html
A theory is a hypothesis with significant experimental backing and is (at least in principle) falsifiable. The difference between a law and a theory is nonexistant, and has more to do with the historical period and the field in which the discovery was made than any fundamental difference between the two.CardKeeper said:From my understanding BCS theory of superconductivity is a theory because no fundamental law can be proven at this point that correlates physical and electrical parameters of superconductors. We don't fully understand what is the root cause of super conductivity, it is mostly based off assumptions for now. Most high temperature superconductors were stumbled upon coincidentally because we still don't know what to look for. (correct me if I am wrong) Scientists are still trying to find the Law that governs super conductivity.
If a theory is not based on a Law(s) then what is it? A hypothesis. correct?
CardKeeper said:Every theory has to be based off some fundamental Law to some degree. Can you create a theory that is based off nothing, no Fundamental Laws? That would be a hypothesis then.
I can't think of one Theory in existence that is not based to some degree on at least one or more law(s), can you?micromass said:Do you have a reference for these things?
CardKeeper said:I can't think of one Theory in existence that is not based to some degree on at least one or more law(s), can you?
Fundamentally The definition of a Theory in science is linked to a Law. If a Law can be described as facts gathered through observation. And a theory as a hypothesis with experimental backing as Vagn states, then a theory would be fundamentally linked to a Law logically speaking. My question is, does there exist a Theory that is not based on a law to some degree? If all current known theories are all dependent on at least one or more law to a degree than that is the most logical assumption to make.micromass said:That is called an argument from ignorance fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Do you have an explicit reference that backs up your claims.
I'm not arguing, I'm simply asking questions because the answer given was not clear and some posts in this thread seem to conflict with each other. So the question still remains.micromass said:Again, there is no important difference between a theory and a law. But if you can't accept that answer and somehow think that theories must be based on laws, let me ask you: what are the laws that quantum mechanics is based on?
Considering how I was the only one here to actually attempt to define the two words directly (also Vagn defining Theory) the answer remains extremely unclear. The only answer I got was not that the distinction was not present, but that the distinction was not useful to a physicist in work.micromass said:But I thought the answer was pretty clear: there is no useful distinction between law and theory.
ZapperZ said:A law doesn't become a theory, or a theory doesn't graduate to be a law.
ZapperZ said:Please read this Helen Quinn's essay. Notice that she doesn't distinguish between her using the word "theory" and "law". She switches between the two freely!
CardKeeper said:I'm not arguing, I'm simply asking questions because the answer given was not clear and some posts in this thread seem to conflict with each other. So the question still remains.
From my understanding Quantum Mechanics are a set of laws that is observed in subatomic particles. That is why it is referred to as "The Laws of Quantum Mechanics"
Quantum mechanics are factual are they not?
CardKeeper said:Considering how I was the only one here to actually attempt to define the two words directly (also Vagn defining Theory) the answer remains extremely unclear. The only answer I got was not that the distinction was not present, but that the distinction was not useful to a physicist in work.
It also is not helping when a post directly contradicts a previously said statement. I.E
Apparently you can switch between Law and Theory freely as if they are the same term, yet here we are having another discussion about why a Theory is based on a Law.
Contradictions are everywhere.
Quantum Mechanics is a branch of physics that studies the behavior and interactions of subatomic particles, such as electrons, protons, and photons. It is a set of mathematical laws and principles that describe the fundamental nature of matter and energy at a microscopic level.
Classical Mechanics is a set of laws that govern the behavior of macroscopic objects, while Quantum Mechanics applies to the behavior of particles at the subatomic level. Unlike classical physics, which is based on deterministic laws, quantum mechanics introduces uncertainty and probability into the description of particles and their interactions.
The main principles of Quantum Mechanics include superposition, where a particle can exist in multiple states at once; wave-particle duality, which states that particles can behave as both waves and particles; and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which states that it is impossible to know the exact position and momentum of a particle at the same time.
Quantum Mechanics has many practical applications in modern technology, such as in transistors, lasers, and computer memory. It also plays a crucial role in fields such as quantum computing, cryptography, and medical imaging.
One of the main challenges of Quantum Mechanics is that it is difficult to reconcile with classical physics, leading to ongoing debates and research. Additionally, the behavior of particles at the quantum level can be unpredictable and difficult to observe, making it a complex and challenging field of study.