This week's experiment comes from a recent question, wanting to know whether gravity is a law or a theory. That question brings up so many more questions that I thought it would be fun to explore. To try this, you will need:
- an object to drop.
OK, pick an object that will not break, dent the floor, cause a mess, or get either of us in trouble. Hold it out in front of you and release it. What happens? It falls, of course. The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the object pulls it towards the ground. But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity?
Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific mean of the words "law" and "theory."
In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.
We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.
While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.
A theory starts as a hypothesis, an untested idea about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.
While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity is has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.
So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other.
Have a wonder-filled week.




Laws, Theories, and Theologies.
While we say that laws rarely change, they do on occasion. For example, when Albert Einstein came up with General and Specific Relativity, these slightly changed Newton's Law of Gravity so that, for example, the new law better described the specifics of Mercury's orbit--to the accuracy of 36 seconds of arc per year (I think) of the precession of the perihelion. Still, with a few exceptions, including the clocks on the GPS satellites, Newton's laws are quite good enough for most purposes. For example, nobody bothers to make the Relativistic corrections when lining up a billiards shot.
In a way, we could say that a new law often characterizes the limits of the previous law, buy showing where that law is inaccurate.
Also, laws and theories, to be good science, must make it possible to make specific predictions which can then be tested. That was often the complaint of Wolfgang Pauli--that modern "theories" like String theory cannot make useful predictions to test. As he liked to put it, "That's not even wrong!" In other words, if we cannot prove it wrong by testing, it's not science. Other scientists call such things "theology" as opposed to real "science".
Post new comment