Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Regarding BC's vote:
I vote for RC's initial statement, i.e. a law is a functional
statement, e.g. square law capacitor, his example [F = GmM/r^2],
Hooke, etc. And a theory is an explanation. [This is bare bones.]
Consider the third *law* of thermodynamics. What is the functional
statement here? How is an unattainable limit an equation or
functional form?
I suspect that maybe the idea of a law is that it is some short
statement (maybe usually mathematical in form) of some aspect of the
brute fact way nature is observed to operate. A law does not attempt
to explain the behavior; it just succinctly describes it. I agree
that a theory is an explanatory framework erected for the purpose of
explaining some domain of the facts of nature.
David Bowman
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l