4 ms·
What you are alluding to is a modern interpretation of the theory, one that arose from Einstein's postulation about the relationship between space and time. Thi
by epups 3y ago
What you are alluding to is a modern interpretation of the theory, one that arose from Einstein's postulation about the relationship between space and time. This interpretation produces novel, testable predictions which have been experimentally verified.
As a small quibble, there is no such distinction between "laws" and "theories". In common language a theory may imply less certainty than a law, but in science this is not the case.
- 10g1k 3y ago> " there is no such distinction between "laws" and "theories" Law: A simple relation of limited scope intended to describe a single phenomenon, for example Ohm's Law. Theory: A description or narrative of how and why, which may include laws, data, observations, etc.
- commonlisp94 3y ago> there is no such distinction between "laws" and "theories" There is according to the academic circles I participated in, although it wouldn't surprise me if most physicists you meet wouldn't know that.
- whelp_24 3y agoThere is a difference. A law comes through observation, for example the laws of thermodynamics, there has not (really) been an observation of them being violated (macro-scale). There's not really a theory underpinning them, mathematically a infinite motion machine could work. But it has been observed that it hasn't and it appears that it can't be violated. That atoms make up all matter is a Theory, it's a model based on hypotheses that have been tested over and over. A different model could be created that may match better (like everything being made of fields and waves). Basically a theory is how, a law is what. [Yes i am aware that atoms don't necessarily conflict with waves]