Is the theory of Gravity really still a theory?

byosys

Senior member
Jun 23, 2004
209
0
76
People constantly refer to the "Theory of Gravity." I also heard that an idea moves from "theory" to "law" when it can be fully explained by math - ie. a forumla exists that accuratly perdicts what would happen if a certain parameter is changed.

So, my question is two part:

1. Is this concept about graduating ideas from theory to law accurate? If not, what is the accepted defination?

2. If the above idea about graduation from theory to law is correct, why is gravity still considered a theory? We have equations to explain it (like f(gravity) = (G)*[(m1*m2)/r] or is it r^2?? I really should know that...) and know of the existance of gravitrons which are, in effect, the messengers of gravity.

Thanks.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
yes, it's over r^2
No, gravitons haven't been observed or "discovered" - AFAIK, there's no proof that they actually exist, just a theory suggesting their existence.

Also, the Gmm/r^2 is Newton's theory of gravity. Einstein's concepts refined it more (we have more equations now)

I think if you read this page: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/General_relativity.html
you'll see why it's "theory" and not "law"

edit: incidentally, there was some data on Mercury that wasn't explained by Gmm/r^2. This led to speculations of moons around Mercury, mercury being more massive, a planet inside mercury's orbit, etc. Einstein's refinements, when used to calculate Mercury's orbit, predicted what is observed much better. (I think this is included on that page)
 

Gannon

Senior member
Jul 29, 2004
527
0
0
Originally posted by: Gravity
Gravity is an immutable law.

Actually it's not, anything that is prone to change cannot be immutable, and the early universe many so called "constants" and "laws" were very changable.
 

Soccerman06

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2004
5,830
5
81
As of yet, we have not discovered how gravity actually works. We have theories including gravitons, but we dont know if they actually exist. It all comes down to QM and how it describes gravity past the subatomic level. Once we observe and measure how gravity works at the subatomic level, then we can form equations and whatnot for gravity in its true form. Then and only then can we call gravity a law.
 

Jakebrake

Member
May 11, 2005
196
0
0
A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work.

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman?s terms, if something is said to be ?just a theory,? it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don?t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook?s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

Copyright © 2000 by Jerry Wilson.
 

byosys

Senior member
Jun 23, 2004
209
0
76
I thought that the existance of gravitrons had been proven, but apparently I'm wrong. Anyway...from the site linked to above:

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook?s law of elasticity.

I thought gravity was still a theory?? In addition, the way that link describes a theory and a law seem flawed to me. I've always thought of laws as something that has been absolutly, irreversibality proven to be true, as opposed to theories, which appear to be true and have undergone some testing as to their validity.

Does anyone have an more specific defination? Wiki defines a Physical Law as:

A physical law or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations.

Wiki goes on to give examples of some laws:
Some of the more famous laws of nature are found in Isaac Newton's theories of (now) classical mechanics, presented in his Principia Mathematica, and Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Other examples of laws of nature include Boyle's law of gases, conservation laws, Ohm's law, the four laws of thermodynamics, etc.

From this, there seems to be a very, very fine line between theory and law. Is this the case? Or am I oversimplifing?
 

PowerEngineer

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 2001
3,584
762
136

Scientific theories (or "laws") are what we judge to be the best current explantion of observed facts. There is always the possibility that new facts will come to light that poke holes in current theory, and force us to move on to a new (or modified) theory.

Newton's so-called "Laws of Motion" are a perfect example. They accurately predicted motion for the speeds and within the limits of measurements at that time, but had to be modified by Einstein's special/general relativity to deal with pesky new facts concerning light and more accurate measures of planetary motion. And even Einsein's theories don't explain all the "facts" (e.g. quantum effects).

My point is that science doesn't really discover "laws" in the sense that they can be considered absolutely true (i.e. beyond the possible need for modification). Science produces theories, which are really "best guesses". We're always looking for new facts to either prove or disprove today's favorites.
 

msparish

Senior member
Aug 27, 2003
655
0
0
As far as I remember (I believe it was a physics professor of mine who explained this to me), modern science quit using the word law for new discoveries and ideas. This was as a result of Newton's "laws"...deemed true for centuries, but then shown to be incomplete by Einstein. As a result, scientists aren't bold enough to declare something a law, because it could be shown to be incomplete at a later date. Therefore, many of the things we refer to theories today would have actually been referred to as laws in the past.
 

Zap Brannigan

Golden Member
Oct 14, 2004
1,887
0
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
yes, it's over r^2
No, gravitons haven't been observed or "discovered" - AFAIK, there's no proof that they actually exist, just a theory suggesting their existence.
Just a theory? Wait until they finish building that big ass supercollider in Italy before casually dismissing the elusive graviton.

 

silverpig

Lifer
Jul 29, 2001
27,703
12
81
Originally posted by: Zap Brannigan
Originally posted by: DrPizza
yes, it's over r^2
No, gravitons haven't been observed or "discovered" - AFAIK, there's no proof that they actually exist, just a theory suggesting their existence.
Just a theory? Wait until they finish building that big ass supercollider in Italy before casually dismissing the elusive graviton.

LHC is in France/Switzerland... and gravitons are a "maybe" from it.
 

byosys

Senior member
Jun 23, 2004
209
0
76
So at our current level of technology advancement, laws are pretty much replaced by theories, because scientists have learned their lesson about calling something a "law" in the past.

Will science ever be able to say, with 100% certainty, something is a law and not a theory?
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: Zap Brannigan
Originally posted by: DrPizza
yes, it's over r^2
No, gravitons haven't been observed or "discovered" - AFAIK, there's no proof that they actually exist, just a theory suggesting their existence.
Just a theory? Wait until they finish building that big ass supercollider in Italy before casually dismissing the elusive graviton.

Exactly. (except for the location.)
For now, they are theoretically suggested.
If they find them, it'll be incredible news. (I wonder if the team that actually discovers them will receive the Nobel for the discovery?)

Remember, there have been other things that we thought we'd see once equipment became sophisticated enough. Once upon a time, we thought we'd be able to see how much the expansion of the universe is slowing down and be able to predict if it would slow down to almost no expansion, or if the universe would experience a "big crunch." It was just theory, until the measurements were finally made. And, those measurements said, "The expansion of the universe is accelerating??!"