Science Laws
Making something in science, a Law, by just the essence of the word seems final, hard, fixed, rigid, and like; how can anyone doubt this. Science seems now to go with theories, or rules, which are always subject to scrutiny, and may be found partly or totally flawed, but not very often anymore does science title something as a Law.
Of course, allowing for the knowledge of the times... for Newton to come up with his three laws, was awesome. However, we pretty well know now, it is not a good idea to blatantly put forth something as, exactly the way it is, and forevermore a law.
Relating to Newton's laws as a showcase exhibit... Law I relates "state of rest", but the Universe has pretty well shown us nothing is ever truly at rest, in reality. (Which Newton did mention as a possibility) Likewise "uniform motion", in strictness, is not really true. He uses "right line" which means a straight line. There is no exact straight line. And finally "forces impressed on it", is okay, but I think it may be better said now, as just pressures instead of forces.
Newton's second law is a good one, but I would now replace the words force, in exchange for pressure, and maybe restate the notion of a right or straight line. In general, the resulting actions if all put together would be in proportion to the pressure applied. (Also something Newton related.) However there can be resulting radiated heat as well as motion, of bodies, which can in scientific strictness change the mass of a body.)
In the scenario of Newton's third law; In the collision of bodies... Actually I do believe in a conservation balance of nature in the Universe. (However note: I do not like the term conservation of energy, based on the fact that energy is a measurement... It is very difficult to find two physical measurements called energy, and then compare them upon a balance scale.) Newton's third Law is a statement that cannot be totally proven or falsified. Thus taking it as a Law, is taking it on faith alone.
Why cannot Newton's third law be proven? For general purposes in classical physics it looks good and measures up ok. But, what we generally observe, or sense is not exactly what is a true reality of our Universe. Some of this new reality started with Einstein... as I have read, he related that no two actions or events can be shown or measured to happen simultaneously. But, two events or actions might accidentally begin at the same one instant in time, and even ultra billions of actions... are happening at the same instant, but to measure any two events at an exact instant, in exact locations, of exact magnitude, requires, exact identical instruments, working exactly, non motion matter, and all factors of the event we are measuring must be monitored over a duration. This means every atomic particle, motion, pressure, distance, and etc. If we don't go down to the level of atomic particles, then we need to know some exact location upon a body from which to measure. With the Universe in constant motion, and bodies of particulates in motion, this exactness for all intents and purposes is impossible and absurd. The speed of light is as close to an exact standard that we have, but we cannot even begin to measure it exactly. There are also factors in any event or action, that we often ignore, but to be exact, we need to consider gravitation, temperature, radiation, universal expansion and etc. Why bother about all this? Because the essence of a "Law", weighs heavily as being an absolute exact truth. But making a scientific statement a Law, we cannot verify or falsify, destroys any methodology of science. Qualifying it as a statement of general classical physics would be fine, since at that level, it can be substantiated.
I have, have in turn, changed the look and feel of Forces, as Newton put forth. There is more on this in the page on Pressure.
I am using Newton herein because his laws were a very major and familiar facet of our history and science. But I have found scenarios, and items from Galileo, Einstein, Feynman, and Hawking... that I take exception. No-one is sacred. And lastly and most importantly... I take exception to my own works... I continually scrutinize, compare, study, re-work, and learn more about my own theories. Some things, that I think as finalized for sure, have proven not to be. I try to use appear or seem, to allow for someone to show a better way. But, to get things out on the table, I would like to be liberal and chance a few good items, rather than conservative, and not daring for fear of error.
There may be general rules, and workable theories... and there may even be some exact true notions of our Universe, but we best not label them laws. I find it risky to classify any laws, as a description of a reality of nature.
* * * *
Page Relevant Quotes
LAW I
"Every body continues in a state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line , unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it."
The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, By Sir Isaac Newton.
LAW II
"The change of motion is proportional to the motive force impressed; and is made in the direction of the right line in which that force is impressed."
LAW III
The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, By Sir Isaac Newton.
"To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the mutual actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal , and directed to contrary parts."
The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, By Sir Isaac Newton.
"...laws of motion... The story began with Galileo... Of all his discoveries, the greatest was that a body upon which no outside force is acting will continue in its state of motion; if it is at rest, it will remain at rest, but it will maintain any velocity that it originally has. This is the principal of inertia, the first of the great principles of physics of which the general statement was probably given by his contemporary Rene′ Descartes." Quanta: J. Andrade e Silva, G. Lochak
"Attempts to extend Bohr's ideas of the motions of electrons around nuclei soon ran into difficulty. More and more quantum numbers were introduced and modifications of Bohr's original principles made. Finally in 1925 and 1926 the work of Schroedinger and Heisenberg gave a new basis of quantum mechanics for the theory of electronic structure and of spectra." Physics; Edited by Samuel Rapport & Helen Wright
"Newton concluded that the acceleration given to a body by any particular force will be independent of the form, dimensions, and constitution of the body; it will depend entirely upon the amount of matter that the body contains__ in other words, its mass. The fundamental law of dynamics is:
F = mv
where m is the mass of the moving body, F the force acting on it, and v the acceleration produced. This law shows quite clearly that the only property of the body which is relevant to the study of motion is the mass." Quanta: J. Andrade e Silva, G. Lochak
"In mechanical terms, a body is subject to acceleration if the amount of ground covered in unit time is changing (either increasing, so that the body is accelerating in the usual sense of the word, or else decreasing, so that the body is decelerating or slowing down). The body is also said to be undergoing acceleration if its direction of motion is changing, even if its actual velocity along its trajectory is not." Quanta: J. Andrade e Silva, G. Lochak