Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

We've Been Misreading a Major Law of Physics For Almost 300 Years
Science Alert ^ | February 20, 2025 | Clare Watson

Posted on 02/20/2025 12:00:36 PM PST by Red Badger

When Isaac Newton inscribed onto parchment his now-famed laws of motion in 1687, he could have only hoped we'd be discussing them three centuries later.

Writing in Latin, Newton outlined three universal principles describing how the motion of objects is governed in our Universe, which have been translated, transcribed, discussed and debated at length.

But according to a philosopher of language and mathematics, we might have been interpreting Newton's precise wording of his first law of motion slightly wrong all along.

Virginia Tech philosopher Daniel Hoek wanted to "set the record straight" after discovering what he describes as a "clumsy mistranslation" in the original 1729 English translation of Newton's Latin Principia.

Newton's own copy of Principia with his hand-written corrections for the second edition, now housed in the Wren Library at Trinity College, Cambridge. (Isaac Newton/CC0/Wikimedia Commons) Based on this translation, countless academics and teachers have since interpreted Newton's first law of inertia to mean an object will continue moving in a straight line or remain at rest unless an outside force intervenes.

It's a description that works well until you appreciate external forces are constantly at work, something Newton would have surely considered in his wording.

Revisiting the archives, Hoek realized this common paraphrasing featured a misinterpretation that flew under the radar until 1999, when two scholars picked up on the translation of one Latin word that had been overlooked: quatenus, which means "insofar", not unless.

To Hoek, this makes all the difference. Rather than describing how an object maintains its momentum if no forces are impressed on it, Hoek says the new reading shows Newton meant that every change in a body's momentum – every jolt, dip, swerve, and spurt – is due to external forces.

"By putting that one forgotten word [insofar] back in place, [those scholars] restored one of the fundamental principles of physics to its original splendor," Hoek explained in a blog post describing his findings, published academically in a 2022 research paper.

However, that all-important correction never caught on. Even now it might struggle to gain traction against the weight of centuries of repetition.

"Some find my reading too wild and unconventional to take seriously," Hoek remarks. "Others think that it is so obviously correct that it is barely worth arguing for."

Ordinary folks might agree it sounds like semantics. And Hoek admits the reinterpretation hasn't and won't change physics. But carefully inspecting Newton's own writings clarifies what the pioneering mathematician was thinking at the time.

"A great deal of ink has been spilt on the question what the law of inertia is really for," explains Hoek, who was puzzled as a student by what Newton meant.

If we take the prevailing translation, of objects traveling in straight lines until a force compels them otherwise, then it raises the question: why would Newton write a law about bodies free of external forces when there is no such thing in our Universe; when gravity and friction are ever-present?

The International Space Station travels in a curved orbit due to Earth's gravity. (3DSculptor/Canva) "The whole point of the first law is to infer the existence of the force," George Smith, a philosopher at Tufts University and an expert in Newton's writings, told journalist Stephanie Pappas for Scientific American.

In fact, Newton gave three concrete examples to illustrate his first law of motion: the most insightful, according to Hoek, being a spinning top – that as we know, slows in a tightening spiral due to the friction of air.

"By giving this example," Hoek writes, "Newton explicitly shows us how the First Law, as he understands it, applies to accelerating bodies which are subject to forces – that is, it applies to bodies in the real world."

Hoek says this revised interpretation brings home one of Newton's most fundamental ideas that was utterly revolutionary at the time. That is, the planets, stars, and other heavenly bodies are all governed by the same physical laws as objects on Earth.

"Every change in speed and every tilt in direction," Hoek mused – from swarms of atoms to swirling galaxies – "is governed by Newton's First Law."

Making us all feel once again connected to the farthest reaches of space.

The paper has been published in the Philosophy of Science.

An earlier version of this article was published in September 2023.


TOPICS: History; Science; Weird Stuff
KEYWORDS: danielhoek; isaacnewton; latin; math; physics; principia; stringtheory; virginiatech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

1 posted on 02/20/2025 12:00:36 PM PST by Red Badger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Pinggg!..............


2 posted on 02/20/2025 12:00:53 PM PST by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

“We” who kimosabe?


3 posted on 02/20/2025 12:04:53 PM PST by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is opinion or satire. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6Bmdb-WP2w


4 posted on 02/20/2025 12:06:19 PM PST by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Clumsy article. Give the phrase. Give the usual translation. Give the proposed real translation. That’s not very hard, but that’s not what she did so far as I can see.


5 posted on 02/20/2025 12:08:11 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger


6 posted on 02/20/2025 12:13:16 PM PST by Magnum44 (...against all enemies, foreign and domestic... )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x

Agreed. Amazing how often “clarifying” arguments are themselves manifestly unclear.

I’m fairly scientifically literate but this article didn’t teach me anything. All I can say is we’ve done pretty well with the interpretation used for the past 300 years, so any alternative reading needs to be fully justified.


7 posted on 02/20/2025 12:17:49 PM PST by DarrellZero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: x
Agree. It's also a tempest in a teapot. As the article states:

"Others think that it is so obviously correct that it is barely worth arguing for."

Nothing really changes with either interpretation of the Latin. The real point of the 1st Law is to refute Aristotle, who said that a constant force results in a *constant* velocity. He used the illustration of pushing an object across a table. If he pushed on it with about the same force, it moved smoothly across the table. Of course, Aristotle was ignoring friction. But that was the 'settled science' before Newton. So his 1st Law is upending Aristotelian pseudo-physics.

Which begged the question of what *does* a constant force do? Which is second law.

Then there was the question of what happens when there are no *external* forces, but the body itself is not constant - for example, if part of it comes loose? Third Law.

And none of those change meaning if 'unless' becomes 'insofar.'
8 posted on 02/20/2025 12:18:21 PM PST by Phlyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

But the science is surely settled /sarc


9 posted on 02/20/2025 12:19:06 PM PST by where's_the_Outrage? (Drain the Swamp. Build the Wall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Look in the dictionary for the definition of “Pedantic” and you’ll find a picture of Daniel Hoek.

CC


10 posted on 02/20/2025 12:22:55 PM PST by Celtic Conservative (My cats are more amusing than 200 channels worth of TV.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

Old translation: "Every body continues in its state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impressed upon it."

Andrew Motte's 1729 translation rendered Newton's "nisi quatenus" as unless instead of except insofar, which Hoek argues was erroneous.

New translation: “Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by forces impressed.”

11 posted on 02/20/2025 12:31:32 PM PST by T Ruth (Mohammedanism shall be destroyed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: T Ruth

Thanks.


12 posted on 02/20/2025 12:32:25 PM PST by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Not every literal translation is necessarily the correct one. It is possible that the meaning of one language is better represented by slightly different words in another language.


13 posted on 02/20/2025 12:40:28 PM PST by Moltke (Reasoning with a liberal is like watering a rock in the hope to grow a building.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44

I had one of those ball things back in the 70s

I thought about making one with silver balls from nwtm back in the 2010s and even bought the balls, but I forgot

thanks


14 posted on 02/20/2025 12:41:58 PM PST by algore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Proves a very important philosophical point.

Silly people say “Trust the Science!”

But science is inductive reasoning. It’s a “best case” scenario, which lasts as long as we don’t find evidence to the contrary. It’s the “problem of induction.”

And we know that even Newtonian physics, which was assumed to be ironclad “truth” for 300+ years, isn’t really 100% true.


15 posted on 02/20/2025 12:43:46 PM PST by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Phlyer

#3 F=d/dt(mv)=mdv/dt+vdm/dt
I think it’s sumtin like dat.


16 posted on 02/20/2025 12:47:00 PM PST by sasquatch (Do NOT forget Ashli Babbit! c/o piytar)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

bkmk


17 posted on 02/20/2025 12:48:12 PM PST by sauropod (Make sure Satan has to climb over a lot of Scripture to get to you. John MacArthur Ne supra crepidam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Newton’s first law of motion states that an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will continue moving at a constant speed in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. This principle is also known as the law of inertia.


Now:
Newton’s first law of motion states that an object at rest will remain at rest, and an object in motion will continue moving at a constant speed in a straight line insofar acted upon by an external force. This principle is also known as the law of inertia.


18 posted on 02/20/2025 12:50:35 PM PST by PIF (They came for me and mine ... now its your turn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PGR88

Every so often, God sends us a genius to explain things and redirect our attention.

DaVinci, Newton, Einstein, et al.

It’s about time for another one to come along...........


19 posted on 02/20/2025 12:51:40 PM PST by Red Badger (Homeless veterans camp in the streets while illegals are put up in 5 Star hotels....................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

as we’ve recently learned that Up is Down, and Light is Dark


20 posted on 02/20/2025 1:01:18 PM PST by Gene Eric
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-37 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson