Posted on 01/22/2024 8:49:07 AM 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.
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 have 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 explains 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 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 muses – 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.
PinG!......................
“We” who?
Just wait until the woke crowd m*****bates on Newton’s laws.
Their stupidity knows no bounds.
The “we” in the article refers to those to whom this level of semantic parsing matters.
Regarding this law though: what about a magnetically suspended top, spinning in a vacuum? Are there still forces acting upon it to slow it down?
Questions like this keep me awake at night...
Yup—human stupidity is endless, eternal, timeless—and obeys no laws.
“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 author’s argument makes no sense. Newton was talking about what happened to an object in the absence of external forces. Which makes perfect sense if the rest of your laws of motion then define how forces affect an object.
Of course, relativity turns Newton’s fixed frame of reference all topsy turvy.
Wouldn’t it depend on the torque in the magnetic field?
Take Benadryl.
Newton was racis?
Regarding this law though: what about a magnetically suspended top, spinning in a vacuum? Are there still forces acting upon it to slow it down?
= = =
Magnetic forces are suspending it.
And probably will result in slowing it.
And if you can really get a vacuum.
Einstein never meant to overturn Newton’s Laws. He just confirmed that they are appropriate and valid until about he 10th of the speed of light, and then they ‘kind of’ get a little goofy (in scientific terms).
“The whole point of the first law is to infer the existence of the force,”
This is what passes for grammar in science these days. People who don’t know the difference between “to infer” and “to imply”. You infer from the first law the existence of force, but the first law implies the existence of force. I think DEI is at work here. It is on the order of the guy who said the Odyssey was not written by Homer, but by a Greek with the same name.
Uh, yeah, we know this already, like forever.
Physics doesn’t change based on, “I don’t like it, so…”.
The hundreds of years of validation of what we currently know are a little bit relevant. Ping me in 4024 for a recap.
A distinction without a difference.
Yes, multiple ‘Homers’ just like multiple ‘Shakespeares’.........
“...It’s a description that works well until you appreciate external forces are constantly at work...”
Uhh, it’s a theoretical starting point for understanding physics and external forces are of course appreciated. Done in lab setting. Like a feather and bowling ball falling in a vacuum.
and the original translation says Priests will celebrate, not celebate...
oh dear.
Gravity is EVERWHERE.
Even in the depths of ‘intergalactic space’ there is gravity.
In order to eliminate gravity you would have to leave this Universe. But even then you would take some gravity with you.
If there was a universe that had only two hydrogen atoms in it, separated by billions of light years, there would still be ‘gravity’.........................
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.