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.
I think it tightens up the semantics.
An object at rest is, at all times, influenced by the “outside” force of gravity pulling it toward the surface it rests on (actually pulling it to earth).
As well as the gravity of the body itself pulling the surface toward it.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction then becomes recognizable as “a body at rest”.
“External forces” equals frictional losses of momentum. Identifying frictional forces will lead to calculations for slowing momentum.
A vacuum pressure measurement device called a spinning rotor gauge uses a small steel ball bearing suspended in a magnetic field. The friction of gas molecules will cause the rotational speed of the ball to decline. At very low pressures it takes a while to get a useful measurement.
A man can get pregnant. A man can breastfeed.
We are SO BEYOND Newton and his patriarchy.
World’s getting hotter, 0.0015 degrees celcius per year.
“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.”
So what kind of background education does a “philosopher of language and mathematics” require and what degrees/degree does it result in to qualify as an “philosopher of language and mathematics”
Good one!
I wonder if people in Heaven see and hear what's still going on down here. Do Peter and his wife (traditionally martyred right before he was) chuckle when people say that Peter was the first pope while also saying popes and priests shouldn't marry? LOL I'm sure it's as humorous to them as it probably is to Wycliff and Tyndale when they hear English speaking Protestants today loudly proclaim that the King James version is the only real English translation. LOL
I’m not even sure I know what that is...................
The ‘Speed of Light” has been broken- Next time you are filling up at a gas station, watch how fast the dial spins- faster than the speed of light- Ya gotta be quick in order to stop it before it goes over your intended gallon allotment
Physical laws are.
Ban physical laws under Joe Biden!!!
I agree w those who say that it is semantics — a distinction w/o a deference.
I hope you caught that. In making a name for one’s self via revisionism, due respect for the original version, long held to be the truth, is drained away like bath water.
It’s been several decades but I recall that just about every physics problem I had during college had to account for gravity and friction.
Think I'll go with Physicist for 100, Alex.
Hoss
“Physics doesn’t change based on, “I don’t like it, so…”
No but physics professors do! I had a gal in my physics class that complained the test was too hard. The Prof told her maybe she needed to study harder or take a different class. She went to the board, and they fired him. That was in 1991.
So what? They both mean the same thing.
Liberals do not do physics.
It be racissss, requires math.
Awesome!
Does this mean that Rudolf Carnap was all wet?
— “Others think that it is so obviously correct that it is barely worth arguing for.”
This. Either way the understanding is correct; the object does not move itself.
.
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.