https://www.wikiworld.com/index.php?action=history&feed=atom&title=What_is_a_true_law_of_physics%28q%29What is a true law of physics(q) - Revision history2026-05-06T14:11:47ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.45.1https://www.wikiworld.com/index.php?title=What_is_a_true_law_of_physics(q)&diff=2255&oldid=previmported>Import: Imported current content2026-01-28T11:54:25Z<p>Imported current content</p>
<table style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122;" data-mw="interface">
<tr class="diff-title" lang="en">
<td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">←Older revision</td>
<td colspan="1" style="background-color: #fff; color: #202122; text-align: center;">Revision as of 11:54, 28 January 2026</td>
</tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="diff-notice" lang="en"><div class="mw-diff-empty">(No difference)</div>
</td></tr></table>imported>Importhttps://www.wikiworld.com/index.php?title=What_is_a_true_law_of_physics(q)&diff=2132&oldid=previmported>Import: Imported current content2026-01-28T11:54:25Z<p>Imported current content</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div><br />
reany@asu.edu (Patrick Reany) wrote in message news:<844a1b64.0302070508.4cbdc362@posting.google.com>...<br />
> Anyone care to give a true definition of what is meant by either a<br />
> "law of physics" or a "general law of physics"?<br />
><br />
> Patrick<br />
><br />
> The 'true' vs the 'good'?<br />
<br />
<br />
'Law of physics' is an antiquated term. Now a days, it is better to<br />
call them theories of physics, since most of them, are bounded to be<br />
replaced by better ones in the future.<br />
<br />
A viable way to 'measure' the power of a theory is to take ratio of<br />
the number of successful predictions to the number of assumptions of<br />
the theory.<br />
<br />
For example, suppose you( not you as a person, just anybody) claim<br />
that martians live in a invisible band of energy. and once i start<br />
probing you why us humans are unable to see them. And you start giving<br />
me explanations like they cannot be seen because of they live in a<br />
different energy band. And i ask you well, why do not our powerful<br />
instruments detect them. And you invent another explantion to say why<br />
it cannot be done. And before you know it, you will have invented<br />
hundered(or even thousands) of assumptions to explain your findings.<br />
Whereas i could just say martians do not exist. And all our<br />
observations agree with that. Comparing the power of explanation, i<br />
win :-)<br />
<br />
<br />
A better criteria of theory, is how 'mechanically', it can convert a<br />
given problem into an observable solution.<br />
<br />
For example, consider newton's law and most of your high school<br />
physics assignements. You would have noticed that using netwon's law,<br />
you can turn the problem into a set of equations. This is what makes a<br />
theory appealing (atleast to me).<br />
<br />
suresh<br />
</div>imported>Import