What was the last scientific "law"?

[Jez]

9 hours ago, Genady said:

It seems to me that the Hubble's law was the last one that fits this description.

(Thanks for the list again, @Jez. +1)

You're welcome, though if I was pushed on a vote of what I think was or was not a 'grand law' of early physics, that "Hubble's law" (or "Hubble–Lemaître law") is not based on some fundamental natural mechanism but is based on empirical observations and correlation of redshifts. So it doesn't really meet the lofty criteria of universal natural physical determinism.

In fact, Hubble's law is very like Sérsic's law of 1963, a cosmological correlation by observation (velocity profiles within galaxies).

You might like to consider Faxén's law of 1922 as the last example of a law in the traditional sense, being 3 sub-laws being the torque, stress and force on a spherical object in a fluid flow. Whether that counts I am unsure because it only applies to spherical objects so is a set of canonical equations in my book, but it is not an empirically derived thing like all later laws (that I have found).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faxén's_law

Quite possibly, Umov's law of 1905, the relationship of the polarisation of light and albedo, is the last 'law' that is fundamentally founded on a simple mathematical relationship, is not an empirical correlation, and applies to all objects to which it is applicable.

If I was set to argue a case in a vox-pop vote for the last such "law" of physics encompassing the past classic meaning (natural law, applies to all objects, boils down to a simple proportionality) I'd probably tend to punt Umov's law. But I think there are some new 'theorems' that fit that definition, the scientific community just doesn't call them 'laws' any more.

Edited June 11, 2023 by Jez

[Jez]

Just to keep the mood light, hope it is amusing.

 

You might need to watch to the end to see the thread relevance.

 

For context, the bikers lost their hair after they were covered in tar, so found some wigs to wear.

 

 

[Genady]

3 hours ago, Jez said:

the scientific community just doesn't call them 'laws' any more.

THIS is the essence of my OP question, rather than some epistemological definition.

[Jez]

Yep. I think the list and dates rather illustrates that.

[dimreepr]

2 hours ago, Genady said:

THIS is the essence of my OP question, rather than some epistemological definition.

What's the difference?

[John Cuthber]

20 hours ago, exchemist said:

Disappointing. I had hoped it would be something to do with chocolate. 

Tobler formulated two laws, the second one (relevant to this topic) concerns geology and is sometimes referred to as "Tobler two" in the same way that

the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object such that f=ma .
is sometimes referred to as "Newton two".
You seem to be thinking about Tobler one.
That's older than Tobler two, so it's not  relevant to this thread. 

:-)
 

[dimreepr]

40 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What's the difference?

How does it feel?

[Genady]

So, new "laws" stopped being added in physics, chemistry, and biology sometimes in the beginning of the twentieth century, but continued to be added in geology, geography, economics, linguistics, sociology, etc. at least into the last quarter of that century. Is it correct?

[studiot]

On 6/11/2023 at 2:46 PM, Genady said:

So, new "laws" stopped being added in physics, chemistry, and biology sometimes in the beginning of the twentieth century, but continued to be added in geology, geography, economics, linguistics, sociology, etc. at least into the last quarter of that century. Is it correct?

I don't know if there is also a language dimension to this.

 

Germans tend to use lots of synonyms when a person has many 'laws' to her or his name

Eg Gauss's Law, Theorem, Principle, Method, Equation........

Compare with the English use of a qualifying phrase

Newton's Law of cooling, gravity, refraction etc.

 

The French, I think, were to first to go in for Principles eg Le Chatelier, 

[Genady]

25 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't know if there is also a language dimension to this.

There might be. For simplicity, and according to the fact that English is the current language of science communication, I'd limit the discussion to English.

[CharonY]

29 minutes ago, studiot said:

I don't know if there is also a language dimension to this.

 

Germans tend to use lots of synonyms when a person has many 'laws' to her or his name

Eg Gauss's Law, Theorem, Principle, Method, Equation........

Compare with the English use of a qualifying phrase

Newton's Law of cooling, gravity, refraction etc.

 

The French, I think, were to first to go in for Principles eg Le Chatelier, 

That is an interesting thought. It would depend a fair bit how the term is being used in the relevant circles, I suspect. In English folks would talk about the "Laws" of Mendelian inheritance, in German they are called rules ("Regeln"). 

I also suspect that within a language there might be shifts in word usage over time.

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is an interesting thought. It would depend a fair bit how the term is being used in the relevant circles, I suspect. In English folks would talk about the "Laws" of Mendelian inheritance, in German they are called rules ("Regeln"). 

I also suspect that within a language there might be shifts in word usage over time.

As in Hund's Rules ?   - (yes I know there is also the Aufbau Principle).

 

But Gauss's Theorem is distinct from Gauss's equation and both are literal translations.

 

Anyway this was not tablets of stone, just musings.

English does not tend to create new words to the extent German does by combining existing ones.
I think the English system is better as a phrase is more versatile than a simple pre/suff - ix , allowing shades of meaning to be expressed.

Thanks for the reply.

[CharonY]

I actually think that German is a bit more categorical, but because of that I often feel a bit more precision and nuance due to word choice, whereas in English I often feel that things a slightly more muddled. I suspect in the latter there is more implicit meaning that I sometimes miss. It is definitely shorter to write.