How did we come to know the laws governing natural phenomena? What we refer to as the laws of nature are concise descriptions of the universe around us. They are human statements of the underlying laws or rules that all natural processes follow. Such laws are intrinsic to the universe; humans did not create them and cannot change them. We can only discover and understand them. Their discovery is a very human endeavor, with all the elements of mystery, imagination, struggle, triumph, and disappointment inherent in any creative effort (Figure 4). The cornerstone of discovering natural laws is observation; scientists must describe the universe as it is, not as we imagine it to be.
A model is a representation of something that is often too difficult (or impossible) to display directly. Although a model is justified by experimental tests, it is only accurate in describing certain aspects of a physical system. An example is the Bohr model of single-electron atoms, in which the electron is pictured as orbiting the nucleus, analogous to the way planets orbit the Sun (Figure 5). We cannot observe electron orbits directly, but the mental image helps explain some of the observations we can make, such as the emission of light from hot gases (atomic spectra). However, other observations show that the picture in the Bohr model is not really what atoms look like. The model is “wrong,” but is still useful for some purposes. Physicists use models for a variety of purposes. For example, models can help physicists analyze a scenario and perform a calculation or models can be used to represent a situation in the form of a computer simulation. Ultimately, however, the results of these calculations and simulations need to be double-checked by other means—namely, observation and experimentation.
The word theory means something different to scientists than what is often meant when the word is used in everyday conversation. In particular, to a scientist a theory is not the same as a “guess” or an “idea” or even a “hypothesis.” The phrase “it’s just a theory” seems meaningless and silly to scientists because science is founded on the notion of theories. To a scientist, a theory is a testable explanation for patterns in nature supported by scientific evidence and verified multiple times by various groups of researchers. Some theories include models to help visualize phenomena whereas others do not. Newton’s theory of gravity, for example, does not require a model or mental image, because we can observe the objects directly with our own senses. Although models are meant only to describe certain aspects of a physical system accurately, a theory should describe all aspects of any system that falls within its domain of applicability. In particular, any experimentally testable implication of a theory should be verified. If an experiment ever shows an implication of a theory to be false, then the theory is either thrown out or modified suitably (for example, by limiting its domain of applicability).
A law uses concise language to describe a generalized pattern in nature supported by scientific evidence and repeated experiments. Often, a law can be expressed in the form of a single mathematical equation. Laws and theories are similar in that they are both scientific statements that result from a tested hypothesis and are supported by scientific evidence. However, the designation law is usually reserved for a concise and very general statement that describes phenomena in nature, such as the law that energy is conserved during any process, or Newton’s second law of motion, which relates force (F), mass (m), and acceleration (a) by the simple equation F = ma. A theory, in contrast, is a less concise statement of observed behavior. For example, the theory of evolution and the theory of relativity cannot be expressed concisely enough to be considered laws. The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena. Less broadly applicable statements are usually called principles (such as Pascal’s principle, which is applicable only in fluids), but the distinction between laws and principles often is not made carefully.
The models, theories, and laws we devise sometimes imply the existence of objects or phenomena that are as yet unobserved. These predictions are remarkable triumphs and tributes to the power of science. It is the underlying order in the universe that enables scientists to make such spectacular predictions. However, if experimentation does not verify our predictions, then the theory or law is wrong, no matter how elegant or convenient it is. Laws can never be known with absolute certainty because it is impossible to perform every imaginable experiment to confirm a law for every possible scenario. Physicists operate under the assumption that all scientific laws and theories are valid until a counterexample is observed. If a good-quality, verifiable experiment contradicts a well-established law or theory, then the law or theory must be modified or overthrown completely.
The study of science in general, and physics in particular, is an adventure much like the exploration of an uncharted ocean. Discoveries are made; models, theories, and laws are formulated; and the beauty of the physical universe is made more sublime for the insights gained.
