Language Commentary
In English, if you say something is true for a specific condition, the implication is that it is not true without the specific condition. So it is possible, even easy, to say something factually correct and still very misleading. At a minimum, when talking about Laws of Physics, it should include what the Law is under all conditions, or the maximum set of conditions.
Why? The Actual First Law is about Energy, that it cannot be created or destroyed. Its an observation that fits all known facts. We did not Observe all the Energy in the Universe, we just made the simplest Law that fits Known facts.
Generations of scientists going back 200 years will tell you about Conservation of Energy. Which means you cannot create or destroy Energy. The theory that a "Carnot Cycle" engine is optimum, is based on Lord Kelvin's argument that if it were not the best, one could create Energy from Nothing. A proof everyone accepts.
Then they go on to say all "other" machines must be worse. But that leads to the opposite problem, the ability to make Energy disappear. Equally a violation of the same Law of Conservation of Energy, but almost universally accepted (that their can be engines that actually lose or destroy energy).
Why this bias? Our personal experience is that Energy disappears all the time. Light switch off, the room goes dark. Put out the fire, the hot spot goes away. Car crashes into a Brick Wall, motion and heat eventually go away. Perception is that we constantly see Energy disappear., but never appear.
.
|
Not Invented Here (NIH)
"Not Invented Here" or "NIH" is a common phrase used to explain human behavior. Engineers, Scientists, Programmers, everyone in a professions about Objectivity, brings their ego to work. People tend to prefer what they have created. When it comes to Science, that shows up as explaining the same old stuff differently. Result, lots of versions of very simple Laws. Many of them trying to outdo the others with impressive sounding words and phrases.
The consequence is that lots of versions means lots of them get it wrong, or get the implied meaning wrong. And in general, the explanations that usually "win" are the ones the least number of people understand. Natural selection in Laws of science favors the ones that sound important and profound, not the ones that convey the information to the widest possible Audience.
In the next few pages, we show several versions of the Three Laws taken from different Authors. Pro's and Con's are discussed of the language used.
If one tabulated all the laws in all the physics, chemistry and electronics textbooks out there, it would be quite a long list, and its extremely unlikely to find exact duplicates, except where actual quotes are used.
|
