Newton's first law has been proven to be flawed.

The essence of Newton's first law is as simple as it is revolutionary. Movement does not arise from nowhere and does not disappear into nothingness / Photo: scientificrussia.ru

The first law of Newton, which is taught in schools and universities and upon which Albert Einstein relied, is a mistranslation from the Latin in which the scientist wrote to English. Newton did not mean what is described in modern textbooks. A remarkable discovery was made by philologist Daniel Hook. Although physicists enthusiastically agreed with him, no one is in a hurry to rewrite the textbooks. It seems that everyone is indifferent, laments the philologist.

But that may change. This unexpected discovery has the potential to ignite a flame. Will new physics emerge from old manuscripts? Quite possibly. Let's delve into this.

REVOLUTIONARY LAW

Once, the Earth rested on three whales. Modern physics does too, and these whales are Newton's constructs, Einstein's theory, and quantum mechanics. And how shocking it is to discover that at least one of these whales has been replaced. Newton's first law, the law of inertia, is merely a collection of words that have nothing to do with what the author intended.

Before we dive deeper, let's examine the problem Isaac Newton was addressing with his law at the end of the 17th century.

Where does movement come from? Before Newton, it seemed that everyone understood correctly: from force. Engineers built carts and catapults. The lever works, and the stone flies. But this understanding remained at a practical level, based on experience. Overall, physics believed that movement could arise from nowhere and dissipate into nothing.

Thus, planets fly because they are made of ether – the hypothetical celestial "fifth element." The property of ether is to move, and so they travel along orbits. No other reason is needed. Similarly, flames rise simply because that is their nature.

On the other hand, a cart left to its own devices slows down because motion is "inherently" destined to vanish. Objects fall to Earth because they are inclined to move toward its center. It seems to be a sweet spot for them.

Physics developed an entire system of "love" and "affinity": magnets "love" iron, a compass needle is drawn to the North Star (not to the pole, mind you), and the world seemed animated (and beautiful). Even Galileo's experiments, which showed that everything is somewhat (entirely) different, changed little because he could not "quantify" his observations into formulas.

The essence of Newton's first law is as simple as it is revolutionary. Movement does not arise from nowhere and does not disappear into nothing. If a body is at rest, it will remain at rest forever. If it is in motion, it will continue to move uniformly and in a straight line. But push it, and you will change everything. The straight trajectory will curve. The resting body will gain acceleration. An external force cannot be hidden. If you see acceleration – look for a force.

From the first law, it followed that since planets move in circles rather than straight lines, something must be pulling them. Thus, Newton discovered gravity, describing its effects with a formula that could only be expanded to extreme cases (high speeds, colossal masses) by Einstein; otherwise, it has not been added to or subtracted from for centuries.

LAW WITHOUT FORMULATION

How is Newton's first law formulated?

Searching online, one discovers something strange: it essentially cannot be formulated; it is paraphrased and interpreted in various ways. For every book and website, there are countless variations.

The most common version: "Every body continues to remain in its state of rest or uniform and straight-line motion, as long as it is not compelled by applied forces to change that state." Hmm, "remains." Almost as if forcibly. So, for a body to be at rest, some holding force is needed? But that contradicts what the law states.

Here's another version: "If no other bodies act on a body, it moves uniformly and in a straight line." Here, there are no forces, only "other bodies," and there is no mention of "rest" at all.

Or: "Any body will remain at rest or move uniformly and in a straight line, if no external forces act on it." This seems similar to the first version. But where one states the body "continues to be held," here it simply "remains"; where it mentions "applied forces," here it refers to "external." Can't an internal force be applied? This question tortures students in competitions: can you accelerate a sailboat if you place a fan on board?

It's interesting to see where such discrepancies arise. Looking in English, the same confusion exists. The most popular formulation was provided by Brian Ellis in 1965 (why him, and why only in 1965?), which states: "Every body not subject to the action of forces continues in a state of rest or uniform motion in a straight line."

There is, of course, a reason for this plethora of interpretations. Physicists dislike the formulation of the first law as presented by Newton himself in his book. So they strive to "explain" or "improve" it in some way.

DIDN'T WANT TO PUBLISH ANYTHING

Ellis's interpretation (he is well-versed in Newton's work) is regarded as the closest to what the scientist supposedly intended, but look at how many contradictions exist here.

Firstly, what does "continues to be in" mean? When and for what reason did the body enter this state?

Secondly, and this is crucial, is there a situation in nature where a body is not subject to the action of any forces? In reality, probably not. This is what prompted philologist Daniel Hook to consult the original writings of the genius. "Newton could not create a law about something that does not exist," says Hook.

The history of the creation of "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy," where Newton's laws are laid out, is convoluted. Newton himself was so uninterested in fame that he recorded his results on scraps of paper and tossed them on the table or floor, creating piles over time. He had no intention of publishing anything.

In 1682, a massive comet appeared in the sky, later named Halley's Comet (because Halley was the one who proved that it periodically returns to the Sun). The comet sparked a heated debate: what drives it?

Halley himself came to Newton and explained that there was a dispute, and people were arguing vehemently. Newton casually remarked, "I have an answer." Halley was both a believer and a skeptic. He convinced Newton to write at least a small article; Newton leisurely complied, lamenting that his work interfered with his alchemical experiments, and in 1684, the Royal Society (the equivalent of an academy of sciences) received the manuscript through Halley.

The manuscript was well-received; a book was needed. Reluctantly, but then becoming inspired, Newton wrote the "Principia" and handed it to Halley – do with it as you wish. Halley took it to the Royal Society, where they said: "We can't publish it; we've spent the entire budget on a treatise about fish." Halley replied, "I'll pay for it." No problem. The book was published in 1686, it was well-received, and the Royal Society was even ready to pay the author, but there was no money. So they gave him 50 copies of the treatise on fish, which was selling poorly – as his fee.

Newton's work was written in Latin. At the end of the 17th century, this was not a concern, but within a few decades, it became significant because the new generation of scientists no longer regarded Latin as the "language of science" and did not learn it.

In 1729 (Newton was already deceased), an English translation was published, which everyone then used. That’s where the problem lies.

TWO FATAL WORDS

- Based on this translation, for centuries, scientists understood the first law as follows: a body will be at rest, or move uniformly and in a straight line if no external force interferes, - says Hook.

The Latin phrase "nisi quatenus" was translated as "if." In reality, its precise meaning is "since" or "because." This small inaccuracy undermines the entire structure of the English translation, and the true formulation of the law should read: "Bodies are at rest or move uniformly and in a straight line only because they do not experience the action of forces." Cast it in stone and engrave it on your cuffs.

Does it seem like a trivial detail? In fact, it saves the first law from accusations of infinite absurdity.

- Bodies move straight or remain still if no force acts upon them. But how do you know that no force is acting on