When Isaac Newton wrote his famous laws of motion on parchment in 1687, he expected that we would be discussing them only three centuries later. Writing in Latin, Newton laid out three universal principles that explain how objects in our universe move, which have been translated, rewritten, debated, and debated over time.

But according to the philosopher of language and mathematics, we may have been slightly misinterpreting the exact formulation of Newton’s first law of motion all this time. Philosopher Daniel Hooke of Virginia Tech wanted to “dot all the ‘ands'” after discovering what he called a “clumsy mistranslation” in the original 1729 English translation of Newton’s Principia.

Based on this translation, numerous scientists and educators have interpreted Newton’s first law of inertia to mean that an object will continue to move in a straight line or remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force. This explanation works until you realize that external forces are constantly at work, and Newton would no doubt have taken this into account in his formulation.

After examining the archives, Hooke realized that there was a misinterpretation in this common narrative that remained unnoticed until 1999; By then, two scholars had pointed out the translation of an overlooked Latin word: quarters, meaning “up to.” Instead of “I wish.”

This is of great importance to Hook. Rather than explaining how an object maintains its momentum when no force acts on it, Hooke says, the new reading shows that Newton meant every change in an object’s momentum caused by external forces (every jolt, tilt, rotation, and jolt).

“Having restored this forgotten promise, [ці вчені] It has restored one of the fundamental principles of physics to its original glory,” Hooke explained on his blog describing his findings, which were published in a 2022 Science article.

However, this extremely important change was never accepted. Even now it may struggle to gain momentum under the weight of centuries of repetition.

“Some people think my readings are too wild and unconventional to be taken seriously,” Hook notes. “Others think it’s so obviously true that it’s not worth discussing.”

Lay people might agree that this sounds like semantics. And Hook admits that rethinking hasn’t and won’t change physics. But a careful examination of Newton’s work makes clear exactly what the pioneering mathematician was thinking at the time.

“A lot of ink has been spilled on the question of what the law of inertia actually does,” explains Hooke, who as a student was puzzled by what Newton meant.

If we take the common interpretation that objects move in straight lines until a force makes them move differently, then the question arises: why did Newton write a law about bodies independent of external forces, if there is nothing like it in our universe; when gravity and friction are always present?

“The whole point of the first law is to establish the existence of a force,” Tufts University philosopher George Smith, an expert on Newton’s work, told Scientific American journalist Stephanie Pappas.

In fact, Newton gave three specific examples to illustrate his first law of motion: the most insightful, according to Hooke, is a rotating shaft; We know that it slows down in a twisting spiral due to air friction.

“By giving this example,” Hooke writes, “Newton clearly shows us how the First Law, as he understands it, applies to bodies that accelerate and are acted upon by forces, that is, to bodies in the real world.”

This revised interpretation, says Hooke, brings us back to one of Newton’s most fundamental ideas, which was absolutely revolutionary at the time. This means that planets, stars and other celestial bodies are subject to the same physical laws as objects on Earth.

“Every change in speed and every inclination in direction, from swarms of atoms to rotating galaxies, is subject to Newton’s First Law,” Hooke reasoned. This allows us to feel the connection with the farthest corners of the universe again. The article was published in the magazine
Philosophy of Science.