Mistranslation of Newton’s First Law Discovered After Nearly 300 Years
upstart writes:
Mistranslation Of Newton's First Law Discovered After Nearly 300 Years:
For hundreds of years, we have been told what Newton's First Law of Motion supposedly says, but recently a paper published in Philosophy of Science (preprint) by [Daniel Hoek] argues that it is based on a mistranslation of the original Latin text. As noted by [Stephanie Pappas] in Scientific American, this would seem to be a rather academic matter as Newton's Laws of Motion have been superseded by General Relativity and other theories developed over the intervening centuries. Yet even today Newton's theories are highly relevant, as they provide very accessible approximations for predicting phenomena on Earth.
Similarly, we owe it to scientific and historical accuracy to address such matters, all of which seem to come down to an awkward translation of Isaac Newton's original Latin text in the 1726 third edition to English by Andrew Motte in 1729. This English translation is what ended up defining for countless generations what Newton's Laws of Motion said, along with the other chapters in his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica.
In 1999 a new translation (Cohen-Whitman translation) was published by a team of translators, which contains a number of notable departures from the 1729 translation. Most notable herein is the change of the original (Motte) translation:
Every body perseveres in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a right line, unless it is compelled to change that state by forces impress'd thereon.
to the following in the Cohen-Whitman translation:
Every body perseveres in its state of being at rest or of moving uniformly straight forward, except insofar as it is compelled to change its state by the forces impressed.
This more correct translation of the Latin nisi quatenus has significant implications for the law's effects, as while Newton's version does not require force-free bodies, the weak reading introduced by Motte's translation incites exactly the kind of debate which has been seen over the centuries about why the First Law even exists, when in this translated form it automatically follows from the Second Law, rendering it redundant.
Read more of this story at SoylentNews.