hypothesis versus theory versus law

Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law

Dorling Kindersley / Getty Images

• Physics Laws, Concepts, and Principles
• Quantum Physics
• Important Physicists
• Thermodynamics
• Cosmology & Astrophysics
• Weather & Climate

• M.S., Mathematics Education, Indiana University
• B.A., Physics, Wabash College

In common usage, the words hypothesis, model, theory, and law have different interpretations and are at times used without precision, but in science they have very exact meanings.

Perhaps the most difficult and intriguing step is the development of a specific, testable hypothesis. A useful hypothesis enables predictions by applying deductive reasoning, often in the form of mathematical analysis. It is a limited statement regarding the cause and effect in a specific situation, which can be tested by experimentation and observation or by statistical analysis of the probabilities from the data obtained. The outcome of the test hypothesis should be currently unknown, so that the results can provide useful data regarding the validity of the hypothesis.

Sometimes a hypothesis is developed that must wait for new knowledge or technology to be testable. The concept of atoms was proposed by the ancient Greeks , who had no means of testing it. Centuries later, when more knowledge became available, the hypothesis gained support and was eventually accepted by the scientific community, though it has had to be amended many times over the year. Atoms are not indivisible, as the Greeks supposed.

A model is used for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has a limitation on its validity. The Bohr model of the atom , for example, depicts electrons circling the atomic nucleus in a fashion similar to planets in the solar system. This model is useful in determining the energies of the quantum states of the electron in the simple hydrogen atom, but it is by no means represents the true nature of the atom. Scientists (and science students) often use such idealized models  to get an initial grasp on analyzing complex situations.

Theory and Law

A scientific theory or law represents a hypothesis (or group of related hypotheses) which has been confirmed through repeated testing, almost always conducted over a span of many years. Generally, a theory is an explanation for a set of related phenomena, like the theory of evolution or the big bang theory . 

The word "law" is often invoked in reference to a specific mathematical equation that relates the different elements within a theory. Pascal's Law refers an equation that describes differences in pressure based on height. In the overall theory of universal gravitation developed by Sir Isaac Newton , the key equation that describes the gravitational attraction between two objects is called the law of gravity .

These days, physicists rarely apply the word "law" to their ideas. In part, this is because so many of the previous "laws of nature" were found to be not so much laws as guidelines, that work well within certain parameters but not within others.

Scientific Paradigms

Once a scientific theory is established, it is very hard to get the scientific community to discard it. In physics, the concept of ether as a medium for light wave transmission ran into serious opposition in the late 1800s, but it was not disregarded until the early 1900s, when Albert Einstein proposed alternate explanations for the wave nature of light that did not rely upon a medium for transmission.

The science philosopher Thomas Kuhn developed the term scientific paradigm to explain the working set of theories under which science operates. He did extensive work on the scientific revolutions that take place when one paradigm is overturned in favor of a new set of theories. His work suggests that the very nature of science changes when these paradigms are significantly different. The nature of physics prior to relativity and quantum mechanics is fundamentally different from that after their discovery, just as biology prior to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is fundamentally different from the biology that followed it. The very nature of the inquiry changes.

One consequence of the scientific method is to try to maintain consistency in the inquiry when these revolutions occur and to avoid attempts to overthrow existing paradigms on ideological grounds.

Occam’s Razor

One principle of note in regards to the scientific method is Occam’s Razor (alternately spelled Ockham's Razor), which is named after the 14th century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Occam did not create the concept—the work of Thomas Aquinas and even Aristotle referred to some form of it. The name was first attributed to him (to our knowledge) in the 1800s, indicating that he must have espoused the philosophy enough that his name became associated with it.

The Razor is often stated in Latin as:

entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

or, translated to English:

entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity

Occam's Razor indicates that the most simple explanation that fits the available data is the one which is preferable. Assuming that two hypotheses presented have equal predictive power, the one which makes the fewest assumptions and hypothetical entities takes precedence. This appeal to simplicity has been adopted by most of science, and is invoked in this popular quote by Albert Einstein:

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

It is significant to note that Occam's Razor does not prove that the simpler hypothesis is, indeed, the true explanation of how nature behaves. Scientific principles should be as simple as possible, but that's no proof that nature itself is simple.

However, it is generally the case that when a more complex system is at work there is some element of the evidence which doesn't fit the simpler hypothesis, so Occam's Razor is rarely wrong as it deals only with hypotheses of purely equal predictive power. The predictive power is more important than the simplicity.

Edited by Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.

• Scientific Hypothesis, Model, Theory, and Law
• Theory Definition in Science
• The Basics of Physics in Scientific Study
• A Brief History of Atomic Theory
• Einstein's Theory of Relativity
• What Is a Paradigm Shift?
• Wave Particle Duality and How It Works
• Oversimplification and Exaggeration Fallacies
• Hypothesis Definition (Science)
• Kinetic Molecular Theory of Gases
• Scientific Method
• Understanding Cosmology and Its Impact
• The History of Gravity
• The Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
• Tips on Winning the Debate on Evolution
• Geological Thinking: Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons

Margin Size

• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

1.3: Hypothesis, Theories, and Laws

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 97964

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

\( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

\( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

\( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

\( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

\( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

\( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

\( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

\( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

\( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

  Learning Objectives

• Describe the difference between hypothesis and theory as scientific terms.
• Describe the difference between a theory and scientific law.

Although many have taken science classes throughout the course of their studies, people often have incorrect or misleading ideas about some of the most important and basic principles in science. Most students have heard of hypotheses, theories, and laws, but what do these terms really mean? Prior to reading this section, consider what you have learned about these terms before. What do these terms mean to you? What do you read that contradicts or supports what you thought?

What is a Fact?

A fact is a basic statement established by experiment or observation. All facts are true under the specific conditions of the observation.

What is a Hypothesis?

One of the most common terms used in science classes is a "hypothesis". The word can have many different definitions, depending on the context in which it is being used:

• An educated guess: a scientific hypothesis provides a suggested solution based on evidence.
• Prediction: if you have ever carried out a science experiment, you probably made this type of hypothesis when you predicted the outcome of your experiment.
• Tentative or proposed explanation: hypotheses can be suggestions about why something is observed. In order for it to be scientific, however, a scientist must be able to test the explanation to see if it works and if it is able to correctly predict what will happen in a situation. For example, "if my hypothesis is correct, we should see ___ result when we perform ___ test."

A hypothesis is very tentative; it can be easily changed.

What is a Theory?

The United States National Academy of Sciences describes what a theory is as follows:

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena."

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter (stating that everything is made of atoms) or the germ theory of disease (which states that many diseases are caused by germs). Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Note some key features of theories that are important to understand from this description:

• Theories are explanations of natural phenomena. They aren't predictions (although we may use theories to make predictions). They are explanations as to why we observe something.
• Theories aren't likely to change. They have a large amount of support and are able to satisfactorily explain numerous observations. Theories can, indeed, be facts. Theories can change, but it is a long and difficult process. In order for a theory to change, there must be many observations or pieces of evidence that the theory cannot explain.
• Theories are not guesses. The phrase "just a theory" has no room in science. To be a scientific theory carries a lot of weight; it is not just one person's idea about something

Theories aren't likely to change.

What is a Law?

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions, frequently written as an equation. Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. As a comparison, theories explain why we observe what we do and laws describe what happens.

For example, around the year 1800, Jacques Charles and other scientists were working with gases to, among other reasons, improve the design of the hot air balloon. These scientists found, after many, many tests, that certain patterns existed in the observations on gas behavior. If the temperature of the gas is increased, the volume of the gas increased. This is known as a natural law. A law is a relationship that exists between variables in a group of data. Laws describe the patterns we see in large amounts of data, but do not describe why the patterns exist.

What is a Belief?

A belief is a statement that is not scientifically provable. Beliefs may or may not be incorrect; they just are outside the realm of science to explore.

Laws vs. Theories

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. Remember, theories are explanations and laws are patterns we see in large amounts of data, frequently written as an equation. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.

Video \(\PageIndex{1}\): What’s the difference between a scientific law and theory?

• A hypothesis is a tentative explanation that can be tested by further investigation.
• A theory is a well-supported explanation of observations.
• A scientific law is a statement that summarizes the relationship between variables.
• An experiment is a controlled method of testing a hypothesis.

Contributions & Attributions

Marisa Alviar-Agnew  ( Sacramento City College )

Henry Agnew (UC Davis)

The Scientific Hypothesis

The Key to Understanding How Science Works

Hypotheses, Theories, Laws (and Models)… What’s the difference?

Untold hours have been spent trying to sort out the differences between these ideas. should we bother.

Ask what the differences between these concepts are and you’re likely to encounter a raft of distinctions; typically with charts and ladders of generality leading from hypotheses to theories and, ultimately, to laws.   Countless students have been exposed to and forced to learn how the schemes are set up.  Theories are said to be well-tested hypotheses, or maybe whole collections of linked hypotheses, and laws, well, laws are at the top of the heap, the apex of science having enormous reach, quantitative predictive power, and validity.  It all seems so clear.

Yet there are many problems with the general scheme.  For one thing, it is never quite explained how a hypothesis turns into a theory or law and, consequently, the boundaries are blurry, and definitions tend vary with the speaker.  And there is no consistency in usage across fields, I’ll give some examples in a minute.  There are branches of science that have few if any theories and no laws – neuroscience comes to mind – though no one doubts that neuroscience is a bona fide science that has discovered great quantities of reliable and useful information and wide-ranging generalizations.  At the other extreme, there are sciences that spin out theories at a dizzying pace – psychology, for instance – although the permanence and indeed the veracity of psychological theories are rarely on par with those of physics or chemistry.

Some people will tell you that theories and laws are “more quantitative” than hypotheses, but the most famous theory in biology, the Theory of Evolution, which is based on concepts such as heritability, genetic variability, natural selection, etc. is not as neatly expressible in quantitative terms as is Newton’s Theory of Gravity, for example.   And what do we make of the fact that Newton’s “Law of Gravity” was superceded by Einstein’s “General Theory (not Law) of Relativity?”

What about the idea that a hypothesis is a low-level explanation that somehow transmogrifies into a theory when conditions are right?  Even this simple rule is not adhered to.  Take geology (or “geoscience” nowadays):  We have the Alvarez Hypothesis about how an asteroid slamming into the earth caused the extinction of dinosaurs and other life-forms ~66 million years ago.  The Alvarez Hypothesis explains, often in quantitative detail, many important phenomena and makes far-reaching predictions, most remarkably of a crater, which was eventually found in the Yucatan peninsula, that has the right age and size to be the site of an extinction-causing asteroid impact.  The Alvarez Hypothesis has been rigorously tested many times since it was proposed, without having been promoted to a theory. 

But perhaps the Alvarez Hypothesis is still thought to be a tentative explanation, not yet worthy of a more exalted status? It seems that the same can’t be said about the idea that the earth’s crust consists of 12 or so rigid “plates” of solid material that drift around very slowly and create geological phenomena, such as mountain ranges and earth-quakes, when they crash into each other.  This is called either the “Plate Tectonics Hypothesis” or “Plate Tectonics Theory” by different authors.  Same data, same interpretations, same significance, different names. 

And for anyone trying to make sense of the hypothesis-theory-law progression, it must be highly confusing to learn that the crowning achievement of modern physics – itself the “queen of the sciences” – is a complex, extraordinarily precise, quantitative structure is known as the Standard Model of Particle Physics, not the Standard Theory, or the Standard Law!  The Standard Model incorporates three of the four major forces of nature, describes many subatomic particles, and has successfully predicted numerous subtle properties of subatomic particles.  Does this mean that “model” now implies a large, well-worked out and self-consistent body of scientific knowledge?  Not at all; in fact, “model” and “hypothesis” are used interchangeably at the simplest levels of experimental investigation in biology, neuroscience, etc., so definition-wise, we’re back to the beginning.

The reason that the Standard Model is a model and not a theory seems basically to be the same as the reason that the Alvarez Hypothesis is a hypothesis and not a theory or that Evolution is a theory and not a law:  essentially it is a matter of convention, tradition, or convenience.  The designations, we can infer, are primarily names that lack exact substantive, generally agreed-on definitions.

So, rather than worrying about any profound distinctions between hypotheses, theories, laws (and models) it might be more helpful to look at the properties that they have in common:

1. They are all “conjectural” which, for the moment, means that they are inventions of the human mind.

2. They make specific predictions that are empirically testable, in principle.

3. They are falsifiable – if their predictions are false, they are false – though not provable, by experiment or observation. 

4.  As a consequence of point 3., hypotheses, theories, and laws are all provisional; they may be replaced as further information becomes available. 

“Hypothesis,” it seems to me, is the fundamental unit, the building block, of scientific thinking. It is the term that is most consistently used by all sciences; it is more basic than any theory; it carries the least baggage, is the least susceptible to multiple interpretations and, accordingly, is the most likely to communicate effectively.  These advantages are relative of course; as I’ll get into elsewhere, even “hypothesis” is the subject of misinterpretation. In any case, its simplicity and clarity are why this website is devoted to the Scientific Hypothesis and not the others.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

The Difference Between a Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, and Law

Let’s address some common misconceptions about the basic concepts of science..

Totojang/iStock

Nobody is exempt from misunderstanding scientific concepts and/or applying them incorrectly. Statistics from the National Science Board show that Americans scored an average of 5.6 over 9 true-or-false and multiple-choice science-related questions in 2016. Because of the low number of questions, the study is better at differentiating low and medium levels of knowledge than those with higher levels of knowledge. However, the r esults weren’t much different in previous studies, suggesting that Americans generally have had the same basic levels of science literacy since the beginning of the century.

In this context, we’d like to clear up and emphasize the distinctions between scientific hypothesis, theory, and law, and why you shouldn’t use these terms interchangeably. 

Hypothesis: the core of the scientific method

The scientific method is an empirical procedure that consists of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.  It’s a process that’s meant to ensure that the collection of evidence, results, and conclusions are not biased by subjective views and can be repeated consistently by others.

Although there might be variations due to the requirements of each branch of science, the steps of the scientific method are more or less the same.

The scientific method often starts with an observation or asking a question, such as the observation of certain natural phenomena or asking why a particular phenomenon exists or why it occurs in a particular way.

Observation motivates a question and the question motivates an initial hypothesis. The initial hypothesis is a conjecture that works as a temporary answer to the question, formulated via induction on the basis of what’s been observed. 

To better understand this, let’s take the case of physician Ignaz Semmelweis. In mid-19th Century, he worked at the First Obstetrical Clinic of Vienna General Hospital, where 10% of women in labor died due to puerperal fever. Meanwhile, the Second Obstetrical Clinic had an average maternal mortality rate of 4%. Semmelweis asked himself why there was a discrepancy in mortality rates between the two clinics. 

  Through observation, he determined and eliminated a number of differences between the two clinics. Because the techniques, climate, etc., were pretty much the same in both places, he ended up concluding that it had something to do with the health workers who helped women in labor. In the Second Clinic, births were attended only by midwives, while in the First Clinic, births were often attended by medical students who also performed autopsies. Semmelweis came up with the hypothesis that medical students spread “cadaveric contamination” in the First Clinic and this was causing the puerperal fever. 

He ordered all medical students to wash their hands with chlorinated lime after performing autopsies, and the mortality rate in the First Clinic decreased by 90%. 

Semmelweis is considered one of the early pioneers of antiseptic procedures .

This story doesn’t only demonstrate the importance of the initial hypothesis, but also the importance of testing it through experiments, field studies, observational studies, or other experimental work. In fact, this is the next step in the scientific method, and it’s essential to draw conclusions. 

Theory: the Why and How of natural phenomena

A scientific theory can be defined as a series of repeatedly tested and verified hypotheses and concepts. Scientific theories are based on hypotheses that are constructed and tested using the scientific method, and which may bring together a number of facts and hypotheses.

A theory synthesizes the discovered facts about phenomena in a way that allows scientists to formulate predictions and develop new hypotheses. For example, we can hypothesize the reasons why an animal looks or acts in a certain way based on Darwin’s theory of evolution. Or we can predict that antiseptics will prevent diseases if we take into account the germ theory . The confirmation of these hypotheses and predictions reinforces the theories they’re based on.

For a theory to be valid, it must be testable, hold true for general tendencies and not only to specific cases, and it must not contradict verified pre-existing theories and laws. 

Law: the patterns of nature

In general, a scientific law is  the description of an observed phenomenon. It doesn’t explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. Laws can be thought of as the starting place, the point from where questions like “why” and “how” are asked.

For example, we can throw a ball under certain conditions and predict its movement by taking into account Newton’s laws of motion . These laws do not only involve several statements but also equations and formulas.  However, while Newton’s laws might mathematically describe how two bodies interact with each other, they don’t explain what gravity is, or how it works. 

Contrary to popular belief, scientific laws are not immutable. They must be universal and absolute to qualify as laws, but they can be corrected or extended to make them more accurate. For example, Euler’s laws of motion amplify Newton’s laws of motion to rigid bodies ,  and how gravity works was only understood in more detail when Albert Einstein developed the Theory of Relativity.

RECOMMENDED ARTICLES

Common misconceptions about scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses.

• There is a hierarchy between laws, theories, and hypotheses: Some people think that hypotheses “evolve” into theories and theories “evolve” into laws. While a number of verified hypotheses can be included in a theory, it’s never only one. And theories do not turn into scientific laws because they’re simply different concepts. As stated above, theories explain phenomena and laws reflect patterns. 

You don’t have to be a scientist to understand scientific terms. In the information era, scientific concepts surround us, but even if access to knowledge is easier than ever nowadays, there are still a lot of misconceptions around. It’s always better to be on the safe side and getting your facts straight. 

The Blueprint Daily

Stay up-to-date on engineering, tech, space, and science news with The Blueprint.

By clicking sign up, you confirm that you accept this site's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

ABOUT THE EDITOR

Maia Mulko Maia is a bilingual freelance writer and copywriter with a degree in Communication Studies. Although she has written for several different niches and publications, she spent most of her career writing for Descentralizar, a Spanish publication that investigates stories at the intersection of technology and society. She has also written scripts for a wide variety of science-related YouTube channels. Maia is particularly interested in space, AI, mobility, gaming, robotics, and assistive technologies. 

FEATURED VIDEO

Popular articles, lithium extracted from seawater, new method to speed up battery development, us set to test 1st hypersonic missile tracking with space-based sensors, webb telescope’s new finding hints life emerged much earlier than thought.

• transportation

Pentagon awards contract for 3D printed hypersonic components to Sintavia

Related articles.

New device mimics Venus flytrap’s sensory system, can transform robotics

For first time, CRISPR-based gene editing used to enhance photosynthesis

First-ever AI-generated Formula One trophy debuts at Montreal Grand Prix

Virgin Galactic flies 4 tourists to space before retiring ‘Unity’ spaceplane

• View on Facebook Page (Opens in a new tab)
• View our Twitter Page (Opens in a new tab)
• View our Instagram Page (Opens in a new tab)
• View our Youtube Page (Opens in a new tab)

The Difference Between a Fact, Hypothesis, Theory, and Law In Science

Words like “fact,” “theory,” and “law,” get thrown around a lot. When it comes to science, however, they mean something very specific; and knowing the difference between them can help you better understand the world of science as a whole.

In this fantastic video from the It’s Okay To Be Smart YouTube channel , host Joe Hanson clears up some of the confusion surrounding four very important scientific terms: fact, hypothesis, theory, and law. Knowing the difference between these words is the key to understanding news, studies, and any other information that comes from the scientific community. Here are the main takeaways:

Fact: Observations about the world around us. Example: “It’s bright outside.”

Hypothesis: A proposed explanation for a phenomenon made as a starting point for further investigation. Example: “It’s bright outside because the sun is probably out.”

Theory: A well-substantiated explanation acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Example: “When the sun is out, it tends to make it bright outside.”

Law: A statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some phenomenon of nature. Proof that something happens and how it happens, but not why it happens. Example: Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation .

Essentially, this is how all science works. You probably knew some of this, or remember bits and pieces of it from grade school, but this video does a great job of explaining the entire process. When you know how something actually works, it makes it a lot easier to understand and scrutinize .

Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law... Explained! | YouTube

Spoiler Alert: A Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, and Law Are Not the Same Thing

You need to understand this to understand science..

Defining Science

When reading scientific articles (and many other articles on Futurism ), you'll likely to come across the terms "hypothesis," "theory," " and "law." In the scientific community, these words have very specific definitions; however, once you get outside the scientific community, these definitions can be unclear, as the same terms are used differently in a colloquial context.

This is a bit of a problem.

People frequently try to discredit Charles Darwin's greatest work by saying that "evolution is just a hypothesis." — No, it's not.

People frequently try to elevate the (totally absurd and non-scientific) simulation hypothesis by calling it "simulation theory."  — Saying that reality might actually just be a giant computer simulation is definitely  not  a scientific theory.

So, what does it mean when you call something a hypothesis, a theory, or a law?

A hypothesis is a reasonable guess based on something that you observe in the natural world. And while hypotheses are proven and disproven all of the time, the fact that they are disproven shouldn't be read as a statement against them. In truth, hypotheses are the foundation of the scientific method.

As a refresher, here's how the scientific method works: After making an observation and formulating a question, a scientist must create a hypothesis — a potential answer to the question. They then make a testable prediction, test this prediction (over and over and over), and analyze the data. Once this is done, they can then state whether or not their hypothesis was correct.

Even then, a hypothesis needs to be tested and retested many times by many different experts before it is generally accepted in the scientific community as being true.

Example: You observe that, upon waking up each morning, your trash is overturned and junk is spread around the yard. You form a hypothesis that raccoons are responsible. Through testing — maybe you stay up all night to watch for raccoons — the results will either support or refute your hypothesis.

The above example illustrates why the simulation hypothesis is  not  science (and definitely not a scientific theory) .  There's nothing to observe. There's nothing to test. Like the idea of God or an immortal soul, it is beyond the natural world and, so, beyond the realm of science.

A scientific theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported by repeated testing. Theories are one of the pinnacles of science and are widely accepted in the scientific community as being true. A theory must never be shown to be wrong; if it is, the theory is disproven. Theories can also evolve . This doesn't mean the old theory was wrong. It's just that new information was discovered.

The evolution from  Newtonian physics to general relativity  is a good way to explain how new information can cause a theory to evolve into a more complete theory:

When Sir Isaac Newton discovered the theory of gravity and wrote laws that explained the motions of objects, he was not wrong about how the world worked, but he wasn’t fully right either. Albert Einstein later discovered the theories of special and general relativity — that the force of gravity exists due to the bending of spacetime, which is caused by massive objects. This created a more complete theory of gravity. In fact, when you stay far below the speed of light, many of the equations in general and special relativity give you Newton’s results, so Newton wasn't incorrect. He just had a partial answer.

So, what happens when you have two theories that contradict each other, such as the Steady State and Big Bang theories (the former says the universe's density doesn’t change over time and has no beginning or end, while the latter claims the universe is becoming increasingly less dense and started at some point in time).

In this case, scientists made observations, hypotheses, and testable predictions to figure out which theory was right. For example, one scientist might observe that the universe is expanding, hypothesize that it had a beginning, and test their hypothesis by doing the math. Eventually, either one theory is overturned completely (in this case, the Big Bang theory turned out to be correct), or the correct aspects of each theory are combined to form a new theory — one singular theory.

In many cases, one theory forms the foundation upon which other theories are built. An example is Einstein's theories of  general  and  special relativity. These theories lay the foundation for many, many other theories and equations (such as Hubble’s law and the Schwarzschild radius).

Scientific laws are short, sweet, and always true. They're often expressed in a single statement and generally rely on a concise mathematical equation.

Laws are accepted as being universal and are the cornerstones of science. They must never be wrong (that is why there are many theories and few laws). If a law were ever to be shown false, any science built on that law would also be wrong.

Examples of scientific laws (also called "laws of nature") include the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle’s law of gasses, the laws of gravitation.

A law isn't better than a theory, or vice versa. They're just different, and in the end, all that matters is that they're used correctly.

A law is used to describe an action under certain circumstances. For example, evolution is a law — the law tells us that it happens but doesn't describe how or why.

A theory describes how and why something happens. For example, evolution by natural selection is a theory. It provides a host of descriptions for various mechanisms and describes the method by which evolution works.

Another example is Einstein’s famous equation E=mc^2. The equation is a law that describes the action of energy being converted to mass. The theories of special and general relativity, on the other hand, show how and why something with mass is unable to travel at the speed of light.

Hopefully, this has helped expand your understanding of what it means when scientists call something a hypothesis, a theory, or a law. And if you see someone in Internet Land using the terms inappropriately, please, shoot them this article.

Share This Article

Law vs. Hypothesis vs. Theory

Run-in with the law.

The Hypothesis: It's More Than An Educated Guess

Here's a theory, the, er, evolution of laws, hypotheses, and theories, common mistakes, brain snack, tired of ads, cite this source, logging out…, logging out....

You've been inactive for a while, logging you out in a few seconds...

W hy's T his F unny?

Hypothesis vs. Theory

A hypothesis is either a suggested explanation for an observable phenomenon, or a reasoned prediction of a possible causal correlation among multiple phenomena. In science , a theory is a tested, well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven factors. A theory is always backed by evidence; a hypothesis is only a suggested possible outcome, and is testable and falsifiable.

Comparison chart

Examples of Theory and Hypothesis

Theory: Einstein's theory of relativity is a theory because it has been tested and verified innumerable times, with results consistently verifying Einstein's conclusion. However, simply because Einstein's conclusion has become a theory does not mean testing of this theory has stopped; all science is ongoing. See also the Big Bang theory , germ theory , and climate change .

Hypothesis: One might think that a prisoner who learns a work skill while in prison will be less likely to commit a crime when released. This is a hypothesis, an "educated guess." The scientific method can be used to test this hypothesis, to either prove it is false or prove that it warrants further study. (Note: Simply because a hypothesis is not found to be false does not mean it is true all or even most of the time. If it is consistently true after considerable time and research, it may be on its way to becoming a theory.)

This video further explains the difference between a theory and a hypothesis:

Common Misconception

People often tend to say "theory" when what they're actually talking about is a hypothesis. For instance, "Migraines are caused by drinking coffee after 2 p.m. — well, it's just a theory, not a rule."

This is actually a logically reasoned proposal based on an observation — say 2 instances of drinking coffee after 2 p.m. caused a migraine — but even if this were true, the migraine could have actually been caused by some other factors.

Because this observation is merely a reasoned possibility, it is testable and can be falsified — which makes it a hypothesis, not a theory.

• What is a Scientific Hypothesis? - LiveScience
• Wikipedia:Scientific theory

Related Comparisons

Share this comparison via:

If you read this far, you should follow us:

"Hypothesis vs Theory." Diffen.com. Diffen LLC, n.d. Web. 6 Jun 2024. < >

Comments: Hypothesis vs Theory

Anonymous comments (2).

October 11, 2013, 1:11pm "In science, a theory is a well-substantiated, unifying explanation for a set of verified, proven hypotheses." But there's no such thing as "proven hypotheses". Hypotheses can be tested/falsified, they can't be "proven". That's just not how science works. Logical deductions based on axioms can be proven, but not scientific hypotheses. On top of that I find it somewhat strange to claim that a theory doesn't have to be testable, if it's built up from hypotheses, which DO have to be testable... — 80.✗.✗.139

May 6, 2014, 11:45pm "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." this statement is poorly formed because it implies that a thing is a theory until it gets proven and then it is somehow promoted to fact. this is just a misunderstanding of what the words mean, and of how science progresses generally. to say that a theory is inherently dubious because "it isn't a fact" is pretty much a meaningless statement. no expression which qualified as a mere fact could do a very good job of explaining the complicated process by which species have arisen on Earth over the last billion years. in fact, if you claimed that you could come up with such a single fact, now THAT would be dubious! everything we observe in nature supports the theory of evolution, and nothing we observe contradicts it. when you can say this about a theory, it's a pretty fair bet that the theory is correct. — 71.✗.✗.151

• Accuracy vs Precision
• Deductive vs Inductive
• Subjective vs Objective
• Subconscious vs Unconscious mind
• Qualitative vs Quantitative
• Creationism vs Evolution

Edit or create new comparisons in your area of expertise.

Stay connected

© All rights reserved.

This is the Difference Between a Hypothesis and a Theory

What to Know A hypothesis is an assumption made before any research has been done. It is formed so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. A theory is a principle formed to explain the things already shown in data. Because of the rigors of experiment and control, it is much more likely that a theory will be true than a hypothesis.

As anyone who has worked in a laboratory or out in the field can tell you, science is about process: that of observing, making inferences about those observations, and then performing tests to see if the truth value of those inferences holds up. The scientific method is designed to be a rigorous procedure for acquiring knowledge about the world around us.

In scientific reasoning, a hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done. A theory, on the other hand, is supported by evidence: it's a principle formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Toward that end, science employs a particular vocabulary for describing how ideas are proposed, tested, and supported or disproven. And that's where we see the difference between a hypothesis and a theory .

A hypothesis is an assumption, something proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

What is a Hypothesis?

A hypothesis is usually tentative, an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

When a character which has been lost in a breed, reappears after a great number of generations, the most probable hypothesis is, not that the offspring suddenly takes after an ancestor some hundred generations distant, but that in each successive generation there has been a tendency to reproduce the character in question, which at last, under unknown favourable conditions, gains an ascendancy. Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species , 1859 According to one widely reported hypothesis , cell-phone transmissions were disrupting the bees' navigational abilities. (Few experts took the cell-phone conjecture seriously; as one scientist said to me, "If that were the case, Dave Hackenberg's hives would have been dead a long time ago.") Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker , 6 Aug. 2007

What is a Theory?

A theory , in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory . Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, its likelihood as truth is much higher than that of a hypothesis.

It is evident, on our theory , that coasts merely fringed by reefs cannot have subsided to any perceptible amount; and therefore they must, since the growth of their corals, either have remained stationary or have been upheaved. Now, it is remarkable how generally it can be shown, by the presence of upraised organic remains, that the fringed islands have been elevated: and so far, this is indirect evidence in favour of our theory . Charles Darwin, The Voyage of the Beagle , 1839 An example of a fundamental principle in physics, first proposed by Galileo in 1632 and extended by Einstein in 1905, is the following: All observers traveling at constant velocity relative to one another, should witness identical laws of nature. From this principle, Einstein derived his theory of special relativity. Alan Lightman, Harper's , December 2011

Non-Scientific Use

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch (though theory is more common in this regard):

The theory of the teacher with all these immigrant kids was that if you spoke English loudly enough they would eventually understand. E. L. Doctorow, Loon Lake , 1979 Chicago is famous for asking questions for which there can be no boilerplate answers. Example: given the probability that the federal tax code, nondairy creamer, Dennis Rodman and the art of mime all came from outer space, name something else that has extraterrestrial origins and defend your hypothesis . John McCormick, Newsweek , 5 Apr. 1999 In his mind's eye, Miller saw his case suddenly taking form: Richard Bailey had Helen Brach killed because she was threatening to sue him over the horses she had purchased. It was, he realized, only a theory , but it was one he felt certain he could, in time, prove. Full of urgency, a man with a mission now that he had a hypothesis to guide him, he issued new orders to his troops: Find out everything you can about Richard Bailey and his crowd. Howard Blum, Vanity Fair , January 1995

And sometimes one term is used as a genus, or a means for defining the other:

Laplace's popular version of his astronomy, the Système du monde , was famous for introducing what came to be known as the nebular hypothesis , the theory that the solar system was formed by the condensation, through gradual cooling, of the gaseous atmosphere (the nebulae) surrounding the sun. Louis Menand, The Metaphysical Club , 2001 Researchers use this information to support the gateway drug theory — the hypothesis that using one intoxicating substance leads to future use of another. Jordy Byrd, The Pacific Northwest Inlander , 6 May 2015 Fox, the business and economics columnist for Time magazine, tells the story of the professors who enabled those abuses under the banner of the financial theory known as the efficient market hypothesis . Paul Krugman, The New York Times Book Review , 9 Aug. 2009

Incorrect Interpretations of "Theory"

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general use to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said , a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

More Differences Explained

• Epidemic vs. Pandemic
• Diagnosis vs. Prognosis
• Treatment vs. Cure

Word of the Day

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Games & Quizzes

Commonly Confused

'canceled' or 'cancelled', what's the difference between 'fascism' and 'socialism', is it 'home in' or 'hone in', the difference between 'race' and 'ethnicity', homophones, homographs, and homonyms, grammar & usage, more words you always have to look up, 'fewer' and 'less', 7 pairs of commonly confused words, more commonly misspelled words, commonly misspelled words, pilfer: how to play and win, great big list of beautiful and useless words, vol. 4, 9 other words for beautiful, the words of the week - june 7, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments.

What is a scientific hypothesis?

It's the initial building block in the scientific method.

Hypothesis basics

What makes a hypothesis testable.

• Types of hypotheses
• Hypothesis versus theory

Additional resources

Bibliography.

A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It's the initial building block in the scientific method . Many describe it as an "educated guess" based on prior knowledge and observation. While this is true, a hypothesis is more informed than a guess. While an "educated guess" suggests a random prediction based on a person's expertise, developing a hypothesis requires active observation and background research. 

The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no predetermined outcome. For a solution to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be an idea that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation. This concept, called falsifiability and testability, was advanced in the mid-20th century by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper in his famous book "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (Routledge, 1959).

A key function of a hypothesis is to derive predictions about the results of future experiments and then perform those experiments to see whether they support the predictions.

A hypothesis is usually written in the form of an if-then statement, which gives a possibility (if) and explains what may happen because of the possibility (then). The statement could also include "may," according to California State University, Bakersfield .

Here are some examples of hypothesis statements:

• If garlic repels fleas, then a dog that is given garlic every day will not get fleas.
• If sugar causes cavities, then people who eat a lot of candy may be more prone to cavities.
• If ultraviolet light can damage the eyes, then maybe this light can cause blindness.

A useful hypothesis should be testable and falsifiable. That means that it should be possible to prove it wrong. A theory that can't be proved wrong is nonscientific, according to Karl Popper's 1963 book " Conjectures and Refutations ."

An example of an untestable statement is, "Dogs are better than cats." That's because the definition of "better" is vague and subjective. However, an untestable statement can be reworded to make it testable. For example, the previous statement could be changed to this: "Owning a dog is associated with higher levels of physical fitness than owning a cat." With this statement, the researcher can take measures of physical fitness from dog and cat owners and compare the two.

Types of scientific hypotheses

In an experiment, researchers generally state their hypotheses in two ways. The null hypothesis predicts that there will be no relationship between the variables tested, or no difference between the experimental groups. The alternative hypothesis predicts the opposite: that there will be a difference between the experimental groups. This is usually the hypothesis scientists are most interested in, according to the University of Miami .

For example, a null hypothesis might state, "There will be no difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't." The alternative hypothesis would state, "There will be a difference in the rate of muscle growth between people who take a protein supplement and people who don't."

If the results of the experiment show a relationship between the variables, then the null hypothesis has been rejected in favor of the alternative hypothesis, according to the book " Research Methods in Psychology " (​​BCcampus, 2015). 

There are other ways to describe an alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis above does not specify a direction of the effect, only that there will be a difference between the two groups. That type of prediction is called a two-tailed hypothesis. If a hypothesis specifies a certain direction — for example, that people who take a protein supplement will gain more muscle than people who don't — it is called a one-tailed hypothesis, according to William M. K. Trochim , a professor of Policy Analysis and Management at Cornell University.

Sometimes, errors take place during an experiment. These errors can happen in one of two ways. A type I error is when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true. This is also known as a false positive. A type II error occurs when the null hypothesis is not rejected when it is false. This is also known as a false negative, according to the University of California, Berkeley . 

A hypothesis can be rejected or modified, but it can never be proved correct 100% of the time. For example, a scientist can form a hypothesis stating that if a certain type of tomato has a gene for red pigment, that type of tomato will be red. During research, the scientist then finds that each tomato of this type is red. Though the findings confirm the hypothesis, there may be a tomato of that type somewhere in the world that isn't red. Thus, the hypothesis is true, but it may not be true 100% of the time.

Scientific theory vs. scientific hypothesis

The best hypotheses are simple. They deal with a relatively narrow set of phenomena. But theories are broader; they generally combine multiple hypotheses into a general explanation for a wide range of phenomena, according to the University of California, Berkeley . For example, a hypothesis might state, "If animals adapt to suit their environments, then birds that live on islands with lots of seeds to eat will have differently shaped beaks than birds that live on islands with lots of insects to eat." After testing many hypotheses like these, Charles Darwin formulated an overarching theory: the theory of evolution by natural selection.

"Theories are the ways that we make sense of what we observe in the natural world," Tanner said. "Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." 

• Read more about writing a hypothesis, from the American Medical Writers Association.
• Find out why a hypothesis isn't always necessary in science, from The American Biology Teacher.
• Learn about null and alternative hypotheses, from Prof. Essa on YouTube .

Encyclopedia Britannica. Scientific Hypothesis. Jan. 13, 2022. https://www.britannica.com/science/scientific-hypothesis

Karl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," Routledge, 1959.

California State University, Bakersfield, "Formatting a testable hypothesis." https://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm  

Karl Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations," Routledge, 1963.

Price, P., Jhangiani, R., & Chiang, I., "Research Methods of Psychology — 2nd Canadian Edition," BCcampus, 2015.‌

University of Miami, "The Scientific Method" http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/161/evolution/161app1_scimethod.pdf  

William M.K. Trochim, "Research Methods Knowledge Base," https://conjointly.com/kb/hypotheses-explained/  

University of California, Berkeley, "Multiple Hypothesis Testing and False Discovery Rate" https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~hhuang/STAT141/Lecture-FDR.pdf  

University of California, Berkeley, "Science at multiple levels" https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_19

Sign up for the Live Science daily newsletter now

Get the world’s most fascinating discoveries delivered straight to your inbox.

'The difference between alarming and catastrophic': Cascadia megafault has 1 especially deadly section, new map reveals

Arctic 'zombie fires' rising from the dead could unleash vicious cycle of warming

Epidurals may lower risk of complications after birth, study hints

Most Popular

• 2 100-foot 'walking tree' in New Zealand looks like an Ent from Lord of the Rings — and is the lone survivor of a lost forest
• 3 Save $400 on Unistellar's new smart binoculars during their early bird Kickstarter
• 4 10 'breathtaking' photos of our galaxy from the 2024 Milky Way Photographer of the Year contest
• 5 James Webb telescope finds carbon at the dawn of the universe, challenging our understanding of when life could have emerged
• 2 Neanderthals and humans interbred 47,000 years ago for nearly 7,000 years, research suggests
• 3 What is the 3-body problem, and is it really unsolvable?
• 4 Razor-thin silk 'dampens noise by 75%' — could be game-changer for sound-proofing homes and offices
• 5 Shigir Idol: World's oldest wood sculpture has mysterious carved faces and once stood 17 feet tall

• The Big Think Interview
• Your Brain on Money
• Explore the Library
• Will true AI turn against us?
• Do we have free will?
• Why are there conspiracy theories?
• Is religion helping or hurting us?
• Are we alone in the universe?
• Should we trust science?
• Michio Kaku
• Neil deGrasse Tyson
• Michelle Thaller
• Steven Pinker
• Ray Kurzweil
• Cornel West
• Helen Fisher
• Smart Skills
• High Culture
• The Present
• Hard Science
• Special Issues
• Starts With A Bang
• Perception Box
• Strange Maps
• The Learning Curve
• Everyday Philosophy
• Free Newsletters
• Memberships

Scientists rule out a popular alternative theory to dark matter

• Astrophysicists largely agree that dark matter explains a variety of strange phenomena, such as the observation that galaxies rotate faster than they ought to.
• A passionate minority deny the existence of dark matter and embrace MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) to explain the observations.
• A new paper largely has eliminated MOND as a viable theory.

A consensus has arisen in the astronomical community that familiar matter made of atoms is not the dominant form of matter in the Universe. Instead, an invisible form of matter, called dark matter , is thought to be far more prevalent. However, a small group of researchers deny the existence of dark matter, instead saying our understanding of how objects move is incomplete. A recent paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society seems to have ruled this out definitively.

Dark matter vs. MOND

Stars, planets, and galaxies move under the direction of the force of gravity, and Isaac Newton worked out the laws that govern that motion, which we now call Newtonian dynamics. However, despite the enormous success of Newtonian dynamics, this success is not universal. Indeed, when Newton’s equations are applied to certain astronomical phenomena, they do not make the correct predictions. One such example is the speed at which galaxies rotate. When astronomers measure the speed of stars in the periphery of a galaxy, they move faster than can be explained by accepted theory. Instead, the galaxies should fly apart.

The solution to this mystery favored by most scientists is that beyond the familiar stars and clouds of gas, our galaxy also hosts a large amount of invisible matter, called dark matter. This dark matter adds to the gravitational force holding the galaxy together. Thus, the evidence for dark matter is indirect. It has never been observed in the laboratory; yet its ability to explain the motion of galaxies is strong circumstantial evidence that it exists.

Still, because dark matter remains unobserved, alternative hypotheses should be considered. One idea, called MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics), suggests that the Newtonian laws of motion taught in introductory physics classes are not quite right. For accelerations larger than about 10 -11 times the gravity felt on the surface of Earth, Newton’s familiar equations work. For accelerations smaller than that, a new set of equations applies. MOND theory was first devised by Israeli physicist Mordehai Milgrom in 1983, and while the model is not accepted by the majority of astronomers, it has some passionate supporters .

When astronomers apply MOND theory to predicting the rotation of galaxies, it works quite well, essentially as well as dark matter theory does. Thus, a measurement is needed that will definitively distinguish between the two. 

Testing MOND

In the newly released paper, researchers used data recorded using the Gaia satellite to study wide binary stars , which are two stars that orbit one another at large distances. In this study, binary stars were included if their separation was in the range of 2,000 to 30,000 times the average separation between Earth and the Sun. Binary stars with these characteristics experience a range of accelerations that allow scientists to try to determine if MOND or Newtonian theory is correct.

So, what did they find? The study very clearly favors Newtonian theory over MOND as an accurate description of the orbital behavior of wide binary stars . (The measurement ruled out MOND by sixteen sigma, which is far larger than a five-sigma result that is considered definitive.)

In their paper, researchers also tackled earlier reports that wide binaries actually supported the MOND hypothesis. They separated their data into wide binaries in which the measurements were precise and ones in which there was significant uncertainty in the numbers. They found that an analysis that included poorly measured wide binaries favored MOND, but when only precisely measured results were included, the data strongly favored Newtonian dynamics.

Does this measurement prove that dark matter is real? No. That would be too strong of a conclusion. If confirmed, what it demonstrates is that the specific theory called MOND is incorrect. It does not rule out all alternative theories to dark matter. Others remain viable. Indeed, there are other proposed solutions to the mystery of rapidly rotating galaxies, including changes to the laws of gravity, as well as different modifications to the laws of motion. In addition, while the distance separating wide binary stars is very large, it is very small compared to the size of galaxies. It remains possible that MOND theory could apply on galactic sizes, but not on the scale of large stellar systems.

Sherlock’s approach to astrophysics

Still, the result, if confirmed, is a very important advance in our search for the answer of why galaxies rotate so quickly. While not as satisfying as a definitive discovery, definitive refutations of other theories is how science advances. As fictional detective Sherlock Holmes once said in the story “The Sign of Four”: “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

No evidence for conspiracy theory that Joe Biden is behind Donald Trump's New York charges

• Trump claimed without evidence that “Biden and his people” were behind his prosecution in New York.
• But Biden doesn’t have the authority to interfere in state cases, and there's no evidence he's tried to.
• No law prohibits Biden from involving himself in the two federal cases against Trump, but experts said the president has maintained that separation.

In the wake of his historic conviction, former President Donald Trump and his supporters have repeatedly pushed the narrative that the case against him was orchestrated by President Joe Biden.

Trump became the first former president convicted of a crime in May when a jury  found him guilty  of 34 felony charges of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 hush money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 election.

Trump later claimed – without providing evidence – that his prosecution was “all done by Biden and his people." GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene similarly called Trump “ a prisoner of the Biden regime .” And Trump attorney Alina Habba characterized the hush money charges as " exactly a Biden show ."

But there's no proof connecting Biden to the Trump prosecution, according to USA TODAY research and multiple legal experts.

“There is not a shred of evidence that Biden has anything to do with this prosecution,” said Allan Lichtman , a professor of history at American University.

Kimberly Wehle , a law professor at the University of Baltimore and a former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, called the assertion from Trump “obviously, blatantly false.”

She added, "It’s designed to confuse the public into politicizing the rule of law."

More from the Fact-Check Team: How we pick and research claims | Email newsletter | Facebook page

More : After conviction, Trump questioned the New York statute of limitations. Here are the facts

‘He has no power to order Bragg to do anything’

The biggest logic gap in the Biden-as-puppetmaster theory is a simple matter of jurisdiction.

The case was brought by the state of New York , not the federal government. That means, under the Constitution, the Biden administration has no authority over the prosecution of Trump led by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg .

“He has no power to order Bragg to do anything,” Martin Redish , a professor of law and public policy at Northwestern University, told USA TODAY.

The same holds true for Trump’s case in Georgia , where the former president and others have pleaded not guilty to charges of trying to steal the 2020 election . An appeals court placed that case on hold while it reviews a ruling that allows Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to remain on it.

“When you’re dealing with state prosecutions, it’s district attorneys elected by the voters of their jurisdiction,” Lichtman said. “That has nothing to do with the federal government.”

The idea of Biden interfering in Trump's prosecution is further weakened by the fact that the agency under his purview declined to file charges. The Justice Department had the authority to pursue a case against Trump over the hush money circumstances but chose not to do so .

Of course, if Biden or those in his sphere were coordinating with local prosecutors, those communications would not take place in public view. But it's important to note no one promoting the claim has provided any proof such a thing took place.

"I can't discount the theoretical possibility of some secret conspiracy, but I would like to see some evidence of that," Redish said. "And I've heard none to this point."

Some of the Biden conspiracy claims center on Matthew Colangelo, who was a top Justice Department official before joining the Manhattan DA's office in December 2022.

But that particular theory falls flat for several reasons . First, the investigation began in 2018 , two years before Biden was elected president and four years before Colangelo's arrival. And second, Colangelo's resume – which includes experience working on issues relating to Trump and a stint working with Bragg in the New York attorney general's office – would seem on its own to make him a logical selection for this post.

Even a former Trump attorney called the claim of Biden's involvement “one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard.”

“We know that’s not the case, and even Trump’s lawyers know that’s not the case,” Joe Tacopina , who left the former president’s legal team in January after representing him during his arraignment in the hush money trial, told MSNBC . USA TODAY reached out to him but did not immediately receive a response.

Attorney General Merrick Garland also blasted this line of thinking in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on June 4, condemning "false claims that a jury verdict in a state trial, brought by a local district attorney, was somehow controlled by the Justice Department."

The separation of federal and state powers traces back to the nation’s infancy and was established in the Bill of Rights, Redish noted. The 10th Amendment defines federalism , spelling out that states have any powers not specifically assigned to the national government.

“This is a power reserved to the states,” Lichtman said. “President Biden or any other federal official has absolutely no authority over such a prosecution, and it would be grossly improper for Biden or a federal official to intervene.”

Fact check : Debunking misinformation about Donald Trump's conviction in hush money trial

That separation, Redish said, goes back to the Founding Fathers.

“They split our governments in two different ways: horizontally, and – in this instance, more importantly – vertically,” he said. “They split sovereign power so that it would be a speed bump to anyone trying to achieve tyranny.”

'Clear safeguards,' but no law keeping Biden from interfering in federal cases

In Trump's two federal cases, things are a bit different. The charges he faces cover the hoarding of hundreds of classified documents in Florida and a conspiracy to steal the 2020 election from Biden in Washington.

There is no law that prohibits a president from involving himself in a federal case, experts acknowledged. But they also said Biden has kept himself separate from the prosecution of Trump.

“There are very clear safeguards in place, and Biden has affirmed them,” Lichtman said.

Biden made a public vow not to speak to Garland about any specific case, saying in a June 2023 appearance on MSNBC that he “made a commitment that I would not in any way interfere with the Justice Department, who they prosecuted, if they prosecuted, how they proceeded.”

The department in November 2022 appointed Jack Smith the special counsel for the federal cases against Trump, and a key reason for that was to add a layer of separation between the investigation and the administration.

“When special counsels are appointed, it’s because the normal line of prosecutors, starting with the attorney general, may have an appearance of some interest,” Redish said. “They may not actually have the interest, but the appearance of fairness is more important than the actual fact.”

Garland, a federal judge for more than two decades and a longtime Justice Department attorney before that, was nominated in 2016 for a U.S. Supreme Court seat by Democratic former President Barack Obama. Smith, a career prosecutor who is not registered with either political party , led war crimes cases at The Hague before his appointment and has never been a political appointee.

“There’s been no evidence he’s done anything improper,” Lichtman said of Smith.

The theory that Biden is using the DOJ to serve his personal agenda also falls flat in light of two of its recent decisions. Not only did the agency decline to prosecute Trump for the New York hush money situation, it has now taken the president's son to trial. Hunter Biden faces felony gun charges in a trial that began days after the New York jury convicted Trump.

“Joe Biden hasn’t directed his Justice Department to halt those investigations, to withdraw that indictment," Wehle said. "That stands for itself as proof that Joe Biden is not manipulating a state – assuming that was even possible. … He’s not even using the levers of his own power to call off a prosecution of his own son.”

Thank you for supporting our journalism. You can subscribe to our print edition, ad-free app or e-newspaper here .

USA TODAY is a verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network, which requires a demonstrated commitment to nonpartisanship, fairness and transparency. Our fact-check work is supported in part by a grant from Meta .