Actually she got it wrong. Laws tend to be observations without explanations. Theories are observations with explanations.<quoted text>
A scientific laws explain things, not describe them. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. Example: We can use Newton's LoG to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but we couldn't explain why it happened.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. If evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
All quoted from Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.. Need I say more?
There are no real "laws of physics" since just about every one has well known exceptions. And once again, theories outrank mere laws. No scientist wants to discover a new law today, theories are where it is at. Here is an example, for a while it was known that Newton's Law of Gravity was wrong. There were definite problems with the precession of Mercury. There were various hypotheses created including an imaginary planet "Vulcan". It wasn't until Einstein came along with his Theories of Gravity that the problem was fixed.
The only truly valid Laws that I know of are the Laws of Thermodynamics.