Re: precision?

[Stefan Jeglinski <jeglin@4PI.COM>]

> But a definition is only useful if (1) people know about it and (2) people
> accept the author as an authority (or better, THE authority) on the
> subject.  I didn't know NIST had a set of physics definitions and would
> never have thought to go to there looking.  And I doubt there is a
> concensus amoung physicists that NIST is the best authority, anyway.


Not to argue :-) but suppose we are talking about Einstein's theory
of relativity. I admit I'm playing fast and loose with the difference
between a definition and a theory (not to mention ignoring those
whose work Einstein built upon) but would anybody reasonably say that
since they didn't know about Einstein's theory and therefore didn't
accept Einstein as an authority, that relativity wasn't useful (not
to mention necessary)?

And NIST, almost by "definition", has to have a better handle on
definitions than most, since they are supposed to be a prime
metrological reference institution. The whole concept of a traceable
standard implies that they are one of the best authorities (best?)
when it comes to standards and reference measurements; why not
definitions too? A *traceable* standard (key word) to me implies that
they need one of the best set of definitions of almost everything
physics; otherwise how do they make something traceable?

If you find a physicist who thinks that NIST is not the best
authority on a metrological measurement, fair enough, but s/he must
at least then be able to point to an institution that provides such a
service. Certainly regarding new concepts and their measurements,
NIST isn't the first on the bandwagon, but eventually any standard
measurement will filter up to NIST in one form or another.

I admit to speaking in generalities. Does anyone have examples of
measurements whose absolute authority as a standard lies outside of
NIST or similar agency in Europe?


Stefan Jeglinski