Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Definitions

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)?

My main point is that everybody needs to know what is meant by relativity
before we can have a meaningful discussion. Specical relativity is defined
by two postulates. We don't need to accept that Einstein is correct or
that he is an authority to discuss relativity. We DO need to both be
discussing the same two postulates. In this case, the journal that
published the theory is the "authority".

Take "the work-energy" theorem. We have had discussions here where we
discover that different people have different definitions, and often don't
realize it! I think it would be useful to be able to say "there are
several theorems that look like the work-energy theorem, but the official
definition is ...."



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.

Yes, the the "official" definition of the meter I would turn to NIST
For "official" chemical names, there's IUPAC
For "official" masses of fundamental particles, there's PDG
They have up-to-date, accurate, authoritative information.

But who can tell me the "official" interpretation of the work-energy
theorem?
Or the "official" definition of weight?



Tim Folkerts