This is a most excellent depiction of my feelings concerning the definition of the metre, Jim. You've done an outstanding job about that. Thank you kindly. I just have a few additional minor comments below, with your forbearance.
On Mon, 08 Apr 2002 19:22:42 James R. Frysinger wrote: >Another topic that Marcus and I have discussed deals with the evolution >of standards of measurement. If I understand Marcus correctly, he is >unhappy about the meter being defined in terms of the property of light >and the definition of the second. Correct me if I'm wrong here, Marcus. > >This, to me, is not a trivial point. There is good metrological >reasoning behind this redefinition of the meter. The point is somewhat >subtle, though, and if it confuses people on this list then it must >confuse the person on the street even more. Actually, that last point >assumes that the person on the street is familiar with the definition, >which is very unlikely. What is more likely to be bandied about is the >thought that the meter is not a constant quantity through the process of >these definitions. Thus the myth arises that the meter is changing size. > Perhaps this 'good metrological reasoning' you allude to is significantly tied to the search for even more accurate parameters of reference. Don't take me wrong, Jim, I fully support that initiative, but NOT at the expense of trampling over the independence aspect of defining units. Now, if one can prove and it turns out that improving accuracy even more would be impossible without respecting this fundamental aspect then that would be a different story, and then perhaps one may have to "bite the bullet". But I honestly can't see (yet) why this would be so at this point in time. As for your last sentences dealing with the 'person on the street' and the unchanging nature of the meter have never been a concern for me in these discussions. >... What has changed is the way in which >the definition of the meter has been expressed these last two centuries >as different methods of representing that standard have come and gone, >being replaced in turn by methods of greater precision. Since most >people have no background in statistics or in understanding measurement >error, that point is lost on them. > Absolutely right. >... In the meantime, I'll stop here in >discussing the meter to see if I have correctly represented Marcus's >point and to see if there is interest in this topic. If there is no >interest, then I'll end this thread here. >... Well... There, you got it. In essence, Jim, I just wished they'd continue the pursuit of more accurate definition of the meter where they had left off, so to speak, instead of migrating to a fundamentally different way of doing it. Yesterday I was browsing through their recent reports concerning this change and discovered that they apparently are facing some dilemmas on this, and I gather (and am somewhat "relieved" and taking solace) that they are cognizant of my position since they seem to continue to consider that the use of wavelengths may not be entirely abandoned after all, I don't know. Perhaps you or someone else here can shed some light on this controversy. Marcus Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
