Re: Mass: Corrections,etc.

[John Denker <jsd@AV8N.COM>]

RAUBER, JOEL wrote:
>  The main objection you state seems to be
> with regard to the non-ideal nature of actual balances.
>
> Do you have the same objections with an operational definition of
> "mass" is what the "ideal" instrument measures.  I consider that to be a
> valid operational definition; even if the "ideal" operation is
> unrealizable in practice.
>
> In other words, is your objection (perhaps to strong a word), that an
> operational definition should only use realizable operations?

I generally adhere to the philosophy that theory
 -- MUST describe realizable operations, and
 -- MAY describe unrealizable operations (depending on
  taste and convenience).


The key question IMHO is: how do we know when a real balance
is sufficiently nearly ideal?  That depends on what the device
uses as its principle of operation, and on what corrections
we apply, etc. etc. etc.  I suspect there cannot be any simple
answer.  Metrology is a notoriously fussy subject.