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]

Re: [Phys-l] teaching energy




A recent post in the ongoing discussion:

| I model the rest mass energy of a fundamental particle as
| belonging to the particle and not being determined by the
| relationship of that particle to anything else. Perhaps,
| however, it is determined by the relationship of that
| particle to EVERYTHING else in the universe.
|

I find it interesting how many discussions find it impossible to steer
clear of variations of Mach's Principle. Despite the fact that many
current practitioners say believe the principle is "bankrupt", we often
come back to it, or close to it quite often in discussions.

I often think that the principle belongs more in the realm of
meta-physics. Mach is underappreciated IMO; and I confess to a certain
admiration for a man who could go to his grave in 1916 refusing to
believe in the atomic hypothesis, quoting from Wikipedia:

'In accordance with this philosophy, Mach opposed Ludwig Boltzmann and
others who proposed an atomic theory of physics. Since atoms are too
small to observe directly, and no atomic model at the time was
consistent, the atomic hypothesis seemed to Mach to be unwarranted, and
perhaps not sufficiently "economical".'

Regardless of the status of the principle's "correctness" it certainly
inspired some important progress in physics, Special and General
Relativity being the most obvious.