Re: [Phys-l] the uniqueness of entropy

[carmelo@pacific.net.sg]

Quoting William Maddox <maddox@physics.auburn.edu>:

> The IAU sometimes decides arguments based on definitions for astronomers
> (Pluto is/is not a planet). Perhaps the APS, or on the international scale,
> the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics could serve a similar
> function for physics. It looks like the IUPAP book called  Symbols, Units,
> Nomenclature and Fundamental Constants in Physics was last issued in 1987.
> Perhaps it is time for an update including an appendix on the topic of
> dueling definitions.

Authoritative definition is not necessarily good for science.

Feynman is definitely against current IAU definition on planet for the  
following reason... (You may refer to his lecture in THE MEANING OF IT  
ALL.)

If someone were to propose that the planets go around the sun because  
all planet matter has a kind of tendency for movement, a kind of  
motility, let
us call it an "oomph," this theory could explain a number of other  
phenomena as well. So this is a good theory, is it not? No. It is  
nowhere near as good as a proposition that the planets move around the  
sun under the influence of a central force which varies exactly  
inversely as the square of the distance from
the center...


Best regards,
Alphonsus