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] Physics Grammar

I quite agree most physical quantities should not be defined in terms of human perception, e.g. force, entropy, length (tho here at one time it was measured by a certain king's digits), etc. However, there is at least one quantity that is measured (defined) by human perception. And, wow, it's LIGHT; how ironic. Yes, the lumen is defined by the standard eye's perception of flux, and it's an SI unit.

bc thinks Alfredo meant something else?

p.s. a general comment. I think the basis of this discussion is prescription vs. description. The prescriptists (bc is one, as youall have guessed.) have rather lost. I find it a losing battle to convince Radio Shack sales people the majority of their sales are cells not batteries, and that the separator between the host and whatever com, net, org, etc. is, is a period not a dot (tho I must admit a period may be a sub set of dots.). Closer to home, I threaten to paint out the terminal e on my street's signs because it's a tree like bush not Nathaniel. It's the last street after Oak, Pine, Acacia, etc. Gate Keeper thinks I should tone down it and my other prescriptions; it's boring. However, when it comes to light, will it be the camel sticking his tongue in to the tent, if "we" don't insist on holding the fort w/ definitions. Of course not, but it's fun.

Alfredo Louro wrote:

I would disagree on principle that any physical quantity should be
defined in terms of human perception. In keeping with this, I would
call all forms of em radiation "light", and qualify the visible
radiation as visible light. The same idea applies to sound. We talk
about sound waves in the Sun, for example, although obviously no one
can hear them.

Alfredo

On Jan 23, 2008 9:03 AM, Larry Smith <larry.smith@snow.edu> wrote:

The Physics Teacher, current issue (Feb 2008), page 74, has a couple of
items relating to "physics grammar" that I would like the list's response
to.

------begin quote------

1. Light is defined as that portion of the Electromagnetic Spectrum to
which the human eye is sensitive. So light is "visible Electromagnetic
Radiation (EMR)." Thus "visible light" is redundant because it would
translate to "visible visible EMR." The terms "infrared light" and
"ultraviolet light" are also incorrect because "light" is the visible part
of the EMR and infrared and ultraviolet radiation are not visible.

------end quote---------

The author has a second grammar point too, but I'm more interested in the
list's response to the first one.

Cheers,
Larry
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l


_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l