🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 1, 8:45 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Unfortunately John Baez, Einsteiniana's most famous teacher, ....

I wouldn't call him that myself. Baez well-known in his field and is a
pretty damn sharp man but far from being "most famous".

> ...left the
> sinking ship and sillier Einsteinians will drown without knowing his
> secret:
>
> http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
> John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
> explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
> into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
> tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
> account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
> until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
> our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I
> didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these
> heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to
> work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right
> track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So,
> I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."

I don't see how this implies "Einsteiniana has abandoned the classical
definition of mass". I hope you're not taking Tom's word on this? Tom
is *extremEly* biased on this subject as are many physicists. A much
more accurate overview of the role of mass in relativity is found in
the updated FAQ on this subject
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

Notice the following
--------------------------------------
While the use of relativistic mass is purely a matter of taste, it
appears that at least some physicists who oppose the use of
relativistic mass believe, mistakenly, that all physicists who use
relativistic mass are against the idea of rest mass.  It's not clear
just why there should be this perennial confusion about preferences.
--------------------------------------


Tom's argument is based on the logical fallacy known as "Argumentum ad
Populum," i.e. "popular appeal or appeal to the majority."  See -
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html


The author of the FAQ points this out
--------------------------------------
Abandoning the use of relativistic mass is sometimes validated by
quoting select physicists who are or were against the term, or by
exhaustively tabulating which textbooks use the term.  But real
science isn't done this way.  In the final analysis, the history of
relativity, with its quotations from those in favour of relativistic
mass and those against, has no real bearing on whether the idea itself
has value.  The question to ask is not whether relativistic mass is
fashionable or not, or who likes the idea and who doesn't; rather, as
in any area of physics notation and language, we should always ask "Is
it useful?"  And relativistic mass is certainly a useful concept.
--------------------------------------

Pete