🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13213.2a7e53ad@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu>, balbes@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes...
>One of my pet peeves about physics since I was an undergrad
>is how things are usually named after people.  For example,
>the force between two charged particles is the Coulomb force.  
>The equations describing E&M are Maxwell's Eqns.  Then there
>are the Euler eqn's (of which I believe there are several)
>Ampere's Law, ad infinitum.

Although it is nice to honor the people who have made the largest 
contributions to physics by sticking their names on things, it 
certainly can obfuscate things now and then.

I remember taking an Electronics class in which the professor taught
us about "unit impulse response functions" on the same day in which
we started discussing "Green functions" in Diff Eqs.  With all 
due respect to Green, his name is not nearly as informative.  "Propagator"
contains at least some information useful in some applications, but 
the EE guys certainly have this one nailed.

It is my impression that engineers tend to use functional names for
physics ideas, while we use epynomous labels which have become part
of our little subculture.  I imagine that every group does the same
thing.

On the other hand, the names are a handle into the history, knowledge
of which can deepen your understanding of the physics.  So, in the 
end, I don't think we should change nomenclature.

-Scott
--------------------
Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
				had been definitely settled, I think I would
				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver