- #1
BLUE_CHIP
Today, I was casually perusing the general physics forum when i came across this thread:Mass of Light? and Zlex posted
What I wish to discuss is whether it was truly good science to simply disregard the mass of light because it is so small.
Due to Newton's lack of knowledge in the area of quantum behavoir, surely disregarding such a value is criminal. For all he knew it could have had major connotations on the progression of particle physics over the next few decades.
What I am trying to say is:
Is there a sensible degree of accuracy at which to stop?
An could the lack of accuracy and the dismissal of values,
such as the mass of light, have set back the development of
new ideas in physics.
I'm not simply confining this to the example that I have given, but extend it to all branches of science.
Newton assumed in his particle theory that the mass of a light particle is approaching zero, meaning that it is so close to zero it might as well be zero.
What I wish to discuss is whether it was truly good science to simply disregard the mass of light because it is so small.
Due to Newton's lack of knowledge in the area of quantum behavoir, surely disregarding such a value is criminal. For all he knew it could have had major connotations on the progression of particle physics over the next few decades.
What I am trying to say is:
Is there a sensible degree of accuracy at which to stop?
An could the lack of accuracy and the dismissal of values,
such as the mass of light, have set back the development of
new ideas in physics.
I'm not simply confining this to the example that I have given, but extend it to all branches of science.