Abstract
THERE has for some time existed an international committee, the ‘S.U.N.’, charged with the duty among other subjects of standardizing the nomenclature of physical quantities. So far as concerns such things as the names of units and their symbols it has proved effective. There has perhaps been a tendency for some of the members to point out that the majority were marching out of step; but in view of the very different approaches of different schools of thought, a certain latitude is perhaps permissible in the meaning and symbol of such a thing as/ree energy. This side of the question of nomenclature is adequately cared for, and is not the subject of the present article. Here it is proposed to consider certain obvious deficiencies and nonconformities in descriptive technical terms as they have arisen during the last decade or so in both English and American writings on atomic physics. It is not to be expected, perhaps not even to be desired, that any exact uniformity should be reached, but there are a number of cases where there is complete anarchy, and it is the aim of the present review to examine what principles should guide us in giving names to things, and possibly in a few examples to suggest appropriate solutions which may appeal to some of those who have not a conscientious preference for anarchy.
Article PDF
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Darwin, C. Terminology in Physics. Nature 138, 908–911 (1936). https://doi.org/10.1038/138908a0
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/138908a0