Open Letter to Rob Twiss



Dear Rob,

during my graduate years in the early eighties I had an advisor who influenced
my thinking very much. It was not so much the particular subject he taught in
class, or the active instruction, rather it was the example as a scientist which
he gave by living it. Through him I learned to trust theory. One of the pieces
of wisdom I got from him was a sentence in a letter I received after I had
already left: "In science, correct answers do not matter. What matters is to ask
the right questions; once you have these, the correct answers will fall out."

I have worked this quote, including the source, into a slide which I sometimes
use as the last one to end a conference talk. This thoughful man who formed my
mind more than anyone else, the only one whom I would call my teacher rather
than merely instructor, was a certain Robert J. Twiss. I say this despite the
fact that today we think in entirely different ways.

However, since GSA 1988 in Denver when I first told you about my attempts to
find new ways of understanding, you have made a strongly enforced point in
refraining from any direct or indirect communication with me - and I made many
attempts at reaching you. At one point I had my scripts hand-delivered to you
from Germany to California by a friend. Still no answer. Just by staying silent
for so long you have made it perfectly clear that you disapprove of my views,
but you have completely failed to give a hint as to why you do so. You just do
not respond at all. In fact, these two recent contributions to this listserver
were your first, if indirect, communications to me in 13 years. So you correctly
identified a couple shortcuts of mine for the purpose of this crude medium here,
in messages to an audience which understood anyway. So what?

What happened to the man who did not want right answers, but good questions? And
what can possibly be gained from non-communication - except enmity? Is that
science? Rob, there is a point whence not doing anything is by far the worst
mistake you can possibly make. If you now find yourself as a receiver of this
public letter - which I do not think you will appreciate - it is due to your own
doing. An Arabian proverb says, "if you want to leave the olives still hanging
for a while they are going to fall on your head".

Customarily, if someone ventures to propose a new theory he must fulfill a
handful of conditions:
- he must show that in some aspect the older theory fails to predict
  observations;
- he must show where the logical flaw in the theory is;
- he must offer a new approach that avoids the flaws;
- he must demonstrate that the new approach works better than the older one -
  preferably substantially better.

I have done all that. At this present point in time I am not aware of any major
contradiction between natural observation and the predictions my approach
offers. You have completely ignored my results, never considered the questions I
ask, and if finally you react you come with such whimsical topics that I can
only call it another attempt at avoiding the real subject. You ought to begin
with the very same question you did not answer in class, back in 1981: how can
an equation of motion be the proper tool to understand a change of state in the
sense of the First Law? Aren't you aware of the fact that the conceptual
difference between a free motion and a change of state is anything but trivial?
You even ignore the paper which, after all, I have been able to publish, that on
the non-existence of the stress tensor.

I cannot change your mind, only you can do that. I can only offer discussion,
arguments, results, and expose myself to critique. It is everybody's right to
refute me if necessary - but it is also a professional obligation. From the
private mails I receive after creating all this noise here, it is clear that
there are many listening in who became quite curious because of the results I
offer, who would love to see this matter decided, but who feel that they
themselves are not sufficiently qualified to develop an opinion. Well - of all
people, lack of competence is one claim you cannot make.

Just last Monday I gave a seminar talk at a Dept. Mechanics here in Germany; my
host was one of the reviewers for the published paper, and the ensuing
discussion lasted a full three hours. Be assured they would not have stayed that
long if they had been bored, they have other things to do as well. Earlier I
have found other well-educated people who read my work carefully and told me
they believe that my views are valid.

As said above, I see no point in non-communication. I wish there was a path back
to the open-minded man I once learned to respect, and I see no reason why we
cannot pick up the pieces where they were dropped 13 years ago. Perhaps we need
a Camp David meeting. But if so it should be thorough, weighting both sides, and
'sine ira et studio' in everybody's interest. Of course, in all likelihood it is
going to be hard work. But this is science.


Falk H. Koenemann




 _____________________________________________________________________
|  Dr. Falk H. Koenemann                             Aachen, Germany  |
|                                                                     |
|  Email: [log in to unmask]                 Phone: *49-241-75885  |
|                                                                     |
|  URL:           http://home.t-online.de/home/peregrine/hp-fkoe.htm  |
|  stress  elasticity   deformation of solids   plasticity    strain  |
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|  The rain, it raineth on the Just                                   |
|  And on the Unjust fella.                                           |
|  But chiefly on the Just because                                    |
|  The Unjust stole the Just's umbrella.                              |
|_____________________________________________________________________|