re:Flow of energy

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

Please review Thompson's observation and explain it to us in terms
of the flow of "heat". Most of us think that it is a proof that
"heat" is not a conserved quantity. Does "heat" flow down the borer
shaft? Does rotational energy flow from the rotary engine down the
borer shaft and become transformed into heat?

Many clever *ad hoc* explanations can be (and were) formulated to
"explain" physical observations in terms of the caloric theory. The
trouble is, good physical theories don't have to be explained *ad
hoc*. This is a matter of taste, of course; caloric can still be
used. It is inelegant and, by modern taste, simply wrong.

Newtonian mechanics is not wrong. There are many applications in
which one can produce a Newtonian solution and a relativistic
quantum mechanical approach can't even get off the ground. If you
drive a car such applications abound in your immediate vicinity.
Under no circumstances should you denigrate Newtonian mechanics
when discussing it with your students. Man could not have got to
the Moon without it!

Above all, never denigrate anything solely because it is "not the
most current model". One need only look at the succession of
elementary particle models we've had over the last fifty years to
see the ultimate folly in that attitude. I think that cosmology
provides even more dramatic examples. Just because some thing is
New! doesn't guarantee it is Improved! It doesn't even work for
laundry soap.

I'm angry. I'm going to bed.

Leigh

> But Newton is not the most _current_ model of how nature works.  Everything
> that we teach with Newtonian mechanics can supposedly be explained with
> quantum mechanics (at least that's my understanding) but one would not
> likely resort to QM to explain most macroscopic phenomenon because the
> Newtonian model works just fine in the macroscopic domain.  Calorimetry can
> be treated sucessfully with an 'energy flow' model.  What is the advantage
> to quashing such models?
>
> Rick
> ----------
> > From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
> > To: phys-l@atlantis.cc.uwf.edu
> > Subject: re:Flow of energy
> > Date: Saturday, August 30, 1997 6:22 PM
> >
> > Come on, Rick! Newton is not an "outmoded model". It is an entirely valid
> > theory. Where did you learn otherwise? Caloric (and phlogiston, with
> which
> > you are confusing it) is not. That's been evident since Benjamin Thompson
> > made his famous observation.
> >
> > Flow: energy, no; diarrhea, yes.
> >
> > Leigh