Re: Energy <=> Money

[Richard Tarara <rtarara@SAINTMARYS.EDU>]

But is Energy really like money?  Doesn't the requirement that energy be
conserved require that if we define a given system that we can _always_
account for the energy of that system (within the system, entering the
system, exiting the system) at least to within the limits imposed by the
uncertainty principle?  In such a context doesn't the 'stuff' model work
quite well even if we can't pinpoint exactly what the 'stuff' is?

Looking closer at the money analogy, can't we trace the electronic form of
money as it moves about in cyber-space?  It may be only a pattern of
electron motions at times, but those patterns are transferred through phone
lines or converted to E&M waves and transmitted through space to be
converted into magnetic patterns on a disk-drive which can later be
transformed at a ATM into paper representations of money.  So perhaps the
analogy is not too bad, but it doesn't negate the power of a 'stuff' model
since I can always represent the money as some kind of 'stuff'--paper,
magnetic patterns, electron patterns, E&M waves and can generally localize
these.

{We of course have the same problems with mass and charge when we get down
to trying to say exactly what these things are, but does having to resort to
statements like "well mass and charge are physical properties of things like
protons, electrons, etc. which we can really only define by the way these
properties effect the behavior of these 'particles'" really make mass and
charge less real?}

Rick

----- Original Message -----
From: Timothy Folkerts <tfolkert@TIGER.FHSU.EDU>
To: <PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu>
Sent: Friday, August 13, 1999 1:02 PM
Subject: Energy <=> Money


> I think the analogy to money is highly profitable in bridging the gap
> between "energy is stuff that flows" to "energy is an abstract property of
> a system".  I must admit that a week ago I was leaning much farther to the
> "energy is stuff that flows" side than I am now, but I'm seeing that it is
> just a bit to simplistic for my tastes.
>
> If I put a $20 bill in the bank today and get a $20 from the ATM tomorrow,
> somewhere that $20 is always accounted for.  The same $20 bill doesn't go
> from one place to the other.  When I first opened a bank account, I wanted
> to think that the bank actually put my dollar bills some box with my name
> on it in some big safe, but I quickly realized that this view was not
> terribly useful and couldn't adquately explain what I saw happening.
>
> Now with e-commerce, the analogy is even better.  When my pay check is
> electronically deposited, there is no way to localize where my money is or
> was.  When I use a debit card, there is no money "in" the card, but some
> credit is transfered from my account to the retailer's account.  You can't
> follow the money from one account and see it cross a boundary, but it used
> to be in one place and now it is in another.
>
>
> Tim Folkerts
>
>
> > > I repeat:  It is just as easy and far more pedagogically profitable to
> say
> > > it correctly.  Arguments to the contrary just show an unwillingness to
> > > learn physics or how to teach it,  The Great Feynman notwithstanding.
> > > Jim Green
>
> > The Great Jim Green not withstanding, most introductory physics students
> > (particularly those who will take no other physics beyond that intro
> course)
> > will not profit from graduate thermodynamic/stat mech/general relativity
> > approaches to the topics of energy, heat, etc.  The 'less correct' models
> > usually taught and prevalent in intro text books are more easily handled
> by
> > such students and sufficiently meet the primary goals of these courses.