| Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
| [Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
Here's a private debate which I suggested be moved to PHYS-L. Justin
wants to know if physics educators object to the material on my website
regarding electricity misconceptions and the learning barriers created by
the contradictory definitions contained within the word "electricity."
On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Meredith, Justin wrote:
oh really? electricity is a generic term - do you agree with that?
I partly agree, because the word "electricity" is sometimes used to mean
"electrical science", and sometimes it's used to mean "any electrical
phenomena." For example, a textbook can be full of electricity just like
a book on light can be full of "optics." And your stereo can be full of
electricity just like a bicycle can be full of "Newtonian mechanics." Yet
at the same time the word is NOT a generic term, because people use
"electricity" in a very specific yet incorrect way: e.g. the quantity of
"electricity" consumed by a light bulb, or the rate of "electricity"
that flows THROUGH the light bulb and back out into the circuit.
when most
people think of electricity, they think of energy. when physicists think of
electricity they think of a charge.
That's very close to the truth, but professionals today have the same
problem as everyone else. A hundred years ago physicists said that
electrons carried a "quantity of electricity", but today they also say
that "electricity" is the electrical energy sold by electric companies.
This is a contradicition, it is a "slang nonscientific everyday usage"
which should not appear in physics textbooks or in physics classrooms.
We shouldn't ask "what is electricity," because that question wrongly
assumes that something called "electricity" exists. Instead, we should
ask "how can we correctly use the word 'electricity' in a scientific
explanation?" Or this: "how do the non-experts usually use the word?", or
"how is the word commonly misused." That puts the proper focus where it
belongs: upon the contradictory definitions of the word "electricity,"
while also removing any hidden assumption that a single entity called
"electricity" exists somewhere in the world.
CHARGE is called charge
ENERGY is called energy
sooooo - which word correctly deserves the word electricity as a slang term
or analogy?????
There's no escaping the contradictory definitions by deciding that ONE
meaning is correct and the others are wrong. One hundred years ago
perhaps it was possible to choose a correct scientific definition of the
word "electricity", when physicists still used the words "charge" and
"electricity" interchangably. But today they no longer do this. I think
some physicists would agree to use "electricity" as the title of a chapter
in a physics textbook, (although many of them would prefer the word
"electromagnetism" or "electrodynamics.") But they would not tell their
students that electric power is a "flow of electricity" or that electric
current is a "flow of electricity."
well, from what you said, electricity doesn't exist - right??? what makes
either word more deserving than the other to recieve the slang term
"electricity"???
Right! It doesn't matter, because the word "electricity" has turned into
misleading incorrect slang word which can no longer be used to explain how
electric circuits work. We use the words and ideas "charge" and "energy"
and "electrical phenomena" in explaining physics, and never bother
answering the question "what is electricity?"
there is clearly a process that HAS to happen to harness energy. electricity
doesn't exist now, remember?
Sure, we just avoid "electricity," and instead use another of it's many
definitions: "electrical phenomena." When a generator creates an
electric current and lights up a distant light bulb, the whole process is
an "electrical phenomenon." No electricity is involved.
since everyone on this planet, besides the few, thinks of both of these as
electricity, why not call the process ELECTRICITY???
Because where physics classes are concerned, we don't care what slang
terms the general public uses. We must use terms which have clear and
unchanging definitions, otherwise communication becomes impossible and
students pick up all sorts of misconceptions. Using the word
"electricity" can mislead students. It makes them think that one single
entity called "electricity" exists. It makes them think that light bulbs
convert electrons into light. It makes them think that electrical energy
flows through a toaster and then goes back to the generator. All these
concepts are wrong, and they prevent us from assembling a clear mental
picture of electric circuit operation. The word "electricity" in large
part is to blame.
now do you get it?
billb wrote:
No, you've misunderstood my point. I do not want to
call electricity a
thing or a stuff. I clearly say that "electricity" does
not exist at all.
((((((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com http://www.amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 freenrg-L taoshum-L vortex-L webhead-L