Re: reifying energy

[William Beaty <billb@ESKIMO.COM>]

On Thu, 9 May 2002, Bob Sciamanda wrote:

> Even in physics questions, we are speaking of a model - a convenient way
> for us to view the situation.  In truth we will never have any verifiably
> "correct" idea of the ultimate nature of objective reality in any real,
> existential sense - we can speak only of USEFUL models - a way of looking
> at our calculations which yield verifiably measurable results.

On the other hand, I notice an issue which is confusing us.  It regards
"pure energy" versus things such as light and sound.

We have a name for "light."  And we also have a name for "sound."  But we
have no simple name for "that which radio transmitters emit."   Neither do
we have a name for "that which AC generators emit."

Suppose that the word "light" did not exist.  In that case, we'd say that
the sun emits "electromagnetic energy" or just "energy."  Or even "pure
energy."  And then this whole reification controversy would come up.  But
the reification issues are about "pure energy" as a concept, not about
light.

A light bulb emits light, and nobody starts a huge war about reification
issues nor objects to the idea that "light" can move along.  But if we say
that a light bulb emits "energy", then Jim will point out that light bulbs
cannot emit a PROPERTY, and energy is just a property.

However, if I say that light bulbs send out electromagnetic energy, I'm
not saying that they send out "pure energy."   Instead I'm saying that
they send out ***LIGHT***

Just as an LED sends out light, an AC generator sends out XXXX, where
"XXXX" is just like light, but it's much lower in frequency.

Be careful when discussing vibrating electrons or potential difference.
The "XXXX" is not made of vibrating electrons any more than the light is.
Light is guided by optical fibers because of vibrating electrons, but we
usually think in terms of "light" which travels along a "duct."  In a
similar way, "XXXX" is emitted by a generator and guided by the vibrating
electrons within wires.  If we could make some circuitry which was far
less than 200nM across, then we easily could use current and voltage
concepts to deal with light which is flowing inside of 1nM-diameter
coaxial cable.

If I send some light along an incredibly thin coax cable, has it magically
turned into "energy", and then we must stop saying that "light" is moving
along?


(((((((((((((((((( ( (  (   (    (O)    )   )  ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty                            SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com                            http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits   science projects, tesla, weird science
Seattle, WA  206-789-0775    sciclub-list freenrg-L vortex-L webhead-L