Re: An poll about "the four letter word"

["John S. Denker" <jsd@MONMOUTH.COM>]

James McLean wrote:
> I have a question about the word we all use to name the variable Q in
> thermodynamics.  I think we are all familiar with the downside of the
> traditional "heat".
>
> Would any on this list find it objectionable to use the word "heating"
> for Q?

Let me answer a slightly different question.

We should _primarily_ be interested in having the right
ideas and communicating the right ideas.  The choice of
symbols and words is only a means to this end.  This has
two consequences:
  -- If somebody can express the right idea using imperfect
     words, that's at least 99% fine with me.  I'm not going
     to gripe about style.
  -- When the idea is wrong, there is no way to make it non-wrong
     by choosing different words.

The fundamental problem here is that the equation in which Q
appears expresses a bad idea.  There is no way to fix it by
using a symbol other than Q.  There is no way to fix it by
attaching some English words to it, whether they be nouns or
verbs, new or old, four-letter words or whatever.

As explained in more detail at
  http://www.monmouth.com/~jsd/physics/thermo-laws.htm
the equation involving Q and W focusses on energy _transfers_
which is a blunder.  Any attempt to write such an equation
implies that Q is separately conserved during such a transfer,
which is simply wrong physics -- such conservation only happens
in high-school physics books.  It has been known since 1798 that
this isn't the right way to think about the real world.
   http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/Chem-History/Rumford-1798.html

Specific suggestions:

0) Eschew W+Q.

1) Teach that the first law of thermodynamics is conservation
of energy, pure and simple.  Energy obeys a local conservation
law.  Corollary:  energy is locally conserved during transfers
(duh!).

2) Teach that energy, whether it is being transferred or not,
can sometimes be classified as thermal energy versus nonthermal
energy.  Thermal energy is called heat.

> The intention is that this word
> (1) has a plain-language meaning very similar to the physical concept,

My suggestions meet this goal, for a good reason.
This is how laypersons use the word.  This is how
the word is used in the finest physics research labs.

> (2) has a position in language very much parallel to the word "work",

That's not possible, but since we are getting rid
of the W+Q equation, there is no longer a need for
any such parallelism.

> (3) and is similar enough to the traditional word that a change would
> not be a Sisyphian task.

My suggestions do not require any change in traditional
word usage.  The words have been used this way for
hundreds of years.  There has over the last few years
been attempt to change the meaning, but the attempt has
failed.  It was a bad idea.  It's over.  Let's move on.