The energy

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

On 18-Oct-04 Michael Edmiston wrote:

> Since Jim asks about e = mc^2 it would be reasonable to assume he will
> read my first post on "mass" and then ask me "what is material" or
> "what
> is matter."
>
> I usually answer that question by saying matter is "bound energy" or by
> saying it is "localized energy."
>
> I suppose that will bring the question "what is energy."  The only
> response I have to that is... energy is what the universe is made of.

I have great respect for Michael's grasp of physics, but it is my
judgment that in holding this opinion he commits a heresy, and by
teaching it to his students he commits a venial sin.

(Please forgive the metaphor, coming as it does from an atheist, but it
happens that it is apt in this case.)

The orthodox view, which I hold to be correct: The energy is not
substantial; it is not a real entity. The energy is an abstraction. The
energy did not exist before it was invented. The energy is a state
function, a quantity which may be calculated for any isolated physical
system from the values of all the parameters that characterize its
state.

It is appropriate that I cite scripture at this point: Feynman I: 4-1.
If you have not read this short (less than two pages) parable and given
it the contemplation it deserves, I recommend you do so.

Perhaps I may be permitted to cite also a theologian, the late Bill
Burke, on this topic:

  "The goal of abstraction is to find common structure in different
  concrete situations, and then to discuss this structure independently
  of the specific situations. Done properly, this increases one’s
  knowledge by pooling diverse situations. But be careful. Excessive
  abstraction is a very common error. Keep the references to concrete
  instances in mind, and do not give abstract structures an existence
  of their own. Treating ideas as things (reification), done to excess
  in politics and religion, has no doubt murdered more people than any
  other cognitive error."

                – William L. Burke in *Spacetime, Geometry, Cosmology*

Why do I think it is a sin to teach this to students? It is my feeling
that in failing to emphasize the true ontological status of the energy,
one clouds the student's mind regarding that of the entropy, which is
exactly the same. It is also my feeling that this sin of reification is
responsible for much of the later difficulty we encounter in trying to
indoctrinate our students with the entropy concept.

I have had a paper with my views on this topic on my back burner for
some time. Perhaps this discussion will again bring it to a boil.

Amen.

Leigh