Re: [Phys-l] workable versus unworkable energy

["John Clement" <clement@hal-pc.org>]

But that is transference.  The word transfer implies that something
disappears one place and appears in another.  For example you can transfer
money by wire, or essentially teleport it.  It is entirely possible that
what we see as continuous motion when you transfer an object is actually a
series of jumps where the essence is removed from one location and appears
in another.  It is possible that what we perceive as motion is actually more
like a movie, a series of disconnected images.  And of course physics
embodies that in the idea that transferring an object is quantified by
displacement which ignores the intervening states.

The reason why expended and consumed are unfortunate, if you read my post
carefully, is because it sets up misconceptions for students.  It is OK when
both parties to the conversation are experts and understand the context.

Part of the difficulty with terminology is the distinction between energy as
an attribute of an object vs a "thing".  Notice that money is now becoming
an attribute of an entity, and less and less a tangible thing.  Notice also
that mass is an attribute, yet we talk about it being transferred when we
pour it into another container.  I personally think the distinction can
often be artificial.  It is rather like arguing about how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin.  Arguing about common terminology which is not
well defined is fruitless and silly.

My point was that students "must" initially see energy as something which is
like a tangible object that can be transferred.  This model is vital to
gaining an understanding of conservation.  But if they become theoretical
physicists then this model can be discarded.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


> > I totally agree that the words expended and consumed are unfortunate
> because
> > they can imply the creation of energy rather than its transfer......
> > John M. Clement
> > Houston, TX
>
>
> ....but you apparently don't totally agree that the property of energy
>   is not transferable.
>
> Apparently it has to disappear here and appear there, not transfer....