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]

Re: [Phys-L] heat content



John Denker wrote:

So it is in our time. The whole idea of "heat" is as dead as
phlogiston. "Heat" needs to be replaced by two ideas, namely
energy and entropy. Trying to quantify the "heat" is a fool's
errand. Don't do it. Quantify the energy and entropy instead.

BTW this is one more nail in the coffin, as if any were needed,
demonstrating that you can't believe what you read in the PER
literature. I'm referring to the holy wars over how "heat"
supposedly "must" be defined ... plus long, detailed disquisitions
on how to explain irreversibility in terms of energy, et cetera.
People who have some understanding of the actual subject matter
hold their noses and run away screaming.


Keeping a flood of comments short here--crusades about the definition of heat or whether to totally eliminate 'heat' from the vocabulary may be fine within the scientific community (primarily the 'ivory towers' of academia)
but pretty much useless to the vast majority. Teaching an 'Energy for the 21st Century' class for general education (non-science, questionable math skill) students, I would NEVER take JD's approach. Science, physics in particular, is VERY abstract to most people. Attempts to make it more abstract and more mathematical rather than tying the fundamentals back to personal experience would be, IMO, the fools errand. For example, heat (staying warm) and motion (driving their cars) are two separate experiences and while a physics class can relate the two experiences (mine does), for most they will never merge completely.

As always, be very aware of the audience you want to 'educate'.

rwt

-- Richard Tarara
Professor of Physics
Saint Mary's College
free Physics educational software
www.saintmarys.edu/~rtarara/software.html
NEW: Energy management simulations now available.