| 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] |
Regarding Diego's observation:
...
"1. Thermal energy is less useful"
I do not agree, if you want to take a bath is better to have
water at 40C or so, than a charged battery. ...
Of all the problems previously discussed concerning the oft-used
definition of energy in terms of 'available' work those associated with
defining it in terms of 'useful' work are even worse, and Diego's
observation above illustrates this. This is because not only are all the
problems with the 'available' definition still present with the 'useful'
definition, but there are even more problems with the 'useful' definition.
A main purpose of the science of physics is to attempt to understand the
behavior of physical things in terms of objective notions, categories and
processes. The concept of 'usefulness' is extremely *subjective* in
depending on many more idiosyncratic and internal things associated with an
observer than merely how the observer's frame of reference is happened to
be embedded in space-time. If we must have some sort of definition for
energy I think it is *really* bad form to try to define an objective
property of a physical system (albeit with a particular value tha
t happens to be reference frame dependent) in terms of other notions that
are themselves manifestly and thoroughly subjective. In art it may be okay
to have a notion such as beauty being in the eye of the beholder, but in a
science it is not ok to have something like energy be so subjective.
David Bowman
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l