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: what would the subtle differences be???



Thank you Leigh for the confirmation that anti-matter reactions would *look*
the same as matter reactions -- I was beginning to worry about the
possibility of anti-photons. (:-)

Another common error is made here which is much worse. Not only would an
antimatter-matter collision not result in an outburst of pure energy,
no such thing exists! Energy is an attribute of a physical system and,
as Feynman points out dramatically in his first volume of lectures, the
attribute itself does not have an independent existence!

And, yes, I let the reference to "pure energy" go -- in deference to the
main question. But surely we should stop referring to "energy" as a
substance. Shouldn't we also stop saying things like "energy flows"??? It
doesn't flow per se only stuff flows. But then again I don't know how to
say that adjacent thermal systems increase or decrease internal energy
without saying "energy flows" from one to the other. What language do you
suggest?

Jim.Green@Snow.edu