Re: CONSERVATION OF ENERGY

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

> >       Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 01:27:57 -0700
> >       From: Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>
> >
> > .... Too much meaning is being heaped upon the word "internal". Some
> > discussants want this to be something which remains within the physical
> > boundaries of the system. ... Some want only to count "thermal" energy,
> > a fallacy well treated in John's note. The truth is that in classical
> > equilibrium thermodynamics there is only one kind of energy, the internal
> > energy of the system. .....

Ludwik asks:

> We a discussing a physical situation, and terminology which can help us to
> understand it. This naturally leads to thermodynamics. But why should we
> be prevented from using concepts, such as kinetic energy or atom, which
> are not part of the classical formalism of that discipline?

They should not be injected into the classical formalism because it is
already complete. If you need more terms they are already there. There
are three more thermodynamic potentials to draw from (I stress again -
we are talking only about equilibrium thermodynamics) and introduction
of other "concepts" is utterly unnecessary. It should be evident from
the progress of this discussion that they are not helpful!

> Don't you know, Leigh, that good children should be in bed at 01:27:57 ?

I was waiting up to see my granddaughter. She arrived twenty minutes
later (with her parents) after a fifteen hour drive from Edmonton, her
first long car trip (she's almost 11 months old).

> **************************************************************************
> Many days ago somebody objected, very categorically, to the use of the
> term thermal energy.
>
> > This term is not in my dictionary, nor should it be in that of any
> > physics teacher. It is a source of confusion ... and a barrier to
> > conceptual grasp."

I'll own up to that, Ludwik. I said it, and this discussion has
instantiated my objection.

> Following numerous precedents I did use this word and tried to justify
> its usefulnes in subsequent messages. A possibility of confusion escaped
> me till I read what John Mallinckrodt had to say about this.

....

> I desagree that thermal energy is always "a barrier to conceptual
> understanding".

OK, you're not convinced. I've had my shot. I accept your claim that
thermal energy is not a barrier to your conceptual understanding. I do
believe it is a barrier to your communication of that understanding to
other physicists. You will have to reformulate all of thermodynamics
to make your point with the rest of us, however.

I can understand Ludwik's frustration at this. I know a better way of
formulating almost all of physics*. It replaces ordinary algebra,
calculus, vector algebra and calculus, linear algebra, Pauli algebra,
Dirac algebra, quaternions,... It is called by the few of us who use
it for physics variously "Geometric Algebra" (GA) or "Clifford Algebra".
I won't discuss it here because I suspect no one else would be on the
same page with me, particularly with respect to the relativity problem
I'm currently engaged with using GA. While GA is a great leap forward
in *my* conceptual understanding, it is useless for communicating with
other physicists because they won't undertake the large overhead load
of learning the formalism necessary.

Similarly, I'm going to decline the opportunity to restructure my
understanding of thermodynamics to include the concept of thermal
energy.

Leigh

*I want to emphasize that I am not being facetious here; I really mean
what I said. I understand the isolation that Ludwik feels here because
I suffer from it too. Anyone interested in pursuing GA further should
contact me on the side. A readily accessible introduction appears in
David Hestenes's "New Foundations for Classical Mechanics" published
by Kluwer.