Lately there have been several emphatic rejections of the old idea of energy
as the "ability of a system to do work". I'm wondering if those who oppose
this approach do so because: 1) they feel it is just plain "wrong"; 2) it
is incomplete and lacks generality; or 3) they just don't find it as
"intellectually satisfying" as a more abstract approach. (or maybe for some
other reason)
When "energy as ability to do work" started to go out of favor, I initially
shifted to the more abstract approach (because I found it satisfying
myself), but lately find myself drifting back toward the old way (probably
because I've found the abstract version somewhat less effective with
students), and I'm wondering how much actual damage this might cause.
______________________________________________________
Fred Lemmerhirt
flemmerhirt@mail.wcc.cc.il.us http://chat.wcc.cc.il.us/~flemmerh/physics.html
Waubonsee Community College Sugar Grove, Illinois