Re: Energy as ability to do work

[Chuck Britton <britton@ODIE.NCSSM.EDU>]

If we accept the idea of  the quantum mechanical 'Zero Point' energy,
then we are accepting a form of energy that is NOT capable of doing
work. (to the best of current technology and understanding)

I tell my HS kids that Energy is too important to be limited by a definition.
As are ALL of the most important words in ANY field of study.

At 9:59 AM -0500 10/26/99, Lemmerhirt, Fred wrote:
> 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

  -.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-.     .-
    \   /   \   /   \ N /   \ C /   \ S /   \ S /   \ M /   \   /   \   /
     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'     `-'
Chuck Britton                                   Education is what is left when
britton@odie.ncssm.edu                          you have forgotten everything
North Carolina School of Science & Math         you learned in school.
(919) 286-3366  x224                            Albert Einstein,        1936