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] |
-----Original Message-----
From: John S. Denker [mailto:jsd@MONMOUTH.COM]
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 2:33 PM
To: PHYS-L@lists.nau.edu
Subject: Re: Why work before energy in texts
I wrote:
"BOTTOM LINE: Defining work in terms of potential energy is aeven bigger
blunder. Defining potential energy in terms of work is an
blunder."
Then Joel Rauber wrote:
Many respected authors do this of course,
(define potential energy in terms of work)
E.g.
Feynman chapters 13 and 14 Vol. 1
Goldstein page 4, 3rd ed.
Arnold page 15
Marion 4th ed., page 79
. . . ad nauseum
Huh?
When I look at Feynman volume I page 13-3, a few lines below equation
13.9, it seems absolutely clear that work is being _defined_ in terms
of F dot ds.
There may be _examples_ where some sort of calculation shows a
relationship between work and potential energy, but an example is not
the same thing as a definition. Not by a long shot.
I stand by my assertion: Defining work in terms of potential energy
would be a blunder. Defining potential energy in terms of work would
be an even bigger blunder.