You are saying that not only should we stop _thinking_ of energy as stuff
that can flow (a concept I'm sure many of us would already deny--unless
light is "pure energy"), but you are further saying that we should stop
_talking_ about energy as if it were stuff that can flow, and we should
stop _teaching_ students with language (i.e. models) that might lead them
to believe that energy is stuff that can flow.
Further, you are saying that energy is just a property (like shape, color,
or temperature) of a physical system, and its level can _only_ be changed
by doing work (macroscopic work called W or microscopic work called Q) on
the system.
And further still, you are saying that energy isn't equivalent to mass, nor
can it be transformed into mass, but that it _IS_ mass. You would be
comfortable saying that doing work on a system increases the level of the
property of mass. In fact, you would prefer that we stop talking about
energy and mass separately, but that we always refer to them (it) as
energy/mass in all contexts.
Is this what you are saying? Have I missed anything important?
Suppose you are correct about all of the above. Some questions still linger:
1) How can the collective mind of physics teachers and authors be converted
to this view?
2) What language _should_ we use? Could you rewrite the energy and thermo
chapters of Serway or H&R to teach the students correctly?
3) Is there ever a place for "incorrect" models that students can
understand en route to the "correct" understanding? (The history of
science says that today's correct understanding will be tomorrow's
primitive, historical, and incorrect model.) This question is in relation
to John Clement's exposition on the Piagetian levels of cognitive
development.
4) What is "real"? (Thanks, Rick, for raising this one.) Are EM fields real?
5) Can "inventions" be "real"? Jim, you said photons are inventions; does
that mean they aren't real? If photons aren't real, what about electrons?
What's the difference? Are neutrino's real? Are waves real? Ontology is
important.
6) What is light?
Maybe if you answer questions 2-6 you will have gone a long way to
answering question 1.