John Denker wrote, in part:
"A name is not an explanation."
Names should at least not contradict explanations. The phrase
"potential energy" was created by Rankine in 1853 as a complement to
"actual energy", i.e., what Kelvin later termed "kinetic energy" in the
1870s (Elkana, 1974; Roche, 2003). Rankine used the adjective
"potential" to explain the meaning that he wanted to convey. This
meaning, that potential energy is not actually energy, is no longer
accepted. That's why I suggest that a better phrase would be useful.
John also wrote:
"Teaching some other name as the "preferred" name does not do the
students any favors."
I mean that I use the phrase "configurational energy" preferentially
when presenting the concept to my students. I do this because I want
them to understand that potential energy is the energy a system has due
to the configuration of its constituents. I also make it clear that the
traditional phrase is "potential energy", and that their textbook and
most other sources use "potential energy". If the phrase
"configurational energy" is found to be more useful than "potential
energy", then the newer phrase might eventually supplant the older
phrase, much as "rotational inertia" is beginning to supplant "moment of
inertia".
I am still looking for anyone who uses "configurational energy" in the
restricted sense used in the analysis of liquids and solids.
References:
Elkana, Yehuda (1974) _The_Discovery_of_the_Conservation_of_Energy_.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 118.
Roche, John (2003) What is potential energy? _European_
Journal_of_Physics_24_, 185-196.
Daniel Crowe
Loudoun Academy of Science
dan.crowe@loudoun.k12.va.us