The nature and application of the term Property, with particular reference to energy

[studiot]

Quote

 

swansont  on 29/05/18 

 

On 22/05/2018 at 12:40 PM, studiot said:

Necessity, Contingency and the Universe

This topic talks about the difference between necessity and contingency and it's relation to our universe. This words are common on metaphysics. It talks about existence.When we say a thing necessarily exist if it should exist in all possible worlds. Examples are shapes, numbers etc. Contingency on the other hand can not exist. It is not necessary to our reality. Examples are certain animals like monkey, it exist in the actual world but it is possible also to not exist in other possible worlds. Other is unicorn. It doesn't exist in the actual world but possible to exist in other possible worlds. So base on this I concluded thru my past philosophical studies, that our universe exist contingently. The question now is why? Here I formulated my Property argument for the contingency of the universe. The property argument states that, everything has a property or identity obviously and this property must have a source.Like for example the property of air. You can ask,why that is the property of air in our reality? Or in broader sense why this is the property of our universe. This question can't be answered if the universe exist eternally or without an outside explanation so in result, inescapably universe contingently exist. If you have some questions please ask me to clarify my point. Your arguments against my arguments are very much appreciated.   

• 
• By Randolpin, May 12
• 22 replies

We can reduce the mass of something and release it as energy (fusion and fission, for example). We can even remove all the mass and convert it to energy (e.g. matter-antimatter annihilation).

For instance

So far as we know you it is impossible to remove the property of mass from something.

But we can remove or bestow certain types of energy at will.

 

Certain types. But not energy, as a category. 

 

There are now at least two current threads in which energy and other quantities are portrayed as 'properties' in somewhat off topic discussions.

So the purpose of this thread is to draw these discussions together for proper consideration in one thread, without disrupting the originals.

 

Swansont, yes you are correct we can't just add or remove any old type of 'energy' as this discussion is intended to show.
Recognising that energy can be considered a 'category' goes a long way towards this.

Quote

Strange

On 22/05/2018 at 12:40 PM, studiot said:

So far as we know you it is impossible to remove the property of mass from something.

We can reduce the mass of something and release it as energy (fusion and fission, for example).

We can even remove all the mass and convert it to energy (e.g. matter-antimatter annihilation).

 

Well let's test this claim shall we?

Suppose we have some particles of hydrogen and radium tootling along happily.

Now suppose we cause the hydrogen to fuse.

Voila we no longer have hydrogen!

Similarly once the radium splits

Voila we no longer have radium!

So yes you have reduced mass, but that mass is a property of something else.

 

Moral you can't remove some mass from something by fission or fusion.

Your use of the word annihilation gives the final clue.

Voila you do remove all the mass, but you also remove even the something else!

 

My apologies to all about the presentation of this first post, but I can't get this stupid editor to do what I want, or even delete the parts I don't want.

Edited May 29, 2018 by studiot

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

There are now at least two current threads in which energy and other quantities are portrayed as 'properties' in somewhat off topic discussions.

So the purpose of this thread is to draw these discussions together for proper consideration in one thread, without disrupting the originals.

 

Swansont, yes you are correct we can't just add or remove any old type of 'energy' as this discussion is intended to show.
Recognising that energy can be considered a 'category' goes a long way towards this.

 

Well let's test this claim shall we?

Suppose we have some particles of hydrogen and radium tootling along happily.

Now suppose we cause the hydrogen to fuse.

Voila we no longer have hydrogen!

Similarly once the radium splits

Voila we no longer have radium!

So yes you have reduced mass, but that mass is a property of something else.

 

Moral you can't remove some mass from something by fission or fusion.

Your use of the word annihilation gives the final clue.

Voila you do remove all the mass, but you also remove even the something else!

 

My apologies to all about the presentation of this first post, but I can't get this stupid editor to do what I want, or even delete the parts I don't want.

In annihilation:  particle 1 + anti-particle 1 → particle 2 + anti-particle  (Strassler)

[studiot]

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

In annihilation:  particle 1 + anti-particle 1 → particle 2 + anti-particle  (Strassler)

Quote

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron–positron_annihilation

Electron–positron annihilation occurs when an electron (e⁻) and a positron (e⁺, the electron's antiparticle) collide. The result of the collision at low energies is the annihilation of the electron and positron, and the creation of gamma ray photons:

[math]{e^ + } + {e^ - } = \gamma  + \gamma [/math]

 

Total annihilation and removal of all mass as Strange said.

 

But thanks for the intervening post as I can now bring in the other thread.

 

Quote

Swansont : 29/5/18

3 hours ago, studiot said:

You have to be very careful asserting that energy is a 'property'.

 

If it is a property then this property has very different behaviour from say mass.

If it's stuff show me something that is made up only of energy.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Perhaps you misunderstand me.

I don't mean the physical quality bestowed by the property on something.

For instance is heat a property?

Heat is a phenomenon. It represents energy transfer due to a temperature difference. It's not specified what that energy is a property of, since there are three modes of heat transfer.

Plus, heat is a term that is sloppily used, perhaps the most sloppily used, in physics discussions.

 

 

No I did not say it is 'stuff', which generally refers to matter and has mass. I said it was complicated.

I note you are treading carefully with heat.
Quite rightly.

But here is an interesting quote from Rayner

Quote

Joel Rayner : Basic Engineering Thermodynamics.

Heat is a transient quantity, it being simply descriptive of the energy transfer process through a system boundary resulting from temperature difference. If there is not temperature difference there is no heat transfer.

Note also that since the term heat is used to describe a transfer process, then heat energy cases to exist when the process ceases. Thus heat is not a property.

(My italics)

 

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Well let's test this claim shall we?

Suppose we have some particles of hydrogen and radium tootling along happily.

Now suppose we cause the hydrogen to fuse.

Voila we no longer have hydrogen!

Similarly once the radium splits

Voila we no longer have radium!

So yes you have reduced mass, but that mass is a property of something else.

Let's analyze decay of e.g. Uranium 238 atom. Eventual lost of kinetic energy by particles due to passing through electron cloud is ignored in this consideration.

In the frame-of-reference in which it's in center-of-mass, we measure it's rest-mass to be m₀. And energy E=m₀c²

It's decaying via path (the most typical decay mode of this isotope): U-238 -> Th-234 + He-4 + 4.27 MeV

Newly created Thorium-234 atom has smaller part of Decay Energy (4.27 MeV) (recoil effect much smaller), and newly created Helium-4 alpha particle has larger part of that energy (due to difference in rest-masses of newly created particles).

But look at energies:

[math]m_0c^2 = m_1c^2\gamma_1 + m_2c^2\gamma_2[/math]

Rest-mass of particle prior decay is equal to sum of relativistic-masses of newly created particles.

[math]m_0 = m_1\gamma_1 + m_2\gamma_2[/math]

 

There are two (extremely unstable) isotopes, which decay to two equal particles. Helium-2, which is decaying to two protons, and Beryllium-8, which is decaying to two Helium-4. They will have (at least should have) symmetrical recoil effect, and carrying the same kinetic energy, the same momentum, the same relativistic-masses.

[math]m_0c^2 = 2 m_1c^2\gamma_1[/math]

[math]m_0 = 2 m_1\gamma_1[/math]

He-2 -> p+ + p+ + 0.227212 MeV

Be-8 -> He-4 + He-4 + 91.8378 keV

Edited May 29, 2018 by Sensei

[studiot]

Sensei, I think you have entirely missed the point.

The point is that you can't reduce the mass of a Uranium atom because you no longer have a Uranium atom afterwards.

 

But more than this.

You can't avoid the behaviours bestowed upon something by its mass.

That is you can't switch off or shield from its gravity.

You can't dispense with its inertia.

 

Imagine one of the particles I said were tootling along.

They are electrically neutral atoms.

But now suppose they are charged.

Then they will also have PE in an electrostatic Field.

But suppose further that I can switch on and off the Field.

Then that Potential energy is not inherent in the particles, like the mass is.

It is at the behest of an external agency, because I can switch it on and off.

So how is this PE a property of the particle?

 

 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 No I did not say it is 'stuff', which generally refers to matter and has mass. I said it was complicated.

In the context of the discussion the quote was lifted from, those were the two options.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

I note you are treading carefully with heat.
Quite rightly.

But here is an interesting quote from Rayner

 

Rayner's quote seems to align pretty well with what I said 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

In the context of the discussion the quote was lifted from, those were the two options.

Rayner's quote seems to align pretty well with what I said 

Rayner does indeed accord with what you say quite often since you carefully avoid saying that heat is or is not a form of energy.

You have taken the position that energy is a property in many responses to many threads.

 

As to whether energy has substance or not I don't recall accepting a strict binary option.

 

Which is the purpose of this thread.

To explore the complexities.

This is a discussion site after all.

[StringJunky]

Is energy intrinsic in a photon? Can it exist without it? If it can''t then it is a property of it by your definition.

Edited May 29, 2018 by StringJunky

[swansont]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Rayner does indeed accord with what you say quite often since you carefully avoid saying that heat is or is not a form of energy.

Yeah, I only said energy twice. Completely glossed over the subject.

 

[MarkE]

12 hours ago, StringJunky said:

But energy can be a thing but not stuff. A thing is too broad... a millimetre can be a thing (of the mind) but not stuff. I read this earlier:

https://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

I’ve read the article that you’ve shared earlier (in the topic that preceded this one). The author is discussing an interesting idea, but I’m still skeptic about one of his conclusions, how about you? The author made this (in my opinion questionable) remark:

“Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not”.

He's arguing that all particles are ripples in fields. But is there evidence for the fact that every particle must be an excitation of its own field? Every particle? I'm asking this because he continues by stating:

"the Higgs field (whose particle is not yet certain to exist..."

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is energy intrinsic in a photon? Can it exist without it? If it can''t then it is a property of it by your definition.

In earlier conversations on this forum, we were debating whether the Big Bang could have been initiated from a large-scale quantum fluctuation in vacuum energy, perhaps even from one single point, and you could even debate the possibility that this single point could have been just 1 single particle. In that discussion the question arose what the nature of this particle could be, or what it has to be, or what it can’t possibly be. Could it be a particle that is on the Standard Model right now, or did those particles came later? It has been calculated that atoms could only have formed 400,000 years after the Big Bang), and light was already around in the Universe before matter was. Still, that doesn’t mean that an electromagnetic particle such as the photon couldn't have been around before all the other particles and forces, and in order to describe what 'pure' energy is, you therefore have to look beyond Standard Model particles (which is what the author basically is saying). Let's look at the other forces of nature, and how/of they are related to electromagnetism:

It has been shown that electromagnetism and the weak force were once united (electroweak force). The weak interaction is a different force of nature, compared to the electromagnetic force, yet it’s still involved with electromagnetic particles (such as electron decay).

Concerning the strong force, this force of nature is carried out between protons and neutrons. When a neutron decays, electromagnetic particles seem to be involved as well (a neutron will decay into proton, electron and antineutrino). Quarks have electrical charge, and gluons also have no mass/charge (like the photon).

If it is true that electromagnetism is involved in all three forces of nature, I don't quite understand how the author can be so sure to know that 'pure energy' is different from electromagnetic radiation, which force carrier is the photon. He isn't explaining what 'pure energy' should be then, if it can't be photons. Do you agree with this statement of the author?

Edited May 30, 2018 by MarkE

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, MarkE said:

I’ve read the article that you’ve shared earlier (in the topic that preceded this one). The author is discussing an interesting idea, but I’m still skeptic about one of his conclusions, how about you? The author made this (in my opinion questionable) remark:

“Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not”.

He's arguing that all particles are ripples in fields. But is there evidence for the fact that every particle must be an excitation of its own field? Every particle? I'm asking this because he continues by stating:

"the Higgs field (whose particle is not yet certain to exist..."

In earlier conversations on this forum, we were debating whether the Big Bang could have been initiated from a large-scale quantum fluctuation in vacuum energy, perhaps even from one single point, and you could even debate the possibility that this single point could have been just 1 single particle. In that discussion the question arose what the nature of this particle could be, or what it has to be, or what it can’t possibly be. Could it be a particle that is on the Standard Model right now, or did those particles came later? It has been calculated that atoms could only have formed 400,000 years after the Big Bang), and light was already around in the Universe before matter was. Still, that doesn’t mean that an electromagnetic particle such as the photon couldn't have been around before all the other particles and forces, and in order to describe what 'pure' energy is, you therefore have to look beyond Standard Model particles (which is what the author basically is saying). Let's look at the other forces of nature, and how/of they are related to electromagnetism:

It has been shown that electromagnetism and the weak force were once united (electroweak force). The weak interaction is a different force of nature, compared to the electromagnetic force, yet it’s still involved with electromagnetic particles (such as electron decay).

Concerning the strong force, this force of nature is carried out between protons and neutrons. When a neutron decays, electromagnetic particles seem to be involved as well (a neutron will decay into proton, electron and antineutrino). Quarks have electrical charge, and gluons also have no mass/charge (like the photon).

If it is true that electromagnetism is involved in all three forces of nature, I don't quite understand how the author can be so sure to know that 'pure energy' is different from electromagnetic radiation, which force carrier is the photon. He isn't explaining what 'pure energy' should be then, if it can't be photons. Do you agree with this statement of the author?

I've only really just started thinking/reading about this stuff a bit deeper fairly recently, so I''m in no position, or indeed have any desire, to critique an experienced physicist like Matt Strassler... I want to learn from his articles. I'm actually only appearing to argue here as a way to learn. .. I don't actually have a position on this... I don't know enough.

Edited May 30, 2018 by StringJunky

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, MarkE said:

I’ve read the article that you’ve shared earlier (in the topic that preceded this one). The author is discussing an interesting idea, but I’m still skeptic about one of his conclusions, how about you? The author made this (in my opinion questionable) remark:

“Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not”.

He's arguing that all particles are ripples in fields. But is there evidence for the fact that every particle must be an excitation of its own field? Every particle? I'm asking this because he continues by stating:

"the Higgs field (whose particle is not yet certain to exist..."

 

Re-reading your post: particles as fields is standard physics. I don't think there's anything to argue there. They are the mathematical device scientists use to describe things at this level. The article predates the announcement  of the discovery of the Higgs by a few months. in 2012.

Edited May 30, 2018 by StringJunky

[YaDinghus]

7 hours ago, MarkE said:

(such as electron decay)

Say what? 

 

7 hours ago, MarkE said:

Concerning the strong force, this force of nature is carried out between protons and neutrons

Between quarks, which make up protons and neutrons, and other Hadrons (Wikipedia). 

I don't know how you think this is pertinent to the thread topic, @MarkE

On Topic: Noether's Theorem states that 

Quote

If a system has a continuous symmetry property, then there are corresponding quantities whose values are conserved in time.^[4]

Energy is one of these properties, and since I'm not aware of the relationship of Energy, Mass and Impulse from SR ever being violated, this should hold as well. Energy therefore can be treated as a property of a particle, or a property of a system, which can't be removed or added without changing the rules of the particle or system. Mass, on the other hand, can rather freely be converted into impulse, which happens completely during the annihilation of a particle-antiparticle pair (2 gamma is no mass and only impulse with the same energy each as the particle-antiparticle) or partially in fusion/fission/radioactive decay.

Why are we discussing this at all?

[studiot]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

Yeah, I only said energy twice. Completely glossed over the subject.

 

I see that my earlier post was so poorly phrased as to be ambiguous.

 

I was complimenting you on the number and consistency of past posts in multiple threads where I have seen you assert that energy is a property not a substance.
But thank you for continuing the discussion.

 

12 hours ago, StringJunky said:

1) Is energy intrinsic in a photon?

2) Can it exist without it?

3) If it can''t then it is a property of it by your definition.

 

Good thoughtful question +1

 

1) Yes.

No I don't think so.

I haven't defined 'property', let alone energy.

But think on this.

Can a photon do (mechanical) work?

Energy is the capacity to do work.

One explanation of work is that it is the tally of the transfer of mechanical energy.

Similarly one explanation of heat is that it is the tally of the transfer of heat energy.

So already we have at least two forms or types of energy.

Are work and heat themselves forms of energy or something else?

Temperature is defined as a system property.

Yet we can't take a 'boxful' of that temperature from something and transfer it to something else.

But we canit seems, take a 'boxful' of the system property 'internal energy' from something and transfer it to something else, as heat and/or work.

So what is that boxful a property of?

And all that is without 'zero point energy' and the fact that we can't squeeze out the last drop of internal energy,

Which brings us back to your photon questions where our best answers lie in quantum mechanics.

 

AS I keep saying - It's Complicated!

 

 

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

I see that my earlier post was so poorly phrased as to be ambiguous.

 

I was complimenting you on the number and consistency of past posts in multiple threads where I have seen you assert that energy is a property not a substance.
But thank you for continuing the discussion.

 

 

Good thoughtful question +1

 

1) Yes.

No I don't think so.

I haven't defined 'property', let alone energy.

But think on this.

Can a photon do (mechanical) work?

Energy is the capacity to do work.

One explanation of work is that it is the tally of the transfer of mechanical energy.

Similarly one explanation of heat is that it is the tally of the transfer of heat energy.

So already we have at least two forms or types of energy.

Are work and heat themselves forms of energy or something else?

Temperature is defined as a system property.

Yet we can't take a 'boxful' of that temperature from something and transfer it to something else.

But we canit seems, take a 'boxful' of the system property 'internal energy' from something and transfer it to something else, as heat and/or work.

So what is that boxful a property of?

And all that is without 'zero point energy' and the fact that we can't squeeze out the last drop of internal energy,

Which brings us back to your photon questions where our best answers lie in quantum mechanics.

 

AS I keep saying - It's Complicated!

 

 

I think we here can't argue can't discuss and rationalise what terms mean, science as a body has to agree what they mean or what terms we use for what process, thing, or phenomenon and then standardise the nomenclature. Wouldn't you say? 

[studiot]

20 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think we here can't argue can't discuss and rationalise what terms mean, science as a body has to agree what they mean or what terms we use for what process, thing, or phenomenon and then standardise the nomenclature. Wouldn't you say? 

 

Well I think we not only can discuss them but we need to, have to.

Nature is so tricky that our definitions have a track record of being 'leaky at the edges, into the grey areas'.

So we must keep them under constant review (by discussion).

The history of zero point energy is a prime case in point.

The original quantum theory did not include it, which lead to theoretical difficulties.

 

 

[MarkE]

3 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

11 hours ago, MarkE said:

Concerning the strong force, this force of nature is carried out between protons and neutrons

Between quarks, which make up protons and neutrons, and other Hadrons (Wikipedia). 

The strong force binds neutrons and protons to create atomic nuclei. Without the strong force to hold protons and neutrons together, positively charged protons would repel each other.

3 hours ago, YaDinghus said:

11 hours ago, MarkE said:

(such as electron decay)

Say what? 

I was referring to electron decay as in 'decay which involves an electron' (radioactive beta decay). Come on, you knew that this is what I meant.

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I've only really just started thinking/reading about this stuff a bit deeper fairly recently, so I''m in no position, or indeed have any desire, to critique an experienced physicist like Matt Strassler... I want to learn from his articles. I'm actually only appearing to argue here as a way to learn. .. I don't actually have a position on this... I don't know enough.

I don’t know enough either, but this was my attempt to consider the opposite. Perhaps you could provide more facts/laws in advantage to claim the opposite, ore the other way, in advantage for the author's statement, either way, more information and facts opens a discussion, and will hopefully lead us to the most (and least) plausible explanation. But wait, you've made already a great statement:

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

1) Is energy intrinsic in a photon?

2) Can it exist without it?

3) If it can''t then it is a property of it by your definition.

Since electromagnetism seems to be involved with all three forces of nature one way or another, I don't think it's fair to claim that photons can't be the true 'pure' nature of energy. I couldn't find any arguments in advantage of this notion it in the article, the author is only basically saying "It’s not photons, it’s pure energy, because electromagnetism is just one of the three forces", but he doesn't explain why energy by itself has to be something different from electromagnetic radiation.

On the other hand, photons have the characteristic to merge together into one wavelength by modulating it (such as constructive interference), or make an electron jump a from one shell to another. That means that you might not see or detect a photon, but that’s because it('s energy?) has been integrated.

Edited May 30, 2018 by MarkE

[YaDinghus]

48 minutes ago, MarkE said:

The strong force binds neutrons and protons to create atomic nuclei. Without the strong force to hold protons and neutrons together, positively charged protons would repel each other.

That's the 6th grade explanation. At very short distances, on the order of magnitude of atomic nuclei, the strong force transmitted by gluons overcomes the electromagnetic repulsion quarks would otherwise experience. That's 12th grade. That there are other flavors than up and down, which make Protons and Neutrons, and that there's a lot more cool wonky stuff going on with Hadrons is college level. Stuff that is impertinent to this thread.

 

48 minutes ago, MarkE said:

I was referring to electron decay as in 'decay which involves an electron' (radioactive beta decay). Come on, you knew that this is what I meant.

Use proper terms. There is an electron decay hypothesis, which is not the weak force driven beta decay. 

Quote

Scientists have placed new limits on how often electrons decay into neutrinos and photons, a reaction that—if it occurred—would violate the law of charge conservation.

from

https://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.231802.

 

Also only indirectly pertinent because it's about another property that is usually conserved, which could be broken if symmetry is broken according to Noether's Theorem.

48 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Since electromagnetism seems to be involved with all three forces of nature one way or another, I don't think it's fair to claim that photons can't be the true 'pure' nature of energy. I couldn't find any arguments in advantage of this notion it in the article, the author is only basically saying "It’s not photons, it’s pure energy, because electromagnetism is just one of the three forces", but he doesn't explain why energy by itself has to be something different from electromagnetic radiation.

Electromagnetism isn't involved in all forces, at least not at the energy levels that we observe. Yes, Quarks carry charge, so do electrons, positrons and anti-Protons. But the only thing that this has to do with the strong force for instance is the range at which one force overpowers the other. Also, not pertinent to this thread. 

Concernig 'pure energy': It is my opinion that even serious scientists have been mislead by pop culture into believing that there is a fundamental, primary form of energy, and not just an extremely useful and powerful mathematical tool for describing physical processes

[swansont]

46 minutes ago, MarkE said:

Since electromagnetism seems to be involved with all three forces of nature one way or another,

No, electromagnetism is involved in one of them.

46 minutes ago, MarkE said:

IOn the other hand, photons have the characteristic to merge together into one wavelength by modulating it (such as constructive interference), or make an electron jump a from one shell to another. That means that you might not see or detect a photon, but that’s because it('s energy?) has been integrated.

Constructive interference does not change the wavelength of light

[MarkE]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

Constructive interference does not change the wavelength of light

Excuse me, amplitude. GUILTY!

Edited May 30, 2018 by MarkE

[swansont]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

  

But think on this.

Can a photon do (mechanical) work?

Yes, it can

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Energy is the capacity to do work.

One explanation of work is that it is the tally of the transfer of mechanical energy.

In mechanics

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Similarly one explanation of heat is that it is the tally of the transfer of heat energy.

In thermodynamics 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

So already we have at least two forms or types of energy.

Are work and heat themselves forms of energy or something else?

Work and heat are processes

I prefer thermal energy, for the energy in thermodynamic systems. Heat is used sloppily, as I have pointed out.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Temperature is defined as a system property.

Yet we can't take a 'boxful' of that temperature from something and transfer it to something else.

For reasons that should be obvious, if you know how temperature is defined. Temperature is not the term that shows up in an energy balance.

 

[studiot]

27 minutes ago, swansont said:

Yes, it can

In mechanics

In thermodynamics 

Work and heat are processes

I prefer thermal energy, for the energy in thermodynamic systems. Heat is used sloppily, as I have pointed out.

For reasons that should be obvious, if you know how temperature is defined. Temperature is not the term that shows up in an energy balance.

 

This reminds me of the Englishman who was walking past a postman, with a big bunch of letters in his hand, looking over the gate at a viscously barking dog.

"What's the problem" asks the Englishman, "Don't you know that barking dogs never bite?"

The Scotsman replies, "Well aye, I know it and you  know it, but does he know it?"

[Sensei]

On 29.05.2018 at 8:30 PM, studiot said:

Sensei, I think you have entirely missed the point.

I think you missed point of my post, as I just added a bit of math, and example, to your initial post.. I was not arguing..