Re: refutation of the nonreality of energy

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@SFU.CA>]

At 03:22 -0700 8/3/99, John Denker wrote:
> I do recognize the distinction between vectors (which exist independent of
> coordinate frames) and the *components* of vectors (which depend on the
> choice of frame).

Then it appears you do understand that energy is not real. We must turn
to the question of the reality of momenergy, must we not? I will argue
that momenergy is not real either, but that argument will have to wait
for a while.

> In the non-relativistic limit energy exists by itself
> and is conserved by itself;  in general it is part of a vector which is
> conserved and which exists independent of frame.

I am puzzled. Can something be real "In the non-relativistic limit"?
My version of objective realism doesn't include that flavor of reality.

> Energy is as real as distance.  Indeed, in a gravitational field, a
> measurement of height is a measurement of energy.  Most people agree that
> stones are real.  But the law of conservation of energy is stronger than
> the law of conservation of stones.

While I have some sympathy for your argument regarding stones (I am
having extensive landscaping done at the moment) I would rather look
to, say, the conservation of charge. Electric charge is conserved
locally; so far as I know charge is real.

I am not being solipsistic or obtuse. Localization of energy is a
problem which is nontrivial. From time to time someone will claim to
have done so. Look for an article by Peters in an AJP back about 1981
where he claims to have localized gravitational potential energy.

I have to go now, but I'll be back.

Leigh