On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Harry Veeder <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I wrote: > But that depends on a narrow definition of work which is the > acceleration of a mass in the direction of a force. That is wrong. I should have said "But that depends on a narrow definition of work which is the displacement of a mass in the direction of a force." > Instead let us say the electron (or perhaps the atom as a whole) does > work by supressing the emission of radiation. How much energy is > required to suppress the emission of radiation? I suppose it takes the > same amount of energy as the difference between energy levels. Another point. FORCE at a distance is an illusion which is a consequence of insisting that the law of inertia is true in all situations. The power to accelerate is innate but it is modulated/directed by the *proximity* of other bodies .There is influence at a distance, but no force at distance. It is not necessary to literally imagine a *transfer* of momentum between distantly related bodies to bring about an acceleration. The law of Inertia is not applicable everywhere all the time. When we say the Earth acts on an apple of mass m with force F = mg, it only means that a force F is required to keep the apple stationary and prevent it from accelerating at g towards the Earth. The Earth activates and modulates the acceleration of the apple, but there is no transfer of momentum from the Earth to the apple needed to overcome the apple's inertia. (A similar analysis applies to the Earth's minute acceleration towards the apple). Harry
