Question

In physics, there is the definition of energy as the ability to do work. In chemistry, there is the definition of flammable, which means able to burn. In biology, there is the definition of two animals being of the same species, which means they are able to mate, not that they actually will mate. But suppose someone does not believe in non-actual possibilities, they believe the world can't be anything other than what it actually is. To such a person, many, perhaps even most scientific definitions would be unintelligible. Now, such a person can bite the bullet and believe that most scientific definitions are, strictly speaking, vacuous, even if useful. But is there some way to rescue or reformulate these scientific definitions so that our intuitions can be salvaged, without the ontological extravagance of positing possibility or counterfactuals? Or is there simply no such way to rescue those modal definitions from necessitarianism?

Answer 1

In physics, energy can be loosely defined as the ability to do work. Work is closely related to energy, and the work-energy theorem helps establish the relationship between work and changes in an object's kinetic energy.

Step-by-step explanation:

In physics, there is no simple and accurate scientific definition for energy. Energy is characterized by its many forms and the fact that it is conserved. We can loosely define energy as the ability to do work, admitting that in some circumstances not all energy is available to do work.

Because of the association of energy with work, we begin the chapter with a discussion of work.

Work is intimately related to energy and how energy moves from one system to another or changes form. The work-energy theorem, introduced in this chapter, establishes the relationship between work done on an object by an external force and changes in the object's kinetic energy.