Perhaps Paul call it difference or change at this layman level it hardly matters and feel free to change it. It matters to you I understand but the problem is we are dealing with many levels of science skill here.
Redewenur I am really surprised you of all people didn't figure why it is called exchange. The stuff is vibrating in a QM oscillation how do you think your going to have a clean one way interaction when was the last time you saw two vibrating objects have a clean one way interaction.
Rede I know you know that even a static empty piece of spacetime vacuum is exchanging energy and now you want to insist on directionalty of an exchange I would like to see that????.
I conceed from Pauls layman level it probably is better to put it as change or difference but at your science level redewenur it is an exchange and there are no one way interactions at the QM level ... there can't be because of what is happening.
Even bringing the problem back to a classic problem try viewing what happens when a fast moving by not spinning basketball runs into a stationary but spinning basketball describe what happens? At some macro level the moving ball made the staionary ball move but you are ignoring the staionary ball imparted spin on the moving ball. Ok this is a classic physics spin problem but it shows the issue.
At your science level Rede it is definitely an exchange and it's important not only that you realise it is but why.
I agree with Paul - it's misleading when a one-way energy transfer is called an energy exchange. No one appears to have conceded that absurdity.
Hence this statement is absurd to me coming from someone of your science knowledge.
