Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What 'field'?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 TheNightFly

TheNightFly

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 11:36 AM

At the risk of knocking down the whole place, there is a very basic question/hypothesis I have carried around for as long as I can remember. All the lay books I have about electronics, cosmology, and nuclear physics describe force as being conveyed through omnidirectional fields with lines of force and direction (i.e the right hand rule). But what evidence is there that force fields actually exist? It seems more like an assumption.

The most conservative interpretation I can make from the evidence other people have observed is that forces are conveyed directly between objects, not around them. Perhaps then, instead of force fields, there are single 'threads' of force extending directly between all objects. So, for example, the gravitational attraction between the planets and the Sun is strictly between the planets and the Sun and not in the surrounding space. Likewise, the attractive force between oppositely charged particles is not due to fields of force around them but to single direct lines of force between them.

#2 granpa

granpa

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 92 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 11:52 AM

what about light?

#3 TheNightFly

TheNightFly

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 12:05 PM

A perfect example. Waves of motive energy that travel directly between objects, not around them.

#4 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 15 September 2010 - 07:04 PM

... the attractive force between oppositely charged particles is not due to fields of force around them but to single direct lines of force between them.

What would the single line of force be constructed of? What would govern it's width and strength?

A good example of a force field in action is to put metal crumbs on a flat piece of plastic and hold a magnet under it.

How would your idea explain the results?

#5 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 03:09 AM

It seems more like an assumption.

Many people call it a model instead of an assumption.

An alternative model is provided by quantum field theory, it is very complicated and it addresses Granpa's objection too. It also replaces your "elastic threads" with virtual particles. It is a very quirky model but it gives excelent results.

Tormod, the iron filings experiment only shows that the "lines of flux" model is a fairly good description, it could be matched up more or less as well with the idea in the OP too.

#6 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 03:50 AM

Tormod, the iron filings experiment only shows that the "lines of flux" model is a fairly good description, it could be matched up more or less as well with the idea in the OP too.


Yeah, that's why I asked...! :dogwalk: Just trying to establish the discussion here.

#7 Qfwfq

Qfwfq

    Exhausted Gondolier

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6241 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 05:31 AM

Yeah, that's why I asked...!

As each bit of iron becomes magnetized, there get to be threads between them and between each one and the permanent magnet. Threads between unlike poles draw them together, those between like poles push them apart. According to how strong they pull and push each other (which must be quantitavely the same as with the field model) they reach an equilibrium.

#8 TheNightFly

TheNightFly

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 12:14 PM

What would the single line of force be constructed of? What would govern it's width and strength?

A good example of a force field in action is to put metal crumbs on a flat piece of plastic and hold a magnet under it.

How would your idea explain the results?


Now that we're interpreting everything as concentric waves and swirls, everything seems to be constructed out of concentric waves and swirls. Isn't that what String Theory is all about? I admit, I'm not a professional physicist, and the usual math is all Greek to me (lol). But why would energy distribute itself in concentric waves and swirls? It certainly makes for pretty pictures. The metal crumbs experiment only demonstrates that charged forces can be distributed between any number of charged objects. With a field of force model, the even distribution of the metal crumbs is assumed to follow the even distribution of the field. Without a field of force model, the even distribution of the metal crumbs requires an explanation that nobody has ever even considered, as far as I am aware.

#9 Moontanman

Moontanman

    Unobtainium...

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9029 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 01:07 PM

Wouldn't you say that the interaction of positive and negative charges is a bit better model of a force field than a magnet? You can build up a positive force field to repulse positively charged particle or even macro objects and the interaction is more of a "field" type interaction than a straight line interaction?

#10 Tormod

Tormod

    Hypographer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14353 posts

Posted 16 September 2010 - 02:06 PM

Without a field of force model, the even distribution of the metal crumbs requires an explanation that nobody has ever even considered, as far as I am aware.

Doesn't that imply that the force model is correct? What about it is it that you think may be wrong? Or are you suggesting that there should be more than one way to explain what we observe?

#11 TheNightFly

TheNightFly

    Curious

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 17 September 2010 - 12:25 PM

Doesn't that imply that the force model is correct? What about it is it that you think may be wrong? Or are you suggesting that there should be more than one way to explain what we observe?


A purely mathematical field is useful for generalizing the interactions between a large number of minute bodies but, I think it's very presumptive of us to assume that actual fields of force exist when the only thing we see are forces directly between objects. We have countless examples of direct observations that can be interpreted in different ways with the same results. However, interpreting something in any way other than the correct way usually leads to gross misconceptions. That's what's keeping the Standard Model from producing a TOE.

#12 matterdoc

matterdoc

    Curious

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 20 September 2010 - 12:20 PM

Unless you believe in ‘actions at a distance through empty space’, some sort of field (a medium) is necessary for all actions and interactions of matter bodies. This field or medium has to be a real entity to have direct contact with matter bodies. Since matter alone can provide substance to real entities, the field has to be made up of matter.