[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 864 KB, 350x197, tumblr_ojs20z06jQ1qz5q5lo1_400.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10744608 No.10744608 [Reply] [Original]

yo,
So the electromagnetic force is carried by the photon, and the electric force is carried by the electron. Can someone better explain the distinction between these two forces?

Previous Biases:
>Electric force + Magnetic force = Electromagnetic force (Lorentz force law)

>Electric force = Magnetic force (with general relativity applied) (Maxwell's third law)

Conclusion:
Shouldn't, then, the electric and electromagnetic force be the same? should they not be carried by the same particle?

Brownie Points: Technically speaking, is the magnetic force also carried by the electron?

>> No.10744609

literally magic
deal with it nerd

>> No.10744620

>>10744609
fuck you, nigga. Im trying to get my learn on

Here's some knowledge for yo head:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FE0Z4lov7Y&t=758s

>> No.10744642

Electromagnetic force is carried by photons, this force can interact with electrically charged particles like electrons.
There's no separate electric force.

>> No.10744937
File: 29 KB, 333x499, 41aHUfLfC+L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10744937

>>10744608
>force

>> No.10744973

>>10744608
>So the electromagnetic force is carried by the photon, and the electric force is carried by the electron. Can someone better explain the distinction between these two forces?
Yes. The second one, 'electric force', doesn't exist. That's the best explanation.
Electromagnetism is mediated by photons which interact with particles possessing charge.
There are only 4 fundamental forces and they each have bosons to mediate those forces: the strong nuclear force (gluon), the electromagnetic force (photon), the weak nuclear force (W+, W- and Z bosons) and gravity (mediator unknown).

>> No.10745169

Electromagnetic force is carried by the electromagnetic field. Real photons are harmonic oscillations of the field, and can exert forces on charges, but are not what generate fields in general.

"Virtual particles" are an artifact of perturbation theory, which is a means of approximating the anharmonic behavior of fields caused by interaction. Virtual particles can be used to calculate the real interaction potential to very high precision, but they have no physical reality in themselves. In fact, lattice field theory is a way to perform QFT calculations without perturbation theory, and thus without any reference to virtual particles.

My main point is that the widespread phrase "electromagnetism is mediated by virtual photons" is confusing a mathematical means of approximation for physical reality. It's sort of like calling e^x a polynomial. It can be approximated to arbitrary precision by a Taylor series polynomial, but e^x itself is distinctly not a polynomial.

>> No.10746540

>>10744973
>>10745169
The direction that subatomic particles coherently point is not a "force".

>but are not what generate fields in general.
What generates a field?

>> No.10746552

>>10746540
Electric charges generate EM fields. Note that by "generate a field," I mean give the EM field a nonzero value.

>> No.10746701
File: 1.86 MB, 228x170, 1560367432664.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10746701

>>10746552
>Note that by "generate a field," I mean give the EM field a nonzero value

Okay let me ask this a different way.:
What causes a field?

>> No.10746841

>>10746701
Do you mean: What causes the field to take on the values it does? The distribution and motion of charges.

>> No.10746928
File: 387 KB, 600x600, 1536446642157.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10746928

>>10746841
>Do you mean: What causes the field to take on the values it does? The distribution and motion of charges.

I am going to rephrase this one more time.
What is a field and what causes a field to exist? You have clarified what it does sufficiently enough,.

>> No.10746946
File: 6 KB, 371x136, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10746946

Feynman, the top teacher of all time, explains magnets in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO0r930Sn_8

>> No.10746949

>>10746928
A field is something with a value at each point in space and time. This value could be a single real number, a complex number, a vector, a tensor, etc.

>what causes a field to exist?
We have no way of meaningfully answering that question. All we can do is propose that they do exist, carefully consider the consequences of their existence and show that they line up with experiment, and determine the aspects of their behavior.

Science can offer an explanation of HOW the EM field came to be by spontaneous symmetry breaking of the electroweak field, but cannot meaningfully answer WHY either field exists.

>> No.10747035
File: 1.29 MB, 200x235, 1547403417506.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10747035

>>10746949
>A field is something with a value at each point in space and time. This value could be a single real number, a complex number, a vector, a tensor, etc.

Are you saying it's a measurement? No I mean what are you measuring? What is the actual "thing" in reality that you're talking about? Substitute the word "banana" with "field" and it basically has the same meaning. Value "of what"?

>We have no way of meaningfully answering that question. All we can do is propose that they do exist, carefully consider the consequences of their existence and show that they line up with experiment, and determine the aspects of their behavior.

>All we can do is propose that they do exist,
>determine the aspects of their behavior.
But what is "behaving"?

>> No.10747046
File: 849 KB, 326x293, Bloop+_0677338f6cd435e4452b183e3ddd78cb.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10747046

>>10747035
lmao imagine being this higgs field

>> No.10747056
File: 554 KB, 287x216, 1553202251547.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10747056

>>10746946
Holy shit I feel exactly like the guy who is asking the question.

>What is this feeling/sensation when you hold two magnets together?
>"What is the meaning when you say there's a feeling. Of course there's a feeling?"
>Uh. yeah you just restated the premise of what I asked, what I want to know is what causes that feeling?
>"The magnets repel each other"
>.....well yeah they do...I am quite aware of that which is why asked the question "what causes that feeling". How are they doing it?
>OH, I uh...When you ask why something happens.....
>.....Well it just exists, I could explain it to you but..It wouldn't make sense...I can't even come up with a simply analogy or perhaps a comparison between a magnet and the same material not magnetized.
>No I can't answer you because then I would have to explain in detail basically is what I'm saying, so I won't answer you
>Except to tell you they indeed attract each other and have that sensation that you feel
>Which is once again restating the premise

What the fuck.


>>10747046
>Imagine someone on this board explaining to me what a goddamn field is.

>> No.10747059

>>10747056
It is itself, that is how reality works, are you literally brain-damaged?

>> No.10747067
File: 723 KB, 500x375, U8OJda6[1].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10747067

>>10747059
>It is itself, that is how reality works, are you literally brain-damaged?

>Circular logic is normal

>> No.10747069

>>10747067
Circular logic is normal when dealing with existential questions, and false time propositions.

>> No.10747074

>>10747067
When you're arguing from a "philosophical" view, that's best you can get. From a practical perspective, there is a physical reality outside us, and we're using models to describe it. There are bases to the models to predict behavior. Turns out they're pretty damn good, and some seem infallible, so some get considered laws and others are just fundamentally because although they're accurate they're not always right.

Go look up a field, we'll have a mathematical model for it which someone else proved is self-consistent at least (it is itself in a non-contradictory way). All the science that follows uses primitive descriptions, the interactions between them, and some starting conditions.

>> No.10747085

>>10747069
>Circular logic is normal when dealing with existential questions

Good lord you're a moron. I asked you about something that has been theorized to actually exist in reality dubbed "field", not "what is the purpose of life". What is it? What is the actual, real thing that is there? How is it a "force"?

>> No.10747090

>>10747085
Have you studied electrodynamics? It describes perfectly how it works.

>> No.10747103

>>10747085
>has been theorized to actually exist in reality
That's called an existential question. It has equivalent epistemology to assigning "purpose" to life. Things can just be what they are, it doesn't have to come with an explanation. Trying to make sense of it is just something we do. Sometimes that leads to circular reasoning and we really don't know what's happening. In that case we've made an emotional choice to go on living despite our ignorance of phenomenology.

>> No.10747136
File: 1.34 MB, 286x216, 1561248950056.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10747136

>>10747090
>It describes how it works

HOW WHAT WORKS? I want an explanation to what is being described to me. What is a field?

Description:
>A unicorn is a 4 legged creature that is usually white in color. It has a long horn that protrudes from the top of its head and is similar to a horse.

So where is the fucking unicorn?

Explanation:
A unicorn is a fantasy creature that was made up. The reason was to romanticize the horse more for story telling because the horse is a domesticated and loved creature that can be related to do to the history humans have with them. They don't actually exist, but perhaps could with genetic alterations to an actual horse.

>>10747103


>That's called an existential question. It has equivalent epistemology to assigning "purpose" to life
Once again, we're in the real world using science here. Concerned with organizing knowledge, making observations ,experiments and you know, determining stuff without making blind assumptions by having at least a hypothesis that has a proposed explanation. Not feelings or random shots in the dark with no rhyme or reason.


>Things can just be what they are
>I birthed myself and always existed forever

>it doesn't have to come with an explanation
Yeah right, why even have science and philosophy? See, we have explanations for a reason and the reason is because knowledge is a really useful thing to have. It sucks being stupid.

>Trying to make sense of it is just something we do. Sometimes that leads to circular reasoning and we really don't know what's happening. In that case we've made an emotional choice to go on living despite our ignorance of phenomenology.
So basically you don't know what you're talking about.

Does anyone else perhaps know what a "field" is and what causes a field?

>> No.10747140
File: 269 KB, 708x887, __yakumo_yukari_touhou_drawn_by_wool_miwol__153385aeda1adc38fcbd6d2adbaa4e35.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10747140

>this entire thread

>> No.10747143

>>10747136
A field is a mathematical construct suitable to predict future behavior and explain past behavior of reality. Without as complex of a mathematical system as it, the predictions and explanations come out worse, and with a more complicated system you have bits that don't more reliably predict reality at present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

>> No.10747145

>>10747136
>you don't know what you're talking about
By making this thread you affirm and forswear that you have no idea what a field is and cannot possibly determine false answers from legitimate ones. Therefore, you cannot make a determination about the qualification of any given reply, regardless of any preconceived notions you have about what a field is.

I know what I'm talking about. I can contextualize my reply to an infinite degree. If you want to know what a field is, you have to accept that fields might not be how reality does all the things you see in the world.

>> No.10747158

>>10747136
>What is a field?
>>10746949 already explained this. You even copied and posted the explanation in >>10747056. Here it is again.
>A field is something with a value at each point in space and time. This value could be a single real number, a complex number, a vector, a tensor, etc.
In the case for electromagnetism, it's a physical phenomenon produced by electrically charged objects. What part of that do you not understand?

>> No.10747186

>>10747136
Continuation of >>10747158, you can measure a point in an electromagnetic field with an EMF meter. And you can measure from just about anywhere that you and the meter can physically survive in because the field exists everywhere.

>> No.10747207

>>10747143
>A field is a mathematical construct suitable to predict future behavior and explain past behavior of reality
So it's an abstraction and not a thing that exists?

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)
Which still DOESN'T TELL ME WHAT A FUCKING "FIELD" ACTUALLY IS IN REALITY. Unless you actually think numbers themselves are real, which is not case. You count actual things or you make up things to count, you're still referring to something that isn't a measurement itself.
So drop the math and tell me what a "field" is. I am not a number, I am a human. A banana is not a number, it is a banana. A banana and a human are things that exist and are empirical, testable, pertain to reality. How is a field like a human and a banana in the sense that it exists and pertains to reality?
If you don't want to drop the math then tell me what quantity a field has. A human and a banana are real and "countable", this is true. How is a field like this?

>>10747145
>By making this thread
More assumptions

>you affirm and forswear that you have no idea what a field is and cannot possibly determine false answers from legitimate ones.
Which is why I ask "what is a field". No one has answered me other than with what the field does or they say its a mathematical construct we made up but no one has explain how it pertains to reality. No one has told me what a field actually is! What more do you want me to say? Should I ask why it was made up? That would be assuming they don't exist which I am not going to do.

>> No.10747226

>>10747158
>>10747186

>A field is something with a value at each point in space and time. .
"something with a value"
What with a value? What is the thing that has a value? What is the thing being counted?

"This value could be a single real number, a complex number, a vector, a tensor, etc"
And as far as I'm concerned, those are things that don't actually exist in reality. They are other descriptors of reality. You're counting other descriptions?

>In the case for electromagnetism, it's a physical phenomenon produced by electrically charged objects. What part of that do you not understand?
Now why does it do it? What part of that do you not understand? How does the electrical charge create this "physical phenomena"? It doesn't seem very "physical" when there's no matter involved in the "attraction" of iron nor the effects it has on every other element. No physical reaction, you could even put a magnet in a vacuum and it would still attract another magnet on the outside. What is "physical" about that?

>> No.10747239

>>10747226
>you could even put a magnet in a vacuum and it would still attract another magnet on the outside. What is "physical" about that?
You measure the change in momentum of the magnets. That's perfectly physical.

If you're looking for some kind of contact mechanism like springs, ropes, gears, etc. you're going to be disappointed because those very mechanical things are understood to work at a microscopic level in terms of electromagnetic forces. Even just the everyday ordinary contact force between solid objects we all take for granted is really electric repulsion between atoms at very close distances, which can be thought of as little dipoles.

All we can really do scientifically is record observations and propose models, and the model of charges and fields does an absolutely marvelous job without proposing any kind of unobservable "deeper mechanism" to the whole thing.

>> No.10747244

>>10747226
>What with a value?
In this case, a number.
>What is the thing that has a value?
The electromagnetic field.
>What is the thing being counted?
The strength of the field at a point. You're not particularly smart are you?
>And as far as I'm concerned, those are things that don't actually exist in reality.
Well, the concept certainly doesn't exist in reality. It's a mathematical abstraction, but a rather useful one. Whether or not you believe it exists doesn't matter. You can live ignorantly all you want.
>They are other descriptors of reality. You're counting other descriptions?
Such as?
Now why does it do it? What part of that do you not understand?
The science of electromagnetism only pertains to how, not to why. You'll want to go to a philosopher for that kind of question. This is a board for science and math. You're lost here.

>> No.10747266

>>10747207
This may be more your speed

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(mathematics)

>> No.10747273
File: 3.20 MB, 497x280, checked.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10747273

>>10747244
>In this case, a number.
Counting numbers seems kinda asinine. I thought we were talking about fields. What is the value of a field?
>The electromagnetic field.
how does it have value?
>The strength of the field at a point. You're not particularly smart are you?
You're not either since you still haven't told me what a fucking field is. You may as well replace "field" with "unicorn" at this point.
>Whether or not you believe it exists doesn't matter. You can live ignorantly all you want.
Which is why I'm asking you what a fucking field is you blubbering oaf.

>You'll want to go to a philosopher for that kind of question
>this entire post to give me a runabout still not answer the question and to redirect me elsewhere

Well why didn't you say so in the beginning? Can anyone else not pretending to know something tell me what a field is before I go?

>> No.10747274

>>10747266
That's not the kind of field we're talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

>> No.10747287

>>10747274
Obviously, but that's the one that was linked earlier.

>> No.10747690

>>10747273
It's an energy field created by all electrically charged things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.

>> No.10747794

Imagine a completely still body of water, at each point across its surface, it is still. This could be thought of as a field as well, now imagine throwing a pebble at some point around its surface, you gave energy to this field and now instead of clear and transparent surface you are looking at the excited waves that suddenly start propagating from the point, this is analogy to excitation of the EM field, now there are many more fields, one of them being the fermionic field, which could be thought of as independent coplanar seas, these fields are linked together and when one is excited so can be the others, they can also exchange excitations. The nature of the sea ripple is complex, but with some approximations we can approximate the complex shape of the ripple with a more natural ripple shapes, the ones which we call the natural modes of the fields, bosons and fermions, these complex exchanging ripples can be looked at as these natural modes of these fields with very squinted eyes

>> No.10748208

>>10747273
Do you understand what an electron is?

>> No.10748252

>>10748208
Does anyone? Is that also not restating the fucking premise of what I asked?

>>10747794
>Imagine a completely still body of water, at each point across its surface, it is still. This could be thought of as a field as well.
So it's "Stillness"? How the fuck did you define it then?
>Here is the absence of motion, which somehow I managed to measure and define
>now this thing I can't even explain is "doing something" lets call these actions actual things particularized and separate from this "Field" despite being the actions of it.
>the rest of this jargon telling me what a field does but not what it is
If only that's what I asked for.

>>10747690
>It's an energy field created by all electrically charged things. It surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together.
"A field is a field and it surrounds us and does all these things"
Wonderful, back to the circular logic. . Things don't explain themselves.
"Charged"? Charged with what? Electricity? There is no electricity without the action of a field to begin with.. at least that's I thought? Fields create fields? If has no choice but to create itself or if it does indeed define itself, then the least someone could do is explain why.

>> No.10748291

>>10748252
> Does anyone? Is that also not restating the fucking premise of what I asked?

I asked because I thought it would be a could idea to create some common ground, since your other discussions here are filled with confusion about your request. Do you think atoms exits? Do you think light exist and if yes, how does it work. I need to know how you understand and view these topics befor being able to give a meaningful answer

>> No.10748345
File: 92 KB, 255x187, magnetic-field-demonstration.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10748345

>>10745169
Based and redpilled.

>>10748252
A field is more of a descriptive term than anything else, as they said before, it is a mathematical idea that fits closely with reality. The most important thing to understand about it are that it a) extends across all space (and time), and b) has a measurable value at every point. I think the word measurable needs a little more clarification. In pic rel, small pieces of iron are dropped around a bar magnetic, they naturally orient themselves in the observed way through magnetism. The way they orient themselves is consistent with their being a magnetic field arising from the magnet. In this way these iron fillings are measuring the magnetic field of the magnet. So when we say "measurement" we really mean something interacting with another thing in a way that allows us to quantify the behavior of that other thing.

Why is the distribution of iron filings consistent with a magnetic field? a) we see the field extends through space from the magnet, b.) We see it is a value (the strength of the effect) on the iron. Near to the magnet, the force (=value) of the field is greater and the iron filings are warped to a greater degree. Further from the magnetic, there is still some warping of the iron filings, but the warping = strength of the force (=the value of the field) is much lower.

>> No.10748427
File: 198 KB, 523x720, they-dont-think-it-be-like-it-is-but-it-do[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10748427

>>10748291
>"Do you think atoms exits? Do you think light exist and if yes, how does it work. I need to know how you understand and view these topics befor being able to give a meaningful answer"
Sounds an awful lot like it's gonna lead me down this road >>10746946
>"I can't explain that attraction in terms of anything else that's familiar to you".

All the questions you propose that I answer basically breaks down to "what the fucking field is" given that both atoms and light would not exist were it not for "fields". At least that is what I've been told anyway, and in the case of light this is most true and demonstrable. Same with matter, you can test and empirically show that a magnetic/electromagnetic field manipulates all elements in some manner. The problem is that I don't even feel right typing any of what I just said because I don't know what the "field" is! It almost feels like I'm saying a deities name when I say "field". "The effect that is noticeable around a magnet" is better but it still doesn't tell me the cause!
>Electricity
Well what the fuck is the cause of that?
>fields
So what the fuck?

So lets say that we isolate whatever makes light in order to study it. Virtual photons, photons whatever the fuck you want to call.
>isolate field, particle/whatever makes light
>It stops moving
>And then ceases to be for what defines it in the first place is now absent, it exhibits no properties
So it's induced to exist by the motion of something else. Same thing could be said of atoms too.

>no motion for mini dynamo to churn
>No little dynamo
>no motion to exhibit properties, to be affected by other properties.

"It is what it does" is the answer that I keep getting here.

>> No.10748459

>>10748345

>A field is more of a descriptive term than anything else
I know, I have said this. I want an explanation to it.

>The most important thing to understand about it are that it a) extends across all space (and time), and b) has a measurable value at every point
So "space" and "time" is just one field then?

>So when we say "measurement" we really mean something interacting with another thing in a way that allows us to quantify the behavior of that other thing.
What is the difference in some quantified thing interacting in one way vs another if it's just the actions of one thing entirely (the universal filed that is)? What if it has no quantity?

>Why is the distribution of iron filings consistent with a magnetic field?
Why does the orientation of the iron filings/iron atoms cause a magnetic field to suddenly occur? I mean that's what induces the effect right? When you drop a magnet the filings get knocked out of coherence and the strength of the effect i noticeably less. You use induction to make an unmagnetized chunk of ceramic-iron-boron orient a certain way. The rest of what you said is indeed a description of a field. Of which I would like to know why the filings do this.

>> No.10748463

>>10748427
When you ask what it is, what kind of answer are you expecting? That would help clarify this discussion. To most physicists, "what something is" is nothing more than "how it behaves," which is why so many people have answered that way. So knowing what kind of answer you're expecting would be a great help.

>> No.10748565

>>10744608

do people take mathematical value-constructs (models) very literally too much?

There is no such thing as any of what you are talking about. They are just word placeholders for derived values of measurements that are thrown together in a model.

>> No.10748735

>>10748565
I think they do take our models of the physical world too seriously as the way the physical world actually works, but I do think the mathematical models are real in a Platonistic sense.

>> No.10749057

>>10748427
> "It is what it does" is the answer that I keep getting here.

Thats why I kept asking the questions about different things.
I don't think there is a difference between what an object is and how it behaves in relation to other objects (including itself)

>> No.10749577
File: 234 KB, 1631x1872, 1542682541373.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10749577

>>10748463
>When you ask what it is, what kind of answer are you expecting?
Well I suppose the kind of answer that fucking explains what "the thing" is that you're measuring and claiming exists.

>To most physicists, "what something is" is nothing more than "how it behaves," which is why so many people have answered that way
You're still talking about "something" that is doing the "behaving" though right? You're not just making "the field" up as you go along right? You're making observations and logical conclusions even when the empirical evidence misleads you right? There is still SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY EXISTS CALLED A "FIELD" no? I can literally feel the effects of such, now that is "something". What is this "field" you all have been describing? You don't mean to tell me that you're just basically making unicorn and fairy stories up right?

>>10749057
>I don't think there is a difference between what an object is and how it behaves in relation to other objects (including itself)
So why are we all sitting here calling it a "force"? If there's no difference between what something is and how it behaves then what is the relationship exactly? How is there a difference between anything at all? What exactly is being "forced" if it's the same shit impelled by itself?

>> No.10749642

>>10749577
So why are we all sitting here calling it a "force"? If there's no difference between what something is and how it behaves then what is the relationship exactly? How is there a difference between anything at all? What exactly is being "forced" if it's the same shit impelled by itself?

What do you mean.We have different objects that behave differently with respect to each other. We call these objects fields and their interactions force. There is nothing more to explain about any object. Same with more familiar objects like water or light

>> No.10749737
File: 3.81 MB, 400x190, ffs.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10749737

>>10749642
>We have different objects that behave differently with respect to each other. We call these objects fields and their interactions force. There is nothing more to explain about any object

So it is all the same shit then? Is that what you're saying? It's all just "fields" and we don't know what they are and that's okay? What planet am I on? Are you trolling?

>> No.10749784

>>10744608
>So the electromagnetic force is carried by the photon
no. just no. bad retard. light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum but is not the conduit by which magnetic fields are made

first i guess i have to explain what light is then circle back to electromagnetism. light is just 2 electrons stuck in a paired oscillation. 1 is moving back and forth on 1 axi and the other is doing it on another xis. where the 2 paths meet force is applied and it moves perpendicular to that across the 3rd axi. as soon as it achieves a high enough velocity the photon theoretically appears much like a mach cone on a jet ahead of this interaction. like a membrane forming over the pair .technically in most models its ahead of the pair but logically it can be around them for anything that isnt radio or microwave which already dont behave like most other forms of light

anyways electromagnetism by that i assume you mean a electromagnet forms a magnetic field from lines of force which are produce simply by applying current through a wire. they congregate if there is a coil to form a proper magnetic field. no photon needed

assuming you are talking about a permanent magnet the theories are varied as to what the conduit is . it technically would be applied to lines of forced and a electromagnet but the previous answer is all thats needed on most tests. 1 level deeper you find no answer is concretely proven much like what transmits gravity. but i have never heard any one say it was a photon. never read it. never even read some stoner post say it was photons until now

>> No.10749803

>>10749737
>So it is all the same shit then? Is that what you're saying? It's all just "fields" and we don't know what they are and that's okay? What planet am I on? Are you trolling?

Why would it not be okay. We know how they behave and thus know what they are.
If you reject this explanation, then there isn't a single object in the universe than you can explain. Thats why I asked these initial questions: Because you haven't stated what you deem to be a sufficent explanation.

>> No.10749918
File: 106 KB, 689x885, 1550470806196.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10749918

>>10749803
>Why would it not be okay. We know how they behave and thus know what they are.

>here is a shadow, we see it and it's empirically observable and measurable
>it behaves and does something
>yep a shadow is definitely a thing
>despite being an attribute of something else with no basis or grounding in reality on it's own.
>Yes the absence of something that actually exists is in itself a "thing".

"No"

>> No.10749969

>>10744608
here's the deal with these posts, they're not going to making you learn about jack shit 'cause the questions they pose are so fucking broad that even if the answer exists its not going to be fed to some anon on 4chan until AT LEAST before it earns a PhD for the originator.

>> No.10749994

>>10749918

I said everything that is real can only be described and explained by how it behaves and interacts.
I never said that the converse would be true too.
If you disagree with my statement, show me to explain anything without just explaining how it behaves.

>> No.10750019

>>10749918
Describing a shadow as a thing is an effective description and works in many circumstances, until new circumstances are discovered in which it makes more sense to treat shadows as an apparent phenomenon resulting from more fundamental behavior (e.g. seeing how light can always eliminate shadows, but never vice versa).

This happens all the time in physics, in which phenomena which were presumed to be fundamental are better described as merely effective descriptions resulting from a limiting case of a deeper set of entities.

Fields were created to replace the concept of Newtonian instantaneous action at a distance. Instead of tediously calculating forces between every pair of particles, it turns out to be much simpler mathematically to introduce an intermediary entity throughout space that accumulates the effects of each charge (electromagnetic field) or mass (gravitational field), and then the force on any particular charge or mass depends simply on the field value at its location instead of directly depending on all the other particles directly exerting forces on it.
The concept of fields is further supported by the fact that forces tend to drop off with the square of distance (indicating some condition on space that weakens as it spreads out), and that changes in force do not in fact communicate instantly but have a speed of light delay.

That was a word salad, but I hope it was relatively clear.

>> No.10750158

>>10749994
>everything that is real can only be described and explained by how it behaves and interacts.
"..And is not imagined or supposed". So then particles are fields are bullshit and don't actually exist "as something" then right? How is anything "discrete" when it's just the flow of action with other actions?

>>10750019
>Describing a shadow as a thing is an effective description and works in many circumstances,
>Describing is effective at describing
"Yes"

>until new circumstances are discovered in which it makes more sense to treat shadows as an apparent phenomenon resulting from more fundamental behavior (e.g. seeing how light can always eliminate shadows, but never vice versa).
It's a privation. An attribute. Not an actual thing. This is why it's important to determine whether or not what you're talking about means anything, and in some cases empirical evidence isn't going to do that for you. Sometimes there is no empirical evidence and that's when you use the process of negation to figure out "what it is not". You don't just blindly keep assuming that the thing exists without ever figuring out if it exists.
>A shadow isn't x...
>..controlled by light?
>okay, but is it light?
no
>privation of light?

>Fields were created to replace the concept of Newtonian instantaneous action at a distance
Which was never disproved. In fact, everything we've been talking seems to tell me that instantaneous action at a distance is in fact true since you cannot determine what something is as opposed to what it does.
>stop light
>it ceases to exist
>This is a speed

>The concept of fields is further supported by the fact that forces tend to drop off with the square of distance
And also that the distance is caused by the "force" of fields, so which is it? This is why it would be helpful to know what causes a field.

>(indicating some condition on space that weakens as it spreads out)
What properties does space have that weakens it?

>> No.10750192

>>10744608
The electromagnetic force is carried by the photon. It is a (vector) boson, which is another way of saying it obeys Bose-Einstein statistics, with multiple particles being able to occupy the same quantum state. There are other fermions which obey Fermi-Dirac statistics and can't occupy the same quantum state. Some of these interact via the electromagnetic force (i.e. they can exchange photons). To date, we know of the electron, muon, tau and their respective neutrinos, and the six quarks (up, down strangem charm, bottom, top). Furthermore, there are two additional bosons which experience the electromagnetic force (note that photons themselves do not) and these are the W+ and W- bosons, wich mediate the weak nuclear force, but do not mediate the electromagnetic force.

So, to summarise, photons mediate the electromagnetic force and electrons interact with the electromagnetic force (exchange photons) . There are lots of particles which exchange photons, even other bosons, but only photons mediate the force. The electric force is one "side of the coin" and can't be dissociated from the magnetic force in any meaningful way.

>> No.10750253

>>10747273
Different anon than you've been talking with. A field is a mathematical structure which relates a point (usually in space and time) with another mathematical object. The field itself is described via and equation, which takes in coordinates (again, usually 1,2 or 3 spatial coordinates and one time coordinate) and does something to these numbers to give you back a scalar, or vector, or tensor. For example, let's say I wanted to take 1 spatial coordinate and no time coordinate. I'll say the equation for the field is z=x^2. So at any point on this 1D line, you take that to be x and you get a value ascribed to each point on the line via the equation of the field.

As it turns out, more complicated examples of these structures seem to describe the motion of objects, such as force, velocity, momentum or acceleration, when in particular physical situations. I can give examples if you wish.

>> No.10750268

>>10750158
>"..And is not imagined or supposed". So then particles are fields are bullshit and don't actually exist "as something" then right? How is anything "discrete" when it's just the flow of action with other actions?

Actions can be descrete, there is no problem. Particles are "discrete" exaitations of the fields.
Like I said, If you disagree with my statement, show me to explain anything without just explaining how it behaves. There is no intrinsic "essence" what makes an object and object. Structuralism is the only way

>> No.10750324

>>10750268
>Actions can be descrete, there is no problem
Actions of what? A field? What is a field?

>Particles are "discrete" exaitations of the fields.

So the "particles" are the actions of "the fields". So what are "the fields"? It's like saying that I become something completely new and "discrete" when I start swimming then as opposed to walking or running. No I am still "human being".

>There is no intrinsic "essence" what makes an object and object.

So particles don't exist and you're just contradicting yourself with this post? What do you mean by "no intrinsic essence"? If there's "no essence" then it "is not a thing". This is not the case. It's like saying everything has no properties. No, the properties are indeed there and you're just ignoring them. There are different things with different properties, the disparity is there. Hot is not cold, light is not shadow, wet is not dry.

If there is no essence then you have basically "nothing". How else do you differentiate things if they weren't DIFFERENT in some way, had something unique about it that made it stand out among similar stuff? ,

>> No.10750338

>>10750324
>What do you mean by "no intrinsic essence"? If there's "no essence" then it "is not a thing". This is not the case. It's like saying everything has no properties. No, the properties are indeed there and you're just ignoring them.
You're the one ignoring properties. Many people in this thread have been describing to you the behaviors, i.e. properties, of fields and charges. And yet you deny these properties as explaining what a field <<really is>>, and refuse to explain what you will accept as a valid explanation of what it <<is>>.
>If there is no essence then you have basically "nothing". How else do you differentiate things if they weren't DIFFERENT in some way, had something unique about it that made it stand out among similar stuff?
The thing that distinguishes them is their behaviors. Behavior is the full extent of what anybody can possibly hope to test about their <<essence>>. This is also true of hot and cold, light and shadow, wet and dry. The only testable distinguishing <<essence>> is the behaviors of the phenomena.