What is the mechanism for force transmission

[danlightbulb]

Hi all,

 

Recent thoughts have led me to the question 'What is the actual physical mechanism which transmits force between objects?'

 

I'm referring to forces which act over a distance, so electric force or magnetism.

 

I'm familiar with the concept of the electric and magnetic field, where the force is proportional to the distance between the objects. But this doesn't explain how the force is actually transmitted between the objects through space between them.

 

Thanks

Dan

[JohnStu]

Hi all,

 

Recent thoughts have led me to the question 'What is the actual physical mechanism which transmits force between objects?'

 

I'm referring to forces which act over a distance, so electric force or magnetism.

 

I'm familiar with the concept of the electric and magnetic field, where the force is proportional to the distance between the objects. But this doesn't explain how the force is actually transmitted between the objects through space between them.

 

Thanks

Dan

 

it's a mystery; as mysterious as the origin of mass

[illuusio]

Hi all,

 

Recent thoughts have led me to the question 'What is the actual physical mechanism which transmits force between objects?'

 

I'm referring to forces which act over a distance, so electric force or magnetism.

 

I'm familiar with the concept of the electric and magnetic field, where the force is proportional to the distance between the objects. But this doesn't explain how the force is actually transmitted between the objects through space between them.

 

Thanks

Dan

 

There is the same topic in speculations area already. It concluded nothing.

[Mellinia]

Hi all,

 

Recent thoughts have led me to the question 'What is the actual physical mechanism which transmits force between objects?'

 

I'm referring to forces which act over a distance, so electric force or magnetism.

 

I'm familiar with the concept of the electric and magnetic field, where the force is proportional to the distance between the objects. But this doesn't explain how the force is actually transmitted between the objects through space between them.

 

Thanks

Dan

 

Photons mediate the electromagnetic force. Feynman diagrams can help in understanding it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_carrier

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon

[timo]

I'm familiar with the concept of the electric and magnetic field, where the force is proportional to the distance between the objects. But this doesn't explain how the force is actually transmitted between the objects through space between them.

There is an electric and a magnetic field in the space between them. There is an electric and magnetic field at every point in the universe (that this still allows for E=0 or B=0 at some points). Btw.: that has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics; it's classical electrostatics/-dynamics.

 

@illusio: Not everyone reads posts in the speculations section.

Edited October 13, 2012 by timo

[ajb]

There is an electric and a magnetic field in the space between them. There is an electric and magnetic field at every point in the universe (that this still allows for E=0 or B=0 at some points). Btw.: that has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics; it's classical electrostatics/-dynamics.

 

Absolutely right. Everyone should have in their minds that the electric and magnetic fields can carry momentum and thus "transmit a force".

[illuusio]

Absolutely right. Everyone should have in their minds that the electric and magnetic fields can carry momentum and thus "transmit a force".

 

OP was asking the mechanism. It's vague to say that those fields can carry momentum etc at least to me.

[ajb]

OP was asking the mechanism. It's vague to say that those fields can carry momentum etc at least to me.

 

What I said is vague, but is certainly what you should have in mind.

[danlightbulb]

There is the same topic in speculations area already. It concluded nothing.

 

Thanks, just read it. Unfortunately I think the question seemed to be treated with a bit of harshness in the responses and it died too quickly because of this.

 

 

Absolutely right. Everyone should have in their minds that the electric and magnetic fields can carry momentum and thus "transmit a force".

 

'Fields' are mathematical constructs, nothing more in my opinion. What is the nature of the field? What is it made of? How does it transmit a force?

 

I don't buy into the idea of gauge bosons or virtual particles either. Again mathematical constructs to describe behaviour, not reveal the true nature of things.

 

 

It's been proved that light can transmit force to a mass. Light is an EM wave? Or a photon? What is a wave really? What is a photon really?

 

Sorry if this whole area makes difficult discussion. I believe that modern physics is inventing ever increasingly complex mathematical models for the true nature of matter, but I think in reality is probably getting further and further away from the real answer.

[swansont]

'Fields' are mathematical constructs, nothing more in my opinion. What is the nature of the field? What is it made of? How does it transmit a force?

 

I don't buy into the idea of gauge bosons or virtual particles either. Again mathematical constructs to describe behaviour, not reveal the true nature of things.

 

 

It's been proved that light can transmit force to a mass. Light is an EM wave? Or a photon? What is a wave really? What is a photon really?

 

Sorry if this whole area makes difficult discussion. I believe that modern physics is inventing ever increasingly complex mathematical models for the true nature of matter, but I think in reality is probably getting further and further away from the real answer.

Models are what science does. Models can be tested, and if the model works, you keep it. Science is not in the business of revealing the "true nature of things" — that's metaphysics.

[illuusio]

Models are what science does. Models can be tested, and if the model works, you keep it. Science is not in the business of revealing the "true nature of things" — that's metaphysics.

 

But what if the "true nature of things" is part of particle physics?

[ajb]

'Fields' are mathematical constructs, nothing more in my opinion. What is the nature of the field? What is it made of? How does it transmit a force?

 

I don't buy into the idea of gauge bosons or virtual particles either. Again mathematical constructs to describe behaviour, not reveal the true nature of things.

 

As swansont points out, physics is the game of mathematically modelling nature and testing these models. One is going to have to be happy about mathematical constructions.

 

Things are going to get metaphysical very quickly is we ask about what is "real", what "exists" and so on. Pragmatically, one should be happy that we can construct models of the Universe at all.

 

It's been proved that light can transmit force to a mass. Light is an EM wave? Or a photon? What is a wave really? What is a photon really?

 

Getting metaphysical again. I can tell you how to mathematically describe EM radiation or even how to calculate scattering amplitudes in quantum electrodynamics, but I am not sure I can give you a good answers to your questions.

 

Sorry if this whole area makes difficult discussion. I believe that modern physics is inventing ever increasingly complex mathematical models for the true nature of matter, but I think in reality is probably getting further and further away from the real answer.

 

One appears to be forced to do this. If we want good models of nature then complex mathematics seems to be needed. "Why can we model nature at all?" is a reasonable question, which I doubt anyone can give a very meaningful answer to.

[swansont]

But what if the "true nature of things" is part of particle physics?

All that we can know is what we can measure, so models of behavior is what we can test. Whatever "true nature" comes into play, it has to be something that can be measured.

[illuusio]

All that we can know is what we can measure, so models of behavior is what we can test. Whatever "true nature" comes into play, it has to be something that can be measured.

 

You know that it can be measured

[swansont]

You know that it can be measured

Not really, no.

[Ronald Hyde]

'Fields' are mathematical constructs, nothing more in my opinion. What is the nature of the field? What is it made of? How does it transmit a force?

 

I don't buy into the idea of gauge bosons or virtual particles either. Again mathematical constructs to describe behaviour, not reveal the true nature of things.

 

It's been proved that light can transmit force to a mass. Light is an EM wave? Or a photon? What is a wave really? What is a photon really?

 

Sorry if this whole area makes difficult discussion. I believe that modern physics is inventing ever increasingly complex mathematical models for the true nature of matter, but I think in reality is probably getting further and further away from the real answer.

 

I'm of the opinion, and have been ever since the ripe old age of 15 years, that the World is entirely a mathematical-logical construct and that all we can ever hope

to do is build mathematical models and guess the rules for building them. So if you're uncomfortable with mathematical modeling I suggest you get off the boat now.

[alpha2cen]

Thanks, just read it. Unfortunately I think the question seemed to be treated with a bit of harshness in the responses and it died too quickly because of this.

 

 

 

 

'Fields' are mathematical constructs, nothing more in my opinion. What is the nature of the field? What is it made of? How does it transmit a force?

 

I don't buy into the idea of gauge bosons or virtual particles either. Again mathematical constructs to describe behaviour, not reveal the true nature of things.

 

 

It's been proved that light can transmit force to a mass. Light is an EM wave? Or a photon? What is a wave really? What is a photon really?

 

Sorry if this whole area makes difficult discussion. I believe that modern physics is inventing ever increasingly complex mathematical models for the true nature of matter, but I think in reality is probably getting further and further away from the real answer.

Without mathematical expression, we can not describe physical phenomena exactly.

[illuusio]

Without mathematical expression, we can not describe physical phenomena exactly.

 

Quite contrary! Math in theories is only an approximation of the nature.

 

 

 

[mississippichem]

Quite contrary! Math in theories is only an approximation of the nature.

 

It's true that almost all our equations have some sort of approximations in them. For example classical equations of motion only approximate the relativistic equations of motion, and quite well might I add for velocities much less than c. But it is not true that there exists a better (more accurate/precise/consistent) way to describe nature than the mathematical modeling used in quantitative science.

 

For complex systems like in some sub-disciplines of biology there is inherent complexity that prevents us from making the models quantitative but ultimately we know that in theory, perhaps not in practice, we can reduce these systems to mathematical models of simpler constituent parts.

 

The imprecise and subjective nature of everyday language just doesn't cut it.

 

As has been said above, the "truth" is of no consequence to science. We care about observation, modeling and predictive power. Let the philosophers argue about what the "true nature" of things is. You'll notice they haven't made much progress in the last several millenia either.

 

I fear we are drifting off topic though so let's split this off or end it here.

Edited October 15, 2012 by mississippichem