What is a field ?

[Verpies]

...offer some more explanation on that which is yet to be explained, such as -- what is the magnetic field?

When some one asks how a train pulls the carriages, you don't answer by saying-the train pulls the carriages.
I need to know what the engine is, and how it works.

Tinman makes an important point here.
A quantitative model of a phenomenon is not the same as a conceptual understanding of the phenomenon.

Knowing the Faraday's law or Lorentz force equations or Biot-Savart law might give you a quantitative understanding how a voltage or force varies in space or time under certain conditions but it does nothing to explain what a force is (nor a force field) nor space nor time.

I have been lurking and biting my tongue not replying to these fundamental questions not because I do not know the answers but because repeatedly I have been finding out that people are not capable of a paradigm shift necessary to comprehend my answers. This is exemplified by my most recent attempt to tackle these issues on this forum and when Allcandian tried to tautologically explain what a field is in terms of fields and axiomatic particles emitted by stars and called on me to "...get back to reality and common sense" :

I mean, according to your logic, a 2x4 is just the relationship between the spaces on my tape measure not a piece of lumber. I think we need to get back to reality and common sense.

...I just gave up on even replying to him.

Now a clever trucker down under stirs this up again:

The standard model of the field shows no reason why unlike poles repel, or like poles attract.
Can you explain what is coming out and going into the PM body that causes this attraction between unlike poles, and repulsion between like poles?

I am all ears if you can explain as to what the field is, and how it makes like poles repel, and unlike poles attract.

Telling me that it exerts a force on a charge is not telling me what is exerting a force on that charge.

So we know what places a force on an electron within an electric field.

I want to know what places a force on the electron in the magnetic field.

Why do these opposite charges repel?  What is the force that causes that?

That is a good question despite the silly mistake between "repel" vs. "attract".

[Verpies]

It's all about perspective.

It is, but not in the way you think.

Human languages fail to fully encompass our observations, thus models/analogies must be and are drawn, until a better understanding is achieved elsehow.

Yes but notice that all these models are quantitative.  e.g. they accurately describe how a magnetic field affects a moving electron but they are deficient conceptually, i.e. the provide no explanation what a magnetic field is, what an electron is, what is the space and time involved in its movement.

It's ultimately a pre-existing perturbation of the surrounding environment and should be treated as such.

This is exactly the garden path which prevents human race from undertstanding the above.   The notion of space as an environmental container in which events take place.   It is really hard to free you mind from that assumption.

[Grumpy]

In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a scalar, vector, or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time.

Per Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

The definition/description is an attempt to define/describe a region of space by its properties.

[Verpies]

As does a computer program require both CPU computations to occur alongside the UI and software through which actions are apprehended.
In the same way conceptually I reckon we must operate within some form of "container"

This is not going to be a clean analogy because computers are already presupposed to exist in some space.

However, consider that the space inside a Grand Theft Auto universe does not exist the same way as it exists outside of that universe (where the computer is).  If you know anything about computers (and I assume that you do after mentioning CPU and UI) then you must realize that the space represented by the UI does not really exist inside the computer.  The GTA creatures might swear up and down that they are contained in some space there but that is only a crafty illusion from the programmer's point of view.  When a stolen car in the GTA universe travels 1000 units of space in 1000000 clock cycles, that length of 1000 units does not really take that much "space" inside the computer. In fact a structure containing only 6 fields might be updated inside the computer's memory. That space is fake even if it appears very real to the denizens of the GTA universe.

They may have several ways of experiencing that space, e.g. as changing angles of simulated light, as delays in sound reflections, as delays in collisions of "physical" objects ....but if the programmer fakes all these "space measuring methods" the illusion of space will be complete and consistent and indistinguishable from a "spatial container" for the GTA denizens.

It is my proposition, that our illusion of a spatial container is similar and that the algorithm that creates it involves quantized units of motion that observe each other according to projective geometry rules.  All hadrons and leptons are such units of motion and the fields are strains between their geometric reference systems (refs) which result from their representaion in one another. Concretely:
1 dimensional normalizations between these refs create the appearance of electric fields,
2 dimensional normalizations between these refs create the appearance of magnetic fields,
3 dimensional normalizations between these refs create the appearance of gravitational fields,

There is so much more, but by this time people usually write something like "get back to reality and common sense" so I will stop here.

[Verpies]

In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a scalar, vector, or tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time.

Per Wikipedia here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_(physics)

This is a really bad definition for a physical field and not a bad one for a mathematical field.

First of all, everything after "physical quantity" tell us only how the field is represented.  It does not tell us what a physical field is.
The phrase "physical quantity" does not help either.  First of all the word "physical" is ambiguous - the reader does not know whether it is something physical as in "tangible" that can be touched ar something that is a subject of the physical sciences.  I assume it is the latter and that does not help to explain much what it is.
Then there is the word "quantity". Note its singular form suggesting it is one object that can be counted or has a magnitude at best. This is in conflict with the remainder of the definition which mentions multiple points, so the more appropriate word would be plural e.g. "quantities".

A scalar indeed has one property (a value) - a magnitude without a discernible direction (like pressure).
A vector has two properties - a magnitude and a direction (like an electric force).
Tensors is an umbrella term for scalars, vectors and higher algebraic objects.

How about this definition for an electric field:
"Electric field is a set of electric-force vectors, which are assigned to each point of a volume (3D space). These vectors represent the directions and magnitudes of Coulomb forces, which would act on test charges placed at these points."

This definition is better but it is still poor because it does not explain the mechanism of the electric force.  It mentions a volume ( a 3 dimensional measure of space) without defining what space is. It does not claim that a field is synonymous with volume although it involves a volume. But most importantly it implies the observer effect - test charges and an observer that observes their motion.  In case you do not believe your eyes, and the implications of what you are reading here, I'll make it easy for you: The electric field is undetectable without an observer. ...and if something is undetectable it cannot be proven to exist.  If you turn this statement around then the corollary is that the proof of existence is only in the observation. This also means that if you can fake the observation then you can fake the existence.  There is no way to tell the difference.

I have discovered a simple algorithm (cursorily described in my previous message) that generates the effects of the motion of these test charges in an electric field as observed by an observer which does not require space but creates an illusion of space.  The same algorithm generates motions of electrons in magnetic and gravitational fields, photon motions, chemical elements and their their bonds.

If I am able to generate all such effects of space (and time) without postulating some axiomatic space container, how would you be able to tell the difference ?

[TinMan]

author=Excelsior link=topic=4668.msg112253#msg112253 date=1716160560

.

Point being - need we elicit or comprehend the unbridled or "unseen" form (if it exists) of magnetism/electricity/other phenomena in order to use it as we wish?

If we wish to better our selves, then yes, we must understand the mechanism of the magnetic field.

One need not understand the enzymatic processes which occurred millennia ago to form crude oil, nor the refinement process post extraction, in order to drive a car.

But someone took the time to learn the un-needed (by the car driver), in order to refine that fuel, so as the car driver could actually drive their car.

The way I see it, there is only two options here, as far as- where did the field come from.
1- When the PM body was magnetized, the PM body itself is responsible for emitting the field.
2- The field already exists in all space, (as the magnetic field can exist in all space), in a neutral state, and the energizing of the PM body has bought some form of order to the local field around the energized PM body.

Perhaps this is the thread to further our understanding of the field?
Maybe those here in this forum, that have a mind that is not closed by the current understanding, will join in, and look deeper into this mystery?

Brad

[TinMan]

Perhaps we could start with how the field looks without man's interference of the field, where hey denote polls and arrows all over the field, in some attempt to give reason to why PMs behave the way they do.
If we look at the PM and depicted field below, where man's little arrows and field orientations have been removed, we see no reason as to why one end will attract one end of another PM, but repel the opposite end of the other PM.

So, if we start from this blank slate- (N and S removed, field line arrows removed), how would you go about explaining the above?

We know the field is looped around the PM body, and gets weaker the further out from the PM body we get.
We also know that anything that can provide a force or energy, is something that is moving.
If it has mass, it needs motion. If it has no mass, it needs energy, which is also in the form of motion-like the photon.
There is nothing that can provide energy without motion, and no mass can be put into motion without energy.
Nothing can provide a force without the input of energy first.

We are told that there exists only 1 field around a PM, but not a single person can tell you what that field is, which also means they cannot explain as to why we have either a repelling or attracting force between two PM bodies. If we were to look at the electric field, we could explain as to why two bodies with opposite charges attract, and why two bodies with equal like charges repel. But even the electric field must have two different fields, where one is in a high energy state, and the other in a low energy state. Like all thing in nature, they want to reach a point of equilibrium, and when you provide that path, they will equalize, and become neutral.

The fact that the field is looped, indicates an equal and opposite field at each end of the PM body.
The fact that that two unlike fields want to attract, and two like fields want to repel, indicates once again an equal and opposite field at each end of the PM body.

When we look at the likes of the homopolar generator, where we can rotate the magnet, and get no induction through the disk, but rotate the disk while the magnet remains stationary, and get induction through the disk, shows us that the magnetic field is not pinned to the PM body, but is in fact pinned to the space around it.
This leads me to believe that when the PM body was magnetized, it was an organization of a field that already exists in all space, that became what we call the magnetic field.

The biggest problem with most, is they keep trying to relate this field organization, or charge separation, to that of the electric field they know of, or charges they know of, regardless of how many times you try to explain that this field is not one as we know others to be.

I believe the magnetic field to be made of two equal and opposite fields, where some form of charge was separated within an existing field, when the PM body was magnetized.
This changes nothing in the way the field behaves, or what we can do with it, or how charges behave within it.
What it does do, is explain as to why like poles repel, and unlike poles attract. It explains what the magnetic field is, which is something the current model cannot do.
To assume that we (as humans), who are still in their infancy as far as science and physics go's, think we know all when it comes to the various types of charges and matter that exist within the universe, is nothing short of stupidity, and will advance us no further.

The two field theory is not fact, nor do i say it is.
It is nothing more than a theory that fits, and is yet to be verified.
But what is fact, is that there are those here-as like most, that seem to have little room for change to that of what they are shown, even though what they believe to be true, offers no answers to what the very subject matter is--that being- what !is! the magnetic field/force.
I am simply coming up with ideas, mostly based around known facts, that completes upon what we know so far-nothing more.

but because repeatedly I have been finding out that people are not capable of a paradigm shift necessary to comprehend my answers.

Indeed.
As i just did.

Brad

[Allcanadian]

Tinman

The fact that that two unlike fields want to attract, and two like fields want to repel, indicates once again an equal and opposite field at each end of the PM body.

There is another explanation for field repulsion and attraction I started working on many years ago. It relates to the Bjerknes effect and acoustic radiation pressure or wave radiation forces. Bjerknes proved that pressure waves in water at certain frequencies can attract, repel or cancel/neutralize. So when one body vibrates at a certain rate it causes vibrations in the medium. When said vibrations act on a second body the pressure wave interactions can cause the bodies to attract or repel. Like wise if the whole wave tank oscillated and two different objects were induced to vibrate at different rates they could also attract or repel.

Could the picture of water pressure waves below relate to how magnets attract and repel?. Technically it is two wave fields or one wave field effecting two different regions in different ways.

As Tesla said,  "If you want to know the secrets of the Universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration".

AC

[picowatt]

Tinman
There is another explanation for field repulsion and attraction I started working on many years ago. It relates to the Bjerknes effect and acoustic radiation pressure or wave radiation forces. Bjerknes proved that pressure waves in water at certain frequencies can attract, repel or cancel/neutralize. So when one body vibrates at a certain rate it causes vibrations in the medium. When said vibrations act on a second body the pressure wave interactions can cause the bodies to attract or repel. Like wise if the whole wave tank oscillated and two different objects were induced to vibrate at different rates they could also attract or repel.

Could the picture of water pressure waves below relate to how magnets attract and repel?. Technically it is two wave fields or one wave field effecting two different regions in different ways.

As Tesla said,  "If you want to know the secrets of the Universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration".

AC

AC
Excellent post.  It's a good start...

Thanks...

PW

[TinMan]

Tinman
There is another explanation for field repulsion and attraction I started working on many years ago. It relates to the Bjerknes effect and acoustic radiation pressure or wave radiation forces. Bjerknes proved that pressure waves in water at certain frequencies can attract, repel or cancel/neutralize. So when one body vibrates at a certain rate it causes vibrations in the medium. When said vibrations act on a second body the pressure wave interactions can cause the bodies to attract or repel.

.

As Tesla said,  "If you want to know the secrets of the Universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration".

AC

Could the picture of water pressure waves below relate to how magnets attract and repel?. Technically it is two wave fields or one wave field effecting two different regions in different ways

It could well be.

Like wise if the whole wave tank oscillated and two different objects were induced to vibrate at different rates they could also attract or repel.

So this would also indicate that each end of a PMs field would have to be different to each other, in order to either attract or repel.
The fields would also have to maintain the very same frequencies, regardless of both the strength of the fields, and the size of the PMs.

Brad

[picowatt]

It could well be.

So this would also indicate that each end of a PMs field would have to be different to each other, in order to either attract or repel.

Consider spin, phase, circular polarization, standing waves, etc

The fields would also have to maintain the very same frequencies, regardless of both the strength of the fields, and the size of the PMs.

One of the oddities of an electron is that no matter what its energy level is, that is, no matter how much you kick, squeeze, or accelerate an electron, its rate of "spin", i.e., its intrinsic angular momentum, remains constant. 

"Spin" however, is another topic, because electrons do not spin like we envision a top to spin.       

PW

[TinMan]

Consider spin, phase, circular polarization, standing waves, etc
One of the oddities of an electron is that no matter what its energy level is, that is, no matter how much you kick, squeeze, or accelerate an electron, its rate of "spin", i.e., its intrinsic angular momentum, remains constant. 

"Spin" however, is another topic, because electrons do not spin like we envision a top to spin.       

PW

So, if we have a quantity of electrons in a field, does this represent a field of !charge! ?


Brad

[picowatt]

So, if we have a quantity of electrons in a field, does this represent a field of !charge! ?

We have a one unpaired electron in an orbital in each atom of the magnet. (add:  these unpaired electrons are considered to be the "source" of the magnetic field in the PM)     

PW

Added:  Assuming the magnet is in "empty space", there are no electrons in the field.

[TinMan]

We have a one unpaired electron in an orbital in each atom of the magnet.   

PW

Ok, so can these electrons form the field around the magnet?
Can a vast quantity of charge/electrons exist in the space around the PM body?


Brad

[picowatt]

Ok, so can these electrons form the field around the magnet?
Can a vast quantity of charge/electrons exist in the space around the PM body?


Brad

See the adds to my previous post.

PW

[picowatt]

Ok, so can these electrons form the field around the magnet?
Can a vast quantity of charge/electrons exist in the space around the PM body?


Brad

Yes, we could surround a magnet with electrons, but no, a magnetic field is not a bunch of electrons surrounding a PM (if that's what you meant).

PW

[TinMan]

See my adds to my earlier previous post.

PW

Assuming the magnet is in "empty space", there are no electrons in the field

.

Sorry, missed that.
So we can discount a field of electrons around the PM body.

So what is the charge that is all around us, that has a potential of about 100 volts per meter from the ground up?


Brad

[TinMan]

I have been looking for a field that exists throughout all space, where this field would need to interact with the spinning electrons (so to speak) within the PM body.

I would like those here to give thought about the Higgs field.

Quote: The Higgs field is a field of energy that is thought to exist in every region of the universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle known as the Higgs boson, which is used by the field to continuously interact with other particles, such as the electron. Particles that interact with the field are "given" mass and, in a similar fashion to an object passing through treacle (or molasses), will become slower as they pass through it. The result of a particle "gaining" mass from the field is the prevention of its ability to travel at the speed of light.

Mass itself is not generated by the Higgs field; the act of creating matter or energy from nothing would violate the laws of conservation. Mass is, however, gained by particles via their Higgs field interactions with the Higgs boson. Higgs bosons contain the relative mass in the form of energy and once the field has endowed a formerly massless particle, the particle in question will slow down as it has now become "heavy".

If the Higgs field did not exist, particles would not have the mass required to attract one another, and would float around freely at light speed.

Giving mass to an object is referred to as the Higgs effect. This effect adds mass to any particle that interacts with the field.

Could this be a contender ?


Brad

[Allcanadian]

Tinman

I have been looking for a field that exists throughout all space, where this field would need to interact with the spinning electrons (so to speak) within the PM body.

Sometimes the thing were looking for is right in front of us and the problem isn't science but perspective.
In fact, there are fields which exist everywhere in the universe interacting with everything called the Primary fields (Electric, Magnetic and Gravic) more so EM waves.

We could think of it this way, all the energy we know of on Earth is solar in it's nature and came from our Sun, a star, or other stars. For example, fossil fuels like oil and gas are in fact solar and renewable energy. The Suns energy was absorbed by plants which grew millions of years ago, eventually died and were buried. The hydrocarbons in the plants were then converted to oil and natural gas by the pressure and heat within the Earth ie. pyrolysis. So when people say renewables don't work only fossil fuels there basically admitting they have no idea how much of anything actually works. In effect, it's an admission of ignorance to the facts.

So if we had no star like the Sun the Earth would be a cold, dead, dark rock similar to Pluto. Co-incidentally, what many call free energy is also a form of solar/cosmic energy ie. energy from stars. My reasoning is this, if there is no form of energy we know of which does not originate from the stars then so must the energy in question. That's a kicker isn't it?, what people are looking for is simply a different form of solar energy.

To clarify, "Solar Energy" refers to our star which many call the Sun where "Cosmic Energy" refers to any other stars in the universe. There's over a billion trillion stars that we know of some a million times the volume of our own.

AC