Forced by What?

[setarcos]

What is a force? Most people are aware of the discovered forces in nature. Weak force, electric charge, magnetic fields, strong force, gravitational force....forces all the way up and down. But what actually IS a force? What is a field in science? For that matter what IS energy? Of course we can simply say "blank" is and then give its definition. But do our definitions tell us what these things actually are? Or do our definitions simply tell us what these things have been observed to do?

 

[sayak83]

What is a force? Most people are aware of the discovered forces in nature. Weak force, electric charge, magnetic fields, strong force, gravitational force....forces all the way up and down. But what actually IS a force? What is a field in science? For that matter what IS energy? Of course we can simply say "blank" is and then give its definition. But do our definitions tell us what these things actually are? Or do our definitions simply tell us what these things have been observed to do?

In science what they are and what are observed to do are considered the same.
For example force is that which is observed to produce changes in velocity of physical objects.
Energy is a property of a system that is a function of that system's speed, configuration and mass, which remains invariant as long as the system is isolated from its surroundings.
Etc.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What is a force? Most people are aware of the discovered forces in nature. Weak force, electric charge, magnetic fields, strong force, gravitational force....forces all the way up and down. But what actually IS a force? What is a field in science? For that matter what IS energy? Of course we can simply say "blank" is and then give its definition. But do our definitions tell us what these things actually are? Or do our definitions simply tell us what these things have been observed to do?

I think force and energy are essentially forms of matter.

 

[setarcos]

I think force and energy are essentially forms of matter.

I don't think so. It has been shown through experimentation that energy or what we might define there as can be massless. Since matter by definition requires mass and volume energy cannot be simply reduced to a form of matter. In the case of the two known "particles" without mass - Photons and gluons - these are considered force carrying dimensionless particles wrap your head around that one - which simply leads me back to my original question. What is this force that acts on matter and is being carried by dimensionless particles? We might even ask ourselves what it means to be dimensionless in existence?
Since science requires tools of measurement what are we measuring? We seem to be measuring the effects (photons and gluons) of reality not their causes (some unknown we can only define by its effects).

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don't think so. It has been shown through experimentation that energy or what we might define there as can be massless. Since matter by definition requires mass and volume energy cannot be simply reduced to a form of matter. In the case of the two known "particles" without mass - Photons and gluons - these are considered force carrying dimensionless particles wrap your head around that one - which simply leads me back to my original question. What is this force that acts on matter and is being carried by dimensionless particles? We might even ask ourselves what it means to be dimensionless in existence?
Since science requires tools of measurement what are we measuring? We seem to be measuring the effects (photons and gluons) of reality not their causes (some unknown we can only define by its effects).

I think its true as far as our technology goes for all intents and purposes , but I still think matter lies beyond than what is already precieved.

What made me think that, is our equipment is comprised of atoms itself, so we cannot approach even smaller types of matter than an atom in the Greek context of the word. As far as we got are quark, glueons etc for which lies the event horizon on how small we can go into the rabbit hole so it comes across as being empty and mass less.

 

[WalterTrull]

I think ‘force’ is the mental structure of observed phenomena. It moves them and holds them together (or not).

I am particularly fond of Richard Conn Henry’s ‘The Mental Universe’ published here in ‘Nature”.
I like this publication for the availability of correlative links.

 

[setarcos]

In science what they are and what are observed to do are considered the same.

I understand that. What else can science do? The problem with that is we end up equating the black eye with the fist that produced it. Would it make sense to say that the gamma radiation from a nuclear explosion (what it is) is the same thing as the damage it does to the DNA in your body (what it does)?

For example force is that which is observed to produce changes in velocity of physical objects.

Then do we equate the force with the physical object whose velocity changed?
Defining "physical object" as that which has volume and mass what then do we make of the so called dimensionless particles - photons and gluons ? They too can be observed to be effected by "force".
So force is not unique to physical objects.

Energy is a property of a system that is a function of that system's speed, configuration and mass, which remains invariant as long as the system is isolated from its surroundings.

One example of a problem with this definition would be that an electron can lose or gain energy and jump to different energy levels in an atom but remain in both cases the same electron. In other words energy cannot be a fundamental property of an electron any more than my car is a fundamental property of myself unless I'm misunderstanding particle physics. Electrons apparently can lose or gain energy in an isolated system as well depending on what you mean by isolated system.
Energy must be an entity unto itself since it can be exchanged between particles without changing the particles themselves and it can act upon dimensionless particles not just physical particles.
As far as charges, I ask....why do like charges repel? Here's a funny answer I found from Science ABC
I was thinking...geared towards young children I hope but then I thought...nope, that's as good an answer as any.
"Like charges repel because they push each other away, while opposite charges attract because they pull each other towards each other."
Answers I've found are given from Relativity and quantum theories involving fields. So I ask...what is a field? Turns out its simply a mathematical construct which models expectations. It exists in reality only as an idea. So does the idea conform to reality or does reality conform to the idea? If the former, we still don't know what the reality is that the idea conforms to and thus have no way of knowing if reality will always conform to the idea.
If the latter then whose idea? And how does the idea give rise to a uniform reality?
We are modeling expectations all the way down but getting no closer to actually knowing the reality of these things. There seems to be absolutely no fundamental difference between an individual random mental ideation and a specific ideation modeled to fit universal experience.

 

[setarcos]

I still think matter lies beyond than what is already precieved.

I agree. I would say that our perception - through our various tools and instruments and senses - is woefully inadequate to get our knowledge beyond mere appearances.

As far as we got are quark, glueons etc for which lies the event horizon on how small we can go into the rabbit hole so it comes across as being empty and mass less.

If we insist on turning our experimental experiences into laws I think we're heading into confusion and ignorance as far as reality goes.
No one seems to be bothered by dimensionless particles. Let alone what the difference between not being in any dimension versus not existing would be.

 

[setarcos]

I think ‘force’ is the mental structure of observed phenomena.

Not sure what you mean by "mental structure" or how observed phenomena has one? Unless your referencing what I would call God's sustaining sentience.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I agree. I would say that our perception - through our various tools and instruments and senses - is woefully inadequate to get our knowledge beyond mere appearances.

If we insist on turning our experimental experiences into laws I think we're heading into confusion and ignorance as far as reality goes.
No one seems to be bothered by dimensionless particles. Let alone what the difference between not being in any dimension versus not existing would be.

I think for our experience, dimensionless-less particles are on par for course in a practical sense , but I think matter goes far far more into the micro as well as macro realms perhaps for infinity.

 

[WalterTrull]

Not sure what you mean by "mental structure" or how observed phenomena has one? Unless your referencing what I would call God's sustaining sentience.

I don’t know if you read Henry’s article, but he claims that all phenomena are mental, that they exist only as observation. The obvious question then becomes: “observed by whom or what?”

“God's sustaining sentience” I hadn’t heard that one before. I quite like it. Would you care to elaborate?

 

[exchemist]

I understand that. What else can science do? The problem with that is we end up equating the black eye with the fist that produced it. Would it make sense to say that the gamma radiation from a nuclear explosion (what it is) is the same thing as the damage it does to the DNA in your body (what it does)?

Then do we equate the force with the physical object whose velocity changed?
Defining "physical object" as that which has volume and mass what then do we make of the so called dimensionless particles - photons and gluons ? They too can be observed to be effected by "force".
So force is not unique to physical objects.

One example of a problem with this definition would be that an electron can lose or gain energy and jump to different energy levels in an atom but remain in both cases the same electron. In other words energy cannot be a fundamental property of an electron any more than my car is a fundamental property of myself unless I'm misunderstanding particle physics. Electrons apparently can lose or gain energy in an isolated system as well depending on what you mean by isolated system.
Energy must be an entity unto itself since it can be exchanged between particles without changing the particles themselves and it can act upon dimensionless particles not just physical particles.
As far as charges, I ask....why do like charges repel? Here's a funny answer I found from Science ABC
I was thinking...geared towards young children I hope but then I thought...nope, that's as good an answer as any.
"Like charges repel because they push each other away, while opposite charges attract because they pull each other towards each other."
Answers I've found are given from Relativity and quantum theories involving fields. So I ask...what is a field? Turns out its simply a mathematical construct which models expectations. It exists in reality only as an idea. So does the idea conform to reality or does reality conform to the idea? If the former, we still don't know what the reality is that the idea conforms to and thus have no way of knowing if reality will always conform to the idea.
If the latter then whose idea? And how does the idea give rise to a uniform reality?
We are modeling expectations all the way down but getting no closer to actually knowing the reality of these things. There seems to be absolutely no fundamental difference between an individual random mental ideation and a specific ideation modeled to fit universal experience.

No, energy is a property of a system, as @sayak83 says. Momentum is another. You would not say momentum is an entity, would you? Well, neither is energy. You can’t have a jug of momentum. Nor can you have a jug of energy, or a jug of temperature, say.(Temperature is proportional to one form of kinetic energy possessed by molecules.) All are properties of something.

To take your example of the electron, it has rest energy in its mass. It may also have potential energy, if it is in an electric field, as it is when bound to the nucleus of an atom, for example. In that case it will actually have both potential and kinetic energy, both of which can change if it jumps to a different orbital by emitting or absorbing a quantum of light.

Force and energy are linked quite closely, since a force acting through a distance does work, a form of energy. So lifting a weight through a distance does work, or ionising an atom by pulling away one of its electrons, does work (the ionisation energy).

But all this is a model of reality. A good model, so far, as it accounts for what we observe and enables us tp predict what else we should observe in future. But a model. I’m currently reading Jim Baggot’s book “Farewell to Reality”, in which he limits the aim of science to modelling things-as-we-measure-them, as distinct from things-in-themselves. This seems to fit with some of what you are saying. Things-in-themselves may lie forever behind a last veil that humanity cannot definitively pull aside.

 

[sayak83]

I think force and energy are essentially forms of matter.

No. Energy is a property of physical systems. Force is a type interaction between physical systems.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No. Energy is a property of physical systems. Force is a type interaction between physical systems.

That's not certian yet.

 

[RestlessSoul]

What is a force? Most people are aware of the discovered forces in nature. Weak force, electric charge, magnetic fields, strong force, gravitational force....forces all the way up and down. But what actually IS a force? What is a field in science? For that matter what IS energy? Of course we can simply say "blank" is and then give its definition. But do our definitions tell us what these things actually are? Or do our definitions simply tell us what these things have been observed to do?

You seem to be asking, do the laws of physics tell us facts about the world? To which the answer surely has to be, only indirectly.

A recurring theme in a lifetime of debate between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein, was Einstein’s ambition for physics to provide a full description of the universe vs Bohr’s willingness to be satisfied with predictions that work. “Shut up and calculate”, or “lift a corner of the veil”?

 

[exchemist]

That's not certian yet.

Yes it is. It is implicit in the definition of the terms.

 

[exchemist]

You seem to be asking, do the laws of physics tell us facts about the world? To which the answer surely has to be, only indirectly.

A recurring theme in a lifetime of debate between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein, was Einstein’s ambition for physics to provide a full description of the universe vs Bohr’s willingness to be satisfied with predictions that work. “Shut up and calculate”, or “lift a corner of the veil”?

Indeed. It may be that quantum theory has done the most to dash our hopes of grasping reality definitively. But it may be that this lofty hope was only the preserve of physicists in any case. As I’ve observed before, in chemistry we are quite used to dealing with partial models, sometimes using more than one model for the same system, depending on what we are trying to do. So we don’t pretend that such models are complete representations of nature.

 

[ratiocinator]

That's not certian yet.

It is, actually. These terms have exact definitions in the context of science. Hence we know that energy is always a property of physical systems because that's how it's defined.

 

[setarcos]

No, energy is a property of a system, as @sayak83 says.

I disagree. Take Einstein's famous equation for instance : E=mc^2. What is E a property of here? The equation is basically understood to mean that energy and mass(matter) are interchangeable. They are considered to be different forms of the same thing. If we rearrange the equation with some simple algebra we can see that m=E/c^2. In other words mass is simply bound energy. A lot of energy.
If energy were merely a property of a system we would then have energy being a property of itself -nonsensical- which leaves us with the same question. If energy is defined as "the ability to do work" and work to mean "the transference of energy" - the energy needed to do a task, by making a force move through a distance and force to be "an external agent capable of changing a body's state of rest or motion" - all common relevant physics definitions - then what is it that is actually doing the work and what is this external agent defined as a force?

Momentum is another. You would not say momentum is an entity, would you?

No, but that is because your comparing apples to oranges.
This all depends on how your defining property. Momentum is a relational property. I am talking about intrinsic properties.

Nor can you have a jug of energy

Actually, this begs the question...given Einstein's equivalency equation apparently you can. In theory.

You can’t have a jug of momentum.

That is because...as I've said, momentum is only a relational property. It doesn't describe anything that inherently exists. It only describes a relational observation.

All are properties of something.

As described above...not all of those things you mentioned are intrinsic properties. For instance temperature is an extrinsic property of matter and it doesn't make much sense to consider a property to be a property of itself as shown with energy above. Does it? Am I missing something?

It may also have potential energy, if it is in an electric field, as it is when bound to the nucleus of an atom

Another question. What is a field and how does is bind if its simply a mathematical construct of probable reality?

In that case it will actually have both potential and kinetic energy, both of which can change if it jumps to a different orbital by emitting or absorbing a quantum of light.

Yes, all this is high school textbook physics. My question deals with what between the observations. What actually, fundamentally...materialistically is energy, fields, and forces based on?
What are we actually observing here?

Force and energy are linked quite closely, since a force acting through a distance does work, a form of energy.

This doesn't answer the question of what the fundamental foundations a force is as concerns particle physics. What happens to the force when its not doing work? Does it disappear? Does it just wait idly by until its called upon to define the boundaries of reality again? Do we define "whatever" only as a force when it does work? What is the electric charge or magnetic field when its not doing work? What is it that makes it capable of doing work?

(the ionisation energy)

What is this ionization energy that makes it capable of exerting a force?

limits the aim of science to modelling things-as-we-measure-them, as distinct from things-in-themselves. This seems to fit with some of what you are saying. Things-in-themselves may lie forever behind a last veil that humanity cannot definitively pull aside.

Sounds about right. Its seems to me that because we seem incapable of knowing things in themselves we are bound to having faith in those observations continuing to be as expected, meanwhile between the thinking we know and the known may sit a religious experience.

 

[ratiocinator]

I disagree.

How can you disagree with something that is true by definition?

Take Einstein's famous equation for instance : E=mc^2.

It's a general relationship that applies in all sorts of situations. It relates mass (another property of things) to energy.

If energy were merely a property of a system we would then have energy being a property of itself

Doesn't follow. Mass and energy are properties that are related.

...then what is it that is actually doing the work and what is this external agent defined as a force?

Whatever it is that has the necessary energy.

No, but that is because your comparing apples to oranges.

Not at all. In fact they are very closely related. In relativity they even get combined. Special relativity has an energy-momentum 4-vector and general relativity has a stress–energy–momentum tensor.

They are also both quantities that are conserved because of symmetries in the laws of physics (Noether's theorem). Momentum is conserved because the laws of physics don't vary from place to place and energy is conserved because they don't vary over time.

Actually, this begs the question...given Einstein's equivalency equation apparently you can. In theory.

No, you can't. Both mass and energy are propitiates. You can't have a jug of either.

What is a field and how does is bind if its simply a mathematical construct of probable reality?

At its simplest a field (in physics) is something that has a value (scalar, vector, or tensor) at each point in space and time. It can bond things because fields can cause a force of attraction between different things. Gravity is a field that bonds the moon to the earth. Not sure where you get a "mathematical construct of probable reality". Perhaps you've read something about quantum fields (which would not be a good place to start if you're asking what a force is)?

As for what a force is, have you actually read any basic stuff?

Force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org