When a charged object is present, it creates an electric field in the space around it. This electric field has a direction and magnitude at every point in space. The direction of the electric field vector at any point is the direction in which a positive test charge would be pushed if it were placed at that point.

The electric field vector is not a physical object that moves through space, but rather a mathematical construct that describes the properties of the electric field. It is possible to manipulate the direction and magnitude of the electric field by moving the charged object, but this does not involve the movement of the electric field vector itself.

It is worth noting that the concept of a "stiff" electric field vector moving as a whole is not a meaningful description of the behavior of electric fields. Instead, the electric field is a continuous field that exists throughout space and interacts with charged particles that enter its vicinity.

Howdy Yousif Abdul Amer,

You have provided a very clear statement of what you cover and I agree with you on what you have described. However we must be wary of our confidence if: "Moreover, vectors act instantaneous because vectors are 1 dimensional" is valid as the nature of Nature here. I would like to explore that caution in this discussion thread. It is a recent new research result along with the conclusion that the electromagnetic field is a rest frame in the universe. Galileo was right that "it moves" and the solar system theories had to adjust to that nature of Nature.

Now, if "vectors act instantaneous" then "moving a charged particle" would have an ~simultaneous effect at the full distance of the electric field represented by a vector. Herein lies, for me, an astounding condition if something like I sought to imply with "stiff" is not the case. How could it happen if both the charge and a distant test charge do not move "together" and if so, how do we explain the nature of the process that effects that result? This is the critical issue of the new result reported in the passage quoted. Its a new game, and apparently on a new playing field.

Thank you for a good start, but "the game's afoot" and not over yet.

Happy Trails, Len

The short answer is No, they aren’t.

Howdy Stam Nicolis,

Your succinct answers are always clear, thank you. Unfortunately, I cannot take no for an answer since it only addresses the wording of the inquiry and the actual inquiry is about how "instantaneous" can happen. That inquiry is not addressed with "no."

What is your view on this new research result? Whether it implies "stiff" or some other natural process, "instantaneous" needs clarification.

Happy Trails, Len

The longer answer is that electric fields are described by electromagnetic waves, that are transverse waves. That's why they don't have longitudinal components of either electric or magnetic fields (unless they're confined by boundaries, as is the case of wave guides). This doesn't mean any component propagates instantaneously.

Electromagnetic waves propagate at a finite speed, not instantaneously.

They do have polarization (due to the fact that the electric and magnetic field are vectors).

Sound waves-that propagate along and within bars-can and do have longitudinal polarization. They, also, propagate at a finite velocity, the speed of sound in the bar.

So, once more, No, electric fields don't propagate like sound waves. The equations of motion are subject to different constraints. All solutions of Maxwell's equations are solutions of the wave equation; the converse isn't true, however, because Maxwell's equations contain constraints. How to take them into account is known and the subject of any course in classical electrodynamics: One introduces the gauge potential and uses the solution for the gauge potential to construct ``gauge invariant'' quantities-namely the electric and magnetic fields and, from them, the energy flux.

Thank You Stam Nicolis, this is much better for me because past awareness of what you write is enriched by the exchange. However, your valuable summary of the past understanding in classical electrodynamics does not include a discussion of the recent results related to non-locality and the assertions I have quoted. That is the opening quote here. I trust my source to be accurate in the quote, but of course, his source may be wrong. That has happened in physics over the years.

I agree my sound analogy has different physics and it was only introduced as an attempt to highlight the possibility of two very different responses of a re-bar to a hammer blow. So, to clarify our exchange, what is your opinion of the new results quoted and how would you explain "instantaneous" as it appears in the quote, even for transverse vectors. Is this a new game on a new playing field, or just another "red herring" in the world of measurement and thought? I'm asking because I would like to know what ideas you think are worthy of exploration here.

Happy Trails, Len

Howdy Folks,

Realizations in discussion of Chian Fan's No.9 Is the spin of an electron really spin? due to an excellent description of “the Higgs mechanism” by Sydney Ernest Grimm on Page 5 of replies there led me to an understanding:

Vectors do not act instantaneously. The fields they represent were formed at universe scale with their matter when the universe was "small." They remained universe scale, stretching with the universe as it expanded. If their matter is moved, the field changes spread as waves. It is not instantaneous. It seems that: “Especially because vectors are not bound to the speed of light, vectors act instantaneous.” is just wrong. Also, “Moreover, vectors act instantaneous because vectors are 1 dimensional (vectors are not bound to the speed of light).” is also just wrong.

That closes this question for me. Actually, Yousif Abdul Amer also set the stage well for this realization. The discussion at the location noted above will have further development I am sure, should you be interested.

Thanks for your replies here,

Happy Trails, Len