Those who beleive action at distance without contact is possible do beleive in a kind of force field. I do not. Those who beleive in field should explain what is inside one cm cube of that field that is responsible to interact with matter and also provide a force on matter.

Louis,

Thanks your answer. But if not a force field, what interacts ? Let us take a mobile phone, when you call somebody, what goes from one mobile to the other ? Photons ?? What keeps Jupiter on its orbit : gravitons ?

The STOE (see https://www.researchgate.net/project/STOE-replaces-relativity-and-quantum-mechanics and the paper by the same name) considers there is a plenum (aether, spaceime, etc.) which exists in all the universe. Matter exerts a force to warp the plenum by contact. The plenum waves are transmitted and exert a force by contact on matter (thus directing matter) all by contact. Gravity is one such example of this action. The speed of gravity waves is much faster than light (van Flandern and others). Thus ALL interactions occur faster than light - all are non-local in Bell's definitions. Also, special relativity is rejected (there is a paper reference in the project). However, the General Relativity field equation is a calculating method (staight up math, only) that is similar to the idea that the right side causes the warping of the plenum (left side). Then a inverse transform returns the action of the plenum on matter. The STOE has a universal equation that has been applied to many current problem observations such as galaxy redshift and discrete redshift, rotation curves, Pioneer anomaly, light diffraction, etc..(no need for the complexity of GR.

The STOE follows the QSSC which has demonstrated better agreement with observations and uses the field equation.

To John,

You agree that there is a "universe", a container in which everything lives. The properties of the container is that each point defines a location, in space and time, and moreover at a given location one can define rotations.

The universe is then endowed with a geometry, a representation of these points, and rotation. What it is if relativity is not accepted ? How an observer does locate a point ? Is there a metric (which assumes a manifold structure) ?

Hi Jean Claude

You wrote (But if not a force field, what interacts ? Let us take a mobile phone, when you call somebody, what goes from one mobile to the other ? Photons ?? What keeps Jupiter on its orbit : gravitons ?)

Because we do not see air, we see its properties and we believe air is not a force field. We do not see if there is something leaving a phone going to the other one but one property is that we can block something in between, suggesting there is really something going from one to the other at speed of light. Also it is possible to block gravity using an intense flat ray of light. I have used visible light and 2 more scientist succeeded with other frequencies. Maybe you would like to read the papers showing that effect.

The first recorded observation was published under ( EFFECT OF LIGHT ON GRAVITATIONAL ATTRACTION) in Physics Essays 24,4(2011). The second paper gives a measurement of that effect and was published under (FURTHER EXPERIMENTS DEMONSTRATING THE EFFECT OF LIGHT ON GRAVITATION) in Applied Physics Research, vol 7, no4; 2015.

Another confirmation is with (Light-Caused Enhancement on Gravitational "Constant" G , February 2014) by Chungpin Hovering Liao , Masachusetts Institute of Technology in an article February 2014.

An independent scientist in Prague, Libor Neumann , observed similar results and published his results under( Experimental verification of electromagnetic-gravity effect: Weighing light and heat) , PHYSICS ESSAYS 30, 2 (2017).

We exchanged emails together after his publications and he was surprised that we found the same thing.

An easy answer is that a distortion of space-time cause that effect but nobody can describe physically what is that distortion because space and time are concepts and not physical something that one can twist. I know that the mathematics gives the right answer but other answers are possible also. Why reject them?

I still prefer something like the micro quanta described by Maurizio Michelini in (Beyond the Special and General Relativity Theories

The Micro-quanta Paradigm).

At least that explains the content of a cm cube of space able to interact with matter and it also explains so many other things. I doubt his micro quanta have frequency though for simple reasons.

Louis

I do not dismiss the experiments, but I keep my questions : how do you measure a location, a rotation, and any geometric quantity ? You use equations, you compute with them, you must have a way to put figures in these equations. The real world is not made of mathematics, there are no chart or frame available to the public.

This is a crucial point in the "Manifesto". If we do not know what we observe and study, any mathematical computation can be interpreted at will. This is what happens since the Quantum Physics : everybody claims to have proven his point, but nobody agree about what has been proven.

Try to explain how fields and forces interact. It is possible and is done for the Lorentz force. It can also be done for the dynamic field that represents our living space, the universe. This involves explaining the origin of inertia. When that succeeds, then also the attraction or repel between electric charges can be explained. In these approaches the dynamic pulse response of the field plays a major role. The Green's function is a static response. All basic fields obey the same field equations, which are partial differential equations. Something generates the dynamic or static pulse responses. Understanding what generates these pulses is crucial for comprehending how fields interact wit forces.

Not the forces are fundamental. Instead, the generators of pulses are fundamental.

Everything is clearly explained in "The Hilbert Book Model Project Survey"; http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0213

Stochastic processes that own a characteristic function are far mor fundamental than forces and force carriers.

Dear Hans,

I know your theory. My question does not address a specific theory, it is general. In the concept of "force field", actually the word "force" is just to name something that we are used to read. The concept of force comes from Newton's Mechanics, but has no real equivalent in contemporary physics. What we mean is that material bodies have some properties, amongst them a location and a motion, and that "force fields" change them. They act on trajectories, this is the most visible part of their action, but it is not limited to that. The state of a particle is not necessarily limited to its motion, even including its rotational motion.

So we have a link geometry (what is motion ?) -> Mechanics (inertia and momentum) - > force field (energy).

A mathematical explanation is not enough to show what is interacting with matter.

Wave versus soliton versus movement

Imagine this experiment: a 10 cm diameter steal pipe is 3 meters long. It lies on a table and there is a small diaphragm on each end. The tube is fill with water. A sensor is placed on the right side touching the end of the pipe and a sensor is placed on the diaphragm on the right side also.

Using a small mallet, a light tap is administered on the left diaphragm. The water inside is compressed behind that diaphragm and that compression moves toward the other end in a manner called soliton.

The left end of the steal pipe also sense that light tap and the compression of the steal atoms moves also towards the other end. Since steal is a hard medium compared to water, the sensor on the right side on the pipe gives a signal when the compression reaches the end of the pipe. The sensor on the diaphragm on the right side will give a signal after because water is less rigid that steal. Can we say a wave front did travel fast in steal an slow in water? No. It is not a wave because it does not have frequency. It has movement and a medium but is not a wave; it is a disturbance that travelled from one atom to the other.

A military gun shoots 200 bullets per second at a target. There is frequency and speed but that is not a wave neither.

In physics, a wave is a disturbance that travel in a medium at a certain speed from one point to the other and that has to have a frequency, meaning it cannot be a one shot movement. No medium, no wave. No frequency, no wave.

Light can travel without the need of a medium. Light cannot be a wave. Light has frequency and speed but is not a wave as understood in physics because there is no disturbance of a medium travelling from one spot to the other.

But light can be reorganised as matter when high frequency light becomes an electron and a positron. And matter can be reverted into light when the electron meets a positron. That suggest strongly that what makes light and what makes solid matter is the same but it is organised differently. In the electron, that can interact with incoming light and can emit light. In yellow light, it is not at one location but is moving constantly at speed c. In a electron, it is a stable system interacting with everything travelling in space.

What causes gravity seems to obey the same thing because light can block gravity and gravity can interact with light. Matter can also block gravity and emit the same.

In summary, light, gravity, matter, what is sent by objects with a surplus of electrons seems to be all related; the difference is how these interact with one another and how these are 'organised' as light, gravity, electrified space or atoms.

If we look closely at the actual concept of electric field, we see that a change in intensity of the field travels at the speed of light. Also a change in the intensity of gravity field travels at the speed of light. That means there is something travelling in space, something real, not a concept. The concept of field implies that there has to be something real and that can be blocked. It is easy to block what is sent from a charged plastic ruler to a sensor with a sheet of paper. We have done it many time when teaching science. If a field was simply all the region of space where a sensor would sense the presence of a charge then it could not be blocked.

Dear Louis,

Actually what you describe with a pipe is a shock wave : a fluid can be represented as a set of material points which follow integral curves of a common vector field (the curves do not cross) and are animated by some motion of their own (they are vibrating usually). A shock wave is a perturbation which occurs at a speed which is different than the speed of the material points. It can be easily expressed in mathematics, and one sees that it propagates on 2 dimensional surfaces (the shock waves). So there is nothing close to a frequency.

My question is basic : almost every physicist speak of "field", but if a field is some physical object, meaning it exists out of our imagination or will, we must characterize it by some basic properties, and acknowledge that it exists really. The properties that I list are the ones about which we should agree. There is no assumption about the interaction or the propagation, only the ideas that they happen. The "how" is the topic of specific theories.

About the "speed of propagation", actually it is a simple consequence of the assumption of the existence of a "universe", "observer', "force field". An observer occupies a location in the space at each time, what he observes (is simultaneous for him) moves at the same apparent speed, the field changes at the location of its propagation, and as a consequence it propagates at the same speed as the observer.

Dear Sydney,

To be clear, I stated my point of view and I subscribe to the existence of the 4 objects that I mentioned.

But I do not see what are the objects that you propose. What is a "quantum field" ? By object, I do not mean a mathematical description of any kind, but 1) is this a real physical object which exists independently of our imagination ? 2) What are its properties ?

You say that the "universe is in rest". I guess that by 'the universe you mean, as I do, the container in which everything lives." What do you mean "is at rest". Usually one means at rest as opposed to in motion. Or do you mean that "the universe never changes" ?

Your description leads to the idea that there is some physical (?) entity which "creates" the world. Is it your point of view ?

Moving uniformly in a flat field does not call any forces. However, starting to change this condition calls a reaction from a special field. This special field tries to keep the current static status quo. This phenomenon is known as inertia. Still, our universe is expanding. So, something is continuously altering the rest condition of uniform movement. Thus, inertia is continuously calling an acceleration that results in a force. This force keeps massive objects together. This phenomenon is known as gravity. The special field applies the fact that change ∇ψ of a field ψ covers five terms. These terms can compensate each other.

ϕ=ϕᵣ+ϕ=∇ψ≡(∇ᵣ+∇)(ψᵣ+ψ)=∇ᵣψᵣ−〈∇,ψ〉+∇ψᵣ+∇ᵣψ±∇×ψ

For example ∇ᵣψ can compensate ∇ψᵣ in the field change ∇ψ.

Details are explained in the chapter on gravity and inertia in "The Hilbert Book Model Project Survey"; http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0213

Dear Hans,

In your theory the universe has a crucial role. You speak of "uniform" motion, but for this we need to define the motion, that is a geometry of the universe : how we locate a point ? how we define a trajectory, a speed, a velocity,... The universe is said to be expanding, but how this expansion manifests-itself ? In General Relativity the expansion of the universe is actually a change in the metric along a time vector.

The "force" that you identify with gravity is the resistance opposed by a body to change its motion, that is inertia. So your theory is, on this point, close to the Einstein's theory of gravitation. But what about electromagnetism, or nuclear forces ?

jean claude Dutailly

Points may be located relative to other points. But "Relativity" adds baggage to the term including the Lorentz equations and the constancy of the speed of light and the idea the Michelson-Morley experiment failed (it didn't see paper by Dayton Miller). There is no "vacuum".

Dear Sydney,

I have read many books about epistemology, phenomenology, idealism, positivism,... and the unending discussions about "what do I know ?", "Is there a reality?", "Substance and form...". As with your latest post, I am tempted to say "And so what ?". I have asked my question in this forum because I find that the idea of the "Manifesto" is sound. Rather than discuss, in general and abstract terms, about truth and knowledge, is it possible for the community of Physicists to agree on the objects and processes that we study ? Then the different theories can be expressed in a common language, and their validity agreed upon by everybody.

It is clear, from the answers received that there is no consensus on the Manifesto.

Physics is not the collection of data, which would be classified and organized as it could be done for plants or insects in natural science. Its purpose is not to build a great museum, where all the occurrences of physical phenomena would be stored, to be accessed by some app which would tell that, some day, a similar phenomenon has occurred and there is 89 % chances that you will see the same result. Sciences in general, and physics in particular, have a higher goal : to understand how the world work. This implies to identify objects and processes and propose theories which can forecast what can be expected. Quantum Physics give a great importance to measure. But any measure is an experiment, in which a system which is known interact with a system which is probed. The data which are collected are related to identifiable phenomenon, they are expressed by figures which are assigned to quantities in a mathematical formalism, in a model where specific physical phenomenon are represented by mathematical objects. A measure uses a gauge, which tells how a unknown quantity is related to a known quantity. And any gauge is based on a model, even the measure of a length with a ruler.

A scientist must be humble, and accept that all questions have not an immediate answer, but he must be ambitious : we want to understand because it is one characteristic of our species. We are not animals just looking for the next batch of food.

Popper deplored the great schism in Physics, when Quantum Physics gave up the great purpose to understand. Quantum Physics claim to be always right, but nobody agree about what that means.

Dear John,

At the minimum we must agree that there is something called the universe, in which we can identify events, points in space and time. And more : we can measure special angles along different directions. This is a beginning !

To go further we can notice that these measures are related to a definite observer. And, except in Physics Books, nobody use an orthonormal frame to locate spatially a point. One uses different methods, usually based on measure of angles and one measure of length, with different conventional protocols. Their only purpose is that anybody, following the same protocol can locate the same point. For measure of time location for millennium the protocol was the occurrence with some astronomical phenomenon. One can use a clock, which measures the elapsed time, if one knows a conventional starting point.

Lorentz and the speed of light come well after these basic considerations !

jean claude Dutailly

Agree to Universe, identify points and events. Angles? Order of events? Physics uses a set of standard measures. These standard measures may change in an experiment/observation. For example, a rod (standard for length measure) can change with the temperature. Angles between observers can change for example if there are media density variation between observers such one uses a telescope and another doesn't.

Wish you hadn't said "clock". Ideally one could use a clock with the assumption the time between ticks is the same. Note: "assumption". Consider a pendulum clock. Its period between ticks varies with gravity (height) and acceleration relative to one staying in place. Why shouldn't other clock types be subject to the same pressures/forces as a pendulum clock? It is assumed. We have no model as to what causes the decay rate of atomic clocks. So, acceleration or height may change the tick interval.

So, the problem becomes one of doing experiments, repeating experiments, and prediction results. The models become changeable as new experiments are developed.

So, the Michelson-Morley experiment did detect what was labeled an "ether wind". others repeated the experiment and found an "ether wind" (Dayton Miller) . But we have no idea what was detected. The "ether wind" does not correspond to any velocity relative to stars, galaxies, or CMB. Further The "moving conductor and magnet field" inconsistency has not been resolved except by me, but i'm a maverick so it is not accepted). So, Special Relativity is not valid as experiments have rejected it. But General Relativity is merely a math thing to solve equations by reducing the variables by one - 3+1 to 2+1.

Actually the time as measured by a given observer does not depend on the observer. The clocks of all observers run at the same rate. Read the definition of the second : "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyper…ne levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom." There is no mention of the observer.

The observer is a special "object" of Physics : the observer has a property, he has free will, he can choose his location, units, … but this free will has a price, we must tell how the measures done by an observer change from one observer to another, this is the principle of relativity ("the physical laws do not depend on the observer"). So we need to distinguish the time measured by an observer A (his proper time), and the time at which another observer B locates the observer A. The same event is not measured by the same figure, but there is a rule which enables to go from one measure to another.

And the Michelson experiment has a simple explanation. For any observer there is a distinction between his past, his future and his present. A force field propagates in the vacuum : the set of points where it propagates are the points where its value change, these points are necessarily in the present of the observer. So this set of points "move" at the same "speed" as the observer. And the "speed of light" c is nothing more than the universal constant to go from units of spatial lengths to the units of time.

Yes, that is the standard accepted concept - but experiment shows it has problems. The Shapiro Delay shows light changes speed. It is convenient to assume the physical laws remain the same so accounting for the environment is part of the laws. I presume you accept that the Lorentz equations are not suggesting a real, physical change to a rod or clock in the proper frame? The equations are merely the way for a moving observer to calculate what is happening in the proper frame? If the speed of light can vary, the Lorentz equations become suspect.

Did the MM experiment detect a variation? I didn't follow you simple explanation.

When nobody agree on what is the space/time, material bodies, force fields, anything can be said, and even claimed to be proven. The idea of "speed of light" is complicated. What do we mean by speed ? What is light ? And involving the Lorentz equations … This is an example of the drama which is played everyday.

It is true that the demonstration of the "Lorentz formula", the same unchanged for a century, is so disastrous that one can be forgiven to not understand what it means.

And no : there is no way "the speed of light" can vary.

Momentum is fundamental, but an object. Force and Energy derive from how momentum changes. They are not objects either. They are properties of objects and the space time they occupy and pass through.

jean claude Dutailly

Well, we have an impasse. The STOE uses the changing c as part of the explaining of the Hodge Experiments and the diffraction of light experiments See

video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFDB-K_sSjU&t=25s

for a short intro description of experiment that reject wave model of light.

Of course, being experiments implies they require explanation - This is how I get around pointless discussion of what is reality - just present a model of the experiments.

Please use a proper foundation to show your arguments. Experiments cannot show whether forces and force carriers are fundamental. Only a foundation shows what is fundamental. All other approaches are guesses instead of proves.

Once you created a model that is based on a suitable foundation, then you can start a really scientific discussion. All other approaches turn into rubbish.

Jean Claude

It is good to refresh our understanding of the fundamental principles of physics and i applaud you for this attempt. I will be interested in seeing a further iteration as you develop your ideas.

Can you clarify something for me please?

Your 'principle of least action' - Is this a redefinition of inertia and the principle of conservation of motion?

Dear all,

At least we have a good discussion...

For a better understanding of the Manifesto, let us come back to Newton's Physics. There was a universe, represented by Galilean geometry, material bodies with a translational motion, characterized by a mass and a momentum, action at a distance is possible with forces. Gravitation combines inertial mass, Euclidean distance and force. The treatment of Rotation is a bit convoluted and clear only for solid. But everything is consistent and has a physical meaning. Electrostatic and magnetism could be included with charges. The problem came with the Lorentz's laws and a force which can be created by a time varying current.

Actually electromagnetism found its natural framework with relativity. But other forces appear with nuclear physics, meanwhile photons and bosons complicate the field picture.

Quantum Physics has not brought a new physical object or phenomenon : the celebrated axioms (hilbert space, eigen values,...) do not cite any physics (except for the Schrodinger law which is not always true).

So it seems legitimate to propose a set of concepts along the ideas of the Manifesto.

Several fellows attribute special properties to the universe, "the container". Energy, action on material bodies,... Why not ? They are additional properties that we can assume, model and then check as theories. Actually General Relativity assumes the existence of a metric, which is the physical part of the universe. It varies from one point to another and must be accounted for in modeling a system. And it holds an essential place in Einstein's theory of gravitation, where it replaces the gravitational field.

To John,

I have watched the video. As many such experiments they go straight from facts to definitive and general conclusions. The laws of propagation of a force field are complicated, and the general idea that they propagate in "waves" is correct, but a bit simplistic. Telecoms Engineers, who deal with them everyday, use more complex models. And anyway the "speed of light", as it is used in the Lorentz formulas, has nothing to do with the propagation of the EM field. These formulas are purely geometric, to go from one orthonormal 4 dimensional frame to another. Unfortunately the "proof" repeated over and over of these formulas involves light, which has nothing to do in the matter. c represents simply the universal constant to go from units of length to units of time, in a 4 dimensional geometry.

To Ian,

The "principle of least action" is a, commonly accepted, law to express the conservation of energy. The universe is more than a collection of points, it is a continuum, and in any physical system we must consider continuous processes, so that the equilibrium is considered not point by point, but on a 4 dimensional area of space time. The variables are maps, and not their values at each point, so that the conservation of energy is measured by integrals. We have the same issue with the usual interpretation of QM. All this and more is explained in a book which will be available within some weeks.

However it seems still possible to coneive a

I would want to express my viewpoint on the question raised by j.c. Dutailly.

The concept of force field is based on the concept of field potential that represents a potentiality of the field that becomes a real physical effect only when a physical object interferes with the field itself that is generated by another object. Hence according to this definition force fields are not objects but potential situations.

It is manifest that this definition is valid for gravitational fields, for electrostatic fields and for magnetic fields. An autonomous electromagnetic field instead doesn’t exist and in physical situations it is defined by the reciprocal action of electric field and of magnetic field.

With regard to fundamental principles of physics, in a real situation characterized by very numerous principles often also in reciprocal conflict, the Manifesto has identifyied 11 fundamental principles that include the principle of causality, the principle of relativity, the principle of conservation of energy. The principle of locality instead isn’t a fundamental principle of physics and of Manifesto. In fact the principle of locality claims it isn’t possible an instantaneous action between objects that are remote. This principle was necessary in Newton’s physics because Newton didn’t know the concept of field and force was an action at distance that involves a delay time for its performance. This principle was valid also in General Relativity because Einstein maked use of a different concept of field that isn’t connected with the concept of force. But above all Einstein rejected the non-locality due to quantum effects. Ordinary quantum mechanics is a wrong theory not because of the principle of locality but because of the indeterminacy principle that is the founding principle of that theory. In fact the indeterminacy principle isn’t a fudamental principle of Manifesto.

The force field allows an instantaneous action also at a great distance because of the field potential. It is also true that the force between remote objects becomes smaller when distance becomes greater but it isn’t a confirmation of the principle of locality.

I consider the philosophical representation of the universe by Grimm is interesting and I think the only representation that is valid in physics is the image B. It is certainly limited as Greem says, but it is the only scientific representation. It is known that philosophy is able to give an answer to all questions while science doesn’t have this power and hence it is limited but I prefer limits of science with respect to philosophical infinite. On the other hand it seems to me that Grimm’s representation raises this problem: is the universe finite or infinite? Is this problem scientific or philosophical?

Only a uniform movement of objects is "natural". Accelerated movement is counteracted by something that we call inertia. You need to understand how fields implement inertia to be able to understand gravitational and electrical forces.

Inertia is supported by a special field that prevents the change of a moving field excitation and the change of the movement vectors. The field excitation occurs in a field that differs from the special field.

See the section on inertia in "The Hilbert Book Model Project Survey"; http://vixra.org/abs/1903.0213.

Quaternionic differential calculus divides the first order change ∇ψ of each field ψ in five terms. Part of these terms can compensate other terms.

ϕ= ϕᵣ+𝞥=∇ψ≡(∇ᵣ +𝝯)(ψᵣ+𝞧)=∇ᵣψᵣ−〈𝝯,𝞧〉+𝝯ψᵣ+∇ᵣ𝞧±𝝯×𝞧

𝝯ψᵣ and ∇ᵣ𝞧 can compensate each other, such that the whole field ψ= ψᵣ+𝞧 stays unchanged. If ψᵣ represents the potential of the deformation of another field and 𝞧 represents the field of velocities of the constituents of the moving pattern, then when these uniform velocities change because the pattern accelerates, then the gradient of the potential counteracts this change.

If you don't comprehend quaternionic partial differential equations, then you cannot comprehend inertia. The special field ψ=ψᵣ+𝞧 represents the mechanisms that keep the "natural" condition intact.

Thanks Daniele,

I fully subscribe to the goals of the Manifesto : the only way for physicists to sort out the mess in which stands Theoretical Physics is to define some concepts common to our community. They are expressed in words and general terms, they are, after this first step, made more precise in assumptions and theories which can then be tested.

This is because of that that the issue of force field seemed important to me. The word is used commonly, it is the latest "object" introduced in Physics, but it is clear that there is no consensus on what do we mean by field. It is related to the Principle of Locality. Expressed simply the Principle says that "a physical process is defined by the value of the physical quantities at the location of the process".

So we need to explain what is a process : it is any phenomenon in which physical objects interact. Abd to understand the Principle of Locality it is useful to come back to Newton's Physics, which is certainly one beautiful consistent theory, still very efficient for most applications. One crucial concept of Newton's physics is force : a force is located at a point, it manifests itself by a change of momentum of material objects, so actually it has a "potential existence". As the example of gravitation shows, we have 2 possible interpretations : either an action at a distance (the quantities involved are accounted for the values at the source, where and when they are measured), or the "potential" which manifests is some copy of quantities measured at the source (the idea of a "time delay" between the value at the source and the value at the location of the interaction) deformed according to some rules. In this second interpretation we come back, one way or another, to the idea of "force field" which propagates in the vacuum (where it does not express its potential), and interacts with material bodies. The electric and magnetic interactions could be incorporated in Newton's Physics : it suffices to add charges to the list of properties of material bodies. The real issue came with the term dE/dt in the Maxwell's equations : it became difficult to accept time varying charges, and the idea that charges were not constant. Moreover the measure of the "speed of light" showed that "something" is transported from a source. Then the concept of force field (which underlines that the field manifests itself by a force) has been borne. And there was no need for the idea of action at a distance. And indeed this idea is one the basic tool of magic tricks.

One possible answer to these issues is that the "force field" is nothing more than some deformation of the universe, a ripple in its fabric, which propagates. General Relativity, on solid ground, acknowledge that, at least, the universe has a physical property, in the metric. The metric exists everywhere, changes from one point to another, and could be a good contender to be the support of these "force fields". It is the basic idea behind Einstein's theory of gravitation. But it raises several issues. The metric is a pure geometric quantity. It is possible to relate the metric to a gravitational force, but through a bit convoluted assumption (it acts through a unique connection derived from the metric). It seems difficult to incorporate other force fields in the same framework without significant assumptions about the geometric representation of the universe (such as additional dimensions). Moreover energy is at least a concept as important as momentum. Its basic definition is that, in any process, there is a quantity (measured by a scalar) which is exchanged between the objects, such that the balance is null. And it is expressed, in all physics models, through the principle of least action and lagrangians. So we need an explicit lagrangian involving the field, or the metric, whatever its definition. Einstein solved the problem with the scalar curvature, but its physical justification is very weak.

So, coming back to the question : are force fields physical objects of their own ? If they have a value at any location (which can be measured by their interaction), propagate in the vacuum (their value change from one point to another, but keep some relation with a source), exchange energy with other objects, it seems simpler to assume that they are physical objects of their own. This does not preclude that they interact, and so are modified, themselves with other objects, and first with themselves (the lagrangian for the field is a key component to explain their propagation). And of course it does not preclude any assumption about their nature or representation.

Hello jean claude Dutailly , in the question you raised the comment "Moreover the idea of a gravitational field raises the existence and measure of gravitational charges, and the relation between inertial and gravitational charges." I understood this as your implication that the existence of the field leads us into having to accept the existence of a gravitational 'particle' or agent? I'd be interested if you could answer that.

On the existence of gravitational "particles", I am wholly unsatisfied that gravitation is a result of any particular particle to be honest. I er on the side that Gravity is an unavoidable result of distortions in a wider ubiquitous field - a field in which "force fields" are essential and unavoidable. Without boundary conditions there is no coherent behaviour of anything. The misconception I think is that boundaries imply deterministic outcomes that are contrary to understanding. I'd argue that randomness is only possible 'because of determinism'

Locked orbital systems such as our moon/earth exist very happily in a parent solar system, which in turn exists in a parent galactic system. I think it is the very existence of boundary conditions in the distortion of space that permits the local action and simultaneously supports action at a distance. We don't have to undermine accepted physics to account for action at a distance. It seems a "common knowledge" to assume that marrying quantum and classical MUST require breaking something, I think that view is flawed to be honest.

warm regards

Scot

To Scot,

1) The concept of force field implies that they interact with material bodies according to some specific properties of these bodies, what is commonly called their charges. When the theory of force fields was borne, it was logical to assume that there was a "gravitational charge", similar to the electric charge. But the Newton's theory of gravitation, well checked, is expressed with the inertial mass. And all experiments show that the gravitational charge is equal to the inertial mass. So there is a conundrum, that Einstein proposed to solve with his theory of gravitation, based on the metric. By then actually the gravitational field disappears : the effects of gravitation are nothing more than the effect of inertia in a "curved" universe, with a varying metric. Anyway this theory does not expel the electromagnetic field, and tells nothing about the nuclear fields. But it makes more difficult to build a unified theory of force fields.

2) In the concept of force field the impact on material bodies does not imply the presence of a specific particle (a boson). Bosons come from Quantum Physics, and in the Quantum Theory of Fields they are the "carriers" of the field. In this framework there should be a boson, which would be the carrier of the gravitational field. But it has never been seen in any experiment, and anyway QTF cannot deal with gravity.

3) So the problems that Theoretical Physics must solve are : I) to find a unified theory of fields, encompassing the gravitational field, the EM field and the nuclear forces, ii) explain what are bosons and their role in the interactions field / material bodies. I have my theory, which answers to both, in the general framework given previously. But there can be other theories !

4) About the initial conditions. It is obvious that they are essential in any model with differential equations. However they raise also a fundamental issue with fields : there is always a field with a definite (and largely unknown) value in any practical problem. If we do not want to be stuck we need to consider models, in situations where the initial conditions are arbitrary. This is possible thanks to the principle of relativity - the laws must be the same whatever the conditions - and the observer -:he has free will. So it is legitimate to study simple cases and transpose their results to real situations.

5) The existence of stable star systems is a fact which is not explained by the Newton's gravitation. This is the known N bodies problem, which shows that the solutions are not stable. Similarly the present theories do not explain why nuclei and atoms are so resilient. Mi personal idea is that a special geometric arrangement of the bodies is the condition for the stability of any system. And I have given these conditions.