In Newtonian mechanics it does make sense to talk in terms of forces, since they enter in Newton's second law. In relativistic mechanics it turns out to be more useful to talk in terms of fields, that are produced by charges.

So the electromagnetic field is produced by objects that carry electric charge and it is this field that exerts a force on other charges, in the sense that their motion, due to this interaction, is different form their motion in its absence. And similarly for the weak interaction and the strong interaction and for the gravitational interaction, as well.

So it turns out that the constituents of the known forms of matter carry electric, weak and strong charges and energy-and it is energy that is the ``charge'' for the gravitational field.

The interactions are then determined by the symmetries: The weak, electromagnetic and strong interactions are defined by the properties of global Lorentz invariance and invariance under ``gauge transformations'', that don't affect the spacetime coordinates, but the potentials, that provide a redundant description for the fields; the gravitational interaction is defined by invariance under general coordinate transformations. Out of the infinity of groups of transformations that are possible, it turns out that all forces are described by just four groups, three are compact and one is non-compact.

It should be stressed, also, that a force, in relativistic mechanics, is most usefully described as being transmitted by the exchange of particles: The mass of the exchanged particles is a measure of the range of the force and the coupling constant is a measure of the strength of the force.

What is remarkable is that, when quantum effects are taken into account, it turns out that the coupling constant of the interaction depends on the energy scale at which the exchange takes place.

So electromagnetic forces are transmitted by photons, that are massless particles, which implies that their range is infinite and the strength of the interaction of two electrically charged particles is given by the fine structure constant, whose value is approximately 1/137 at atomic energies and increases to about 1/128 at energies of the order of the mass of the Z (~91 GeV/c2).

Weak forces are transmitted by the exchange of W and Z bosons, that are massive particles (83 and 91 GeV/c2) so the weak interactions are quite short-ranged. Their strength is given by two coupling constants, that, also, increase slowly-logarithmically-with energy.

It should be mentioned at this point that there is a part of the weak force that is transmitted by the exchange of Higgs bosons-this part is even more short-ranged, since the mass of the Higgs boson is about 125 GeV/c2-however the strength of the interaction is proportional to the mass of the particles that are interacting.

Strong forces are transmitted by the exchange of gluons, that are massless particles-so the range is infinite; however their strength decreases with increasing energy!

The gravitational interaction is special, since it can be described as the exchange of massless particles-gravitons-however since it can only be described classically how its strength depends on the energy isn't known (similarly to what was happening with Fermi's constant when the weak interactions were described by Fermi's theory).

Another remarkable property of relativistic mechanics is the effect of the spin of the particle being exchanged: The exchange of particles, whose spin is even, describes attractive forces (Higgs, spin=0, graviton, spin=2); the exchange of particles, whose spin is odd, describes repulsive forces (electromagnetic, weak, strong).

Howdy Chian Fan,

You have asked a large number of questions in [No.47] including multiple questions in your questions 1) through 7). A general observation is in order to begin a reply. You seem to be addressing "force" and "forces" as nouns that could be subjects of sentences. An alternative that eliminates many questions is to treat "force" and "forces" as verbs that could be used in predicates of sentences. The difference is large, as you recognize. If "force" and "forces" are things (nominative case) one must address "where they are" before and between phenomena. Many of the questions here have that quality, and that boundary condition on what "force" and "forces" are. The alternative is that "force" and "forces" are occurrences (predicative) that conveniently identify the nature of interactions between things, for instance causing acceleration. In that case they have no independent existence but only exist during phenomena. Many questions here have that quality. Now, The Standard Model uses bosons to implement force, which approach has things causing changes that are not the change theirselves. I think this view supports the idea that the words "force" and "forces" are predicate response to the interaction between nouns, bosons and particles, like a photon changing the momentum of an electron. Under this constraint questions like "Where is the strong force when there is no nucleus formation? Waiting in the void?" turn out to be nonsense, or koans like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" They may enrich our insights by forcing deep thought, but they are not science.

My view is that the second, predicative existence of "force" and "forces" is right in preference to their nominative existence. An example of my view is in my "Spacetime and Fluid Dynamics" essay, section "On Waves:"

"Actually, one could make some observations that follow from the idea that everything is waves. Since waves propagate, objects in motion continue until opposed. Changing motion is a simple matter of redirecting energy propagation by introducing other energy propagation, like a baseball and a bat. Opposed fields can be very effective as you know from magnets, for instance. The change of motion will depend on how much energy must be redirected and how the opposing energy does the work on it. Since fields are opposed, each affects the other and effects the same reaction as action. These are in essence Newton's three Laws of Motion."

Given this view, that "force" and "forces" are predicative, one sees that they are not extensive nominative fields with local manifestation causing change. That such nominative fields exist to cause change does not make the process (predicative) of that change a thing. The process(es) of the wide range of changes of which we know is(are) conveniently labeled "force" or "forces" without granting them a nominative existence. Then, given this view as valid, the answer to the question, "What is a force, a field?" is a simple no, because if "fields" exist they would be nominative, things, and therefore different from predicative forces, processes.

"Are force and energy separate entities?" Yes.

" Can symmetry be understood as field exchange?" I doubt it.

As you note, symmetry, conservation and invariance are close relatives, perhaps identical triplets. Symmetry is about consistency of phenomena as viewed from different reference frames, not forces, as I understand all this. In fact, during the 70 years I have been trying to understand Special and General Invariance (Relativity”) I have read or heard that Albert Einstein realized that the equations we associate with Newtonian force are not invariant under coordinate transformations, and something ought to be done about it. One of the benefits of the awareness that material objects also move on geodesics is that it yields a description of “force” and “forces” as due to the distribution of momentum and energy that leads to the convergence and divergence of material object geodesics, that is, convergence represents the effect of what would be called attraction, while divergence would lead to an effect that would be called repulsion. But, as Michael Faraday lamented about his memory that he may be passing along something he read and could he remember where he would certainly cite the source, I do not remember and have not found where I experienced this description of “force” and “forces.” Most likely it was a Colloquium in 2015 commemorating the original publication in 1915 that was delivered by Prof. Charles Torre of USU Physics, which contained reference to convergence of geodesics, but there are many other possibilities. In any case, the convergence and divergence of the material objects' geodesics would be invariant and appear to be due to curvature of the spacetime through which the geodesics passed.

"QFT argues that 'symmetry dictates interaction (force)' [3][11], Symmetry Create a Force [4]." Sigh. A horse can push a cart, but for it to pull the cart is more stable. "Don't put the cart before the horse" even in QFT.

“But shouldn't the so-called ‘singularity’ of the Big Bang be a result in the first place? There is no reason to deny that it is the end of a previous state of the universe.” YES! By the way, if “forces” were nominative, then for them to be hidden in the energy as the Big Bang begins would require explanation. That the “symmetry” of these undetectable “things” breaks as the universe cools, thereby exposing them, becomes a reasonable observation. However, if “forces” were predicative they need not “exist” until the condensed energy (material) objects they affect are available. That is, the energy and momentum distribution would yield object geodesics and apparent “forces” when their time came.

In the case of electron – positron annihilation, “Does the attraction between the electrons 'disappear' at the end of the reaction? Where does the accompanying force field go?” Yes, it does “disappear.” The associated spacetime curvature that led to convergent geodesics adds to zero in the new distribution of energy and momentum. The released energy and the matter energy of the initial particles is used in the photons emitted from the process. When a pair of photons of sufficient energy are transformed into an electron – positron pair the momentum and energy distribution changes and convergent geodesics appear as complementary factors. The Research Director at a business where I was employed was illustrating that sound spectra in a reverberation chamber were identical under some change. He was using 8 x 10 transparencies. At one point in trying to match them the second spectrum seemed to disappear, confirming their identity. The difference went to zero when they overlapped. Since we really do not know what each of the particles is, these examples of the versatility (plasticity) of energy, adding up to particles or canceling effects are possible, and perhaps actual.

“1) Is inertia a force?” No. Inertia is a reaction to acceleration (speed or direction). Centripetal force is real, but centrifugal force is a convenient fiction.

“Are Newton's first, second, and third laws unified?” Yes, see wave example above.

“Should all motions, including motion 'at rest' with zero velocity, and the fastest motion, the speed of light, be interpreted in the same way?” Yes. Isn't that the essence of Albert Einstein's theories of invariance with a change of coordinates – at rest? Well, with the discovery of a rest frame recently one could identify “at rest” in fact, but the invariance issue remains in practice.

“Isn't light the baseline of inertia? shouldn't the baseline of relativity be equally the baseline of the forces?” No, unless all energy and momentum and matter are “made of light.” See geodesic ideas above.

“2) Is gravitational redshift a 'force'? Is cosmological redshift a 'force'? Is the Doppler effect a 'force'? Aren't they all interacting processes? Aren't they all processes that exchange energy and momentum? If all redshifts are forces, does that mean that gravitational and expanding spacetime are associated with electromagnetic fields?” No, redshifts are not a force, they are evidence of a loss of energy due the work done against the acceleration of gravity. The Doppler effect is a result of motion that expands or compresses waveforms relative to the observer.

“3) Interference is an interaction, but is interference a force, either in free space or on an interferometer?” No, again we have questions that assume “force” is nominative. The interaction is predicative, a process. When linear it is summation, when non-linear the result is more complex, but still nothing is causing – it is combining.

“4) Is vacuum excitation, if any, a force? Is there a force in the 'probabilistic interpretation' of the wave function? Is there a force in the 'Uncertainty Principle'? Is there a 'force' in the 'fluctuation' of a quantum field? Is 'coupling' a force? They are all manifestations of interaction, how can they be unified?” These questions are all approaching “force” as a thing, like the Uncertainty Principal which certainly does not cause “the behavior” of inanimate phenomena, it merely reports on measurements relative to theories.

“5) Are the four interacting forces independent of each other? The electromagnetic force is independent of the gravitational force, and there is no interaction between the strong force and the weak force. ......? If they are completely different things, why do we define them all as 'forces'? If there is a commonality, why are they independent of each other? Wouldn't they be the same force in different situations?” These “forces” report on processes, like the boson (photon) that alters an electron's momentum in the theory. We define them all as “forces” because of their affect, not their nature.

“6) Forces have always been there, with or without them. If they have an 'origin', what is the 'force' that produces them?” Forces have not “always been there,” because they are neither energy nor momentum nor particles. They emerge when objects are available for interaction.

“7\\ Electromagnetic potentials, gravitational potentials, Yukawa potentials, Higgs potentials, are they all expressions of forces? Are they entities [10][12][13][14] or are they distributional 'parameters' of the field? Is the unity of 'force' the unity of potential?” Actually, I believe one could respond here by claiming that forces are the process responses to potential gradients. Again, they are similar processes, not similar things.

Please pardon the appearance of arrogance here. Were I to have inserted all the caveats and modesty that good citizenship requires this would be much too long(er?). However, these are honest opinions, including the new nominative/predicative treatment that may be taken “with a grain of salt.”

Happy Trails,

Len

This thread question “【NO.47】What is Force, a Field? Where is the Force Field? How does it appear? Is the Force Field a Regulating Effect of the Energy-Momentum Field?” is in a number of points rather comprehensively answered in the series of SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO44_What_is_an_electric_charge_Can_it_exist_apart_from_electrons_Would_it_be_an_effect ,

- where the point “what is fundamental Nature force”, though mostly relating to concrete Electric Force, but that isn’t essential – all Forces seems, and Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces for sure, act by one scheme - is clarified. So more see the series, here only briefly about what is in the series.

Though firstly a few notes to some points in this thread preface, which in the preface have rather vague sense.

“…Everyone, physicist or not, seems to know what forces are, at least for mechanical, gravitational, and electromagnetic forces. …”, etc.

- in the quote above fundamentally different “forces” are mixed – “mechanical”, F=dP/dt, that change dynamical parameters of material objects [“bodies”] at their, and mostly on macroscale, interactions, which [the interactions] are caused, and their strength are determined, by “fundamental Nature forces”, in the quote – “gravitational, and “electromagnetic forces”.

So to avoid this confusing the word “force” should be used more concretely – as, say, that is in SS posts, where the fundamental Nature forces shortly are pointed as “Forces”, when the term “force” is used for “mechanical” forces.

Besides the existent in Matter – and in this case quite scientifically rationally in physics - four [Gravity, Weak, Electric, Nuclear/Strong] Forces [though in the preface quite correctly it is pointed that Weak Force well differs from the 3 other ones],

- in Matter, in principle, really a lot of other fundamental Forces exist/act; say, that are energy, momentum, angular momentum, conservation laws, which completely determine concrete Forces acting at concrete interactions; another examples – energy is a Force that, say creates new particles. “inertia” that creates “fictitious" forces, which, though are “fictitious", but say, when are actualized together angular conservation law, essentially really determine motion of particles, bodies, etc., in “true” Forces fields, and – as that happens in the fields – that is included as specific term in potential energies of interacting objects.

In particle physics the angular momentum conservation essentially determine particles interactions as well, say, that rather possibly is essential in existence of “hard core” at high energy, say, nucleons interactions. Really some quite real and fundamental Force acts so that new particles can be created only as “particle-antiparticle” pairs; etc.

So now the preface looks as it rather vaguely relates to too many fundamental points, what looks as should be clarified/limited.

The post is long already, so only one note else: despite the diversity of all Forces above all that is determined by only the Matter’s design, and is “written” in every of (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], the [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of which is the ultimately fundamental base of informational system “Matter”.

Cheers

So let continue a brief view on what is in the series of SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/NO44_What_is_an_electric_charge_Can_it_exist_apart_from_electrons_Would_it_be_an_effectthat relates to this thread question “What is Force, a Field? Where is the Force Field? How does it appear? Is the Force Field a Regulating Effect of the Energy-Momentum Field?”, and – see the SS post above – further in this post the terms “Force” – and “a field” relate to “fundamental Nature forces” that are introduced in physics, i.e. to Gravity, Weak, Electric, and Nuclear/Strong Forces.

So to [more see the link above, and, of course, the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale initial models of Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383127718_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics, section 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems” ]

“…“What is Force, a Field?...”

- the Forces are some logical constructions that determine specific informational exchange between informational patterns/systems “material objects” [first of all particles] in concrete informational systems of these objects, by forming and sending/radiating corresponding informational messages between the system’s elements in at least 3DXYZ space of Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, fundamentally continuous, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), where the dense FLE-lattice [see SS post above] is placed, FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP.

Everything in Matter is/are only some specific disturbances in the lattice. The informational patterns “particles” are close-loop algorithms that always constantly run on the lattice FLE “hardware” with frequencies ω=m0c2/ћ, as sequential FLE-by-FLE flipping, and so the algorithms have spatial length be equal to particles Compton Lengths λ=ћ/mc, and so “logical length” of a particle algorithm, N0, N0=λ/lP.

Along N0 FLE-sequence “Forces charges FLE-sections” are written, where a section FLEs have corresponding Force mark, and, if at an algorithm running these FLEs are flipping, they cause spreading in the FLE-lattice disturbances that have the Force’s mark also - the “Force mediators”, and, if a mediator hits into other particle which has the same charge, and when marked FLE flips, that cause appearance in the “irradiated” particle of some elementary momentum; and, so, say, if this particle is free, it is accelerated/move in 3D space. Intensive flows of Force mediators form macroscale “Forces fields”.

At that: first of all – at least Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces aren’t particles, and so don’t contain/carry/transmit any energy – in fundamental contrast to what is postulated in the mainstream Forces classical and QFTs theories, where, despite that this in the mainstream evidently violates the energy conservation law, the charges constantly and always radiate fields/“virtual mediators” that contain/carry energy.

Really, say, in closed systems of interacting objects only the sum of objects “own” energies Σmic2 is re-distributed.

The post is long already, so only note else that so there fundamentally cannot be some “Forces masses” [say, “electromagnetic mass of electron”], there cannot be fields that aren’t radiated by charges, while there cannot be charges anywhere outside particles.

Cheers

A couple of the thread question points are clarified in the SS posts above, now a comment to “….Is the Force Field a Regulating Effect of the Energy-Momentum Field?”

Firstly the wording “the Energy-Momentum Field” again looks as rather vague. In principle here it is possible to say about some “field” – again, the word “field” can have innumerous different mentions, and in this case energy in Matter really is contained in particles that form some bodies, etc., which are distributed in the at least 3DXYZ space, so compose some “field”, but that has seems nothing that would be useful at really scientific description/analysis of what exists and happens in Matter.

Though yeah, in QFTs it is postulated that all Forces’ and all particles’ “fields” really constantly and always exist as “virtual fields” in every point of continuous 3D space, however that looks as a purely ad hoc assumption that has no any real experimental evidences [more about “virtual” see SS posts above]. Though yeah. all/every particles and fields indeed really but only potentially [not “virtually”] always exist, since all completely “are written” in every the FLE-lattice’s FLE, however this fact seems has no really useful concrete applications in concrete physics tasks.

The absolutely fundamental phenomenon/notion - “Logos” element - “Energy” remains till now fundamentally mysterious, including in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s really philosophical 2007 “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed, where most of really fundamental phenomena/notions, which are fundamentally transcendent in mainstream philosophy and sciences, are rigorously scientifically defined,

- however some important traits of “Energy” are clarified in general, and concretely in its actualization in the informational system “Matter”. First of all – concrete actualizations of “Energy” in concrete informational patterns/systems as some “energies” by no means are the patterns/systems. The energies are fundamentally necessary to change, including to create, any informational patterns/system since any/every [actualization of “Logos” element “Change”] concrete change is logically self-inconsistent, and so is logically prohibited [note, though, that is a first approximation picture, that should be considered in concrete cases, say, change of space position of a moving particle doesn’t require additional energy, etc. The phenomenon/notion “Change” isn’t trivial, but that is outside this thread question].

So to overcome this fundamental resistance to changes [“Inertia”] it is necessary to spend some portion of “energy”, which further is stored in the changed/created pattern/system.

At that, at least “energy in Matter” is rather “dumb” universal “tool for changes”, and so doesn’t create any “regulating effects”, including relating to Forces and Forces’ fields. Really the logical constructions “Forces fields” “regulate”/determine why and how concrete interactions of concrete material objects must concretely happen , including why and how energies that are stored in the objects must be spent/distributed.

I.e. Forces act quite analogously to, say, how a steam locomotive works, where a locomotive constructions and corresponding forms of its details well analogously to Forces redistribute thermal energy that is released at coal burning into the locomotive motion kinetic energy.

Cheers

What is a force for a packet of waves ? can anyone express the force of this kind of packet as a function on the caractheristics of the packet only (no time to enter).

Dear Stam Nicolis and Leonard Hall

Many thanks to Stam Nicolis for his systematic, detailed and professional answers! It gives us a good understanding of the concepts of force in authentic physics.

I personally believe that all of these concepts are valid and correct to explain forces in different scenarios. However, none of them may be the final concept. Under the ultimate unified notion, all forces must be explained by the same cause.

Thank you very much Leonard Hall for such a detailed comment. I always benefit from your comments. I think they are very informative in understanding what forces are.

Your use of nuns, verbs to distinguish between force concepts is a very precise request. I don't know how to express the difference between them in the use of force concepts. I think it is only after a precise definition of force that a strict distinction can be made between the scenarios in which the noun force field and the verb force field are used.

Many of the problems here can actually be reduced to the awareness of a phenomenon. Let us imagine a scenario in which a neutral particle of mass m and a photon P of wavelength λ 'fall' (move along the geodesic) in the same way in a gravitational field of mass M. The 'gravitational force' on m and the 'violet shift' , Δλ = λ - λ’on P, should be the same mechanism? We know they are the result of the same gravitational field.

Best Regards, Chian

Howdy Chian Fan ,

I guess there was just too much detail. "I don't know how to express the difference between them in the use of force concepts. I think it is only after a precise definition of force that a strict distinction can be made between the scenarios in which the noun force field and the verb force field are used." I presented the idea that force is NEVER A NOUN, it is never a thing to be somewhere all the time. Force is a process, a verb or predicate in my view. Sorry I was unclear.

Unless I am confused, I believe the identity of fall speed is for masses, and it is less than the speed of light. The masses are retarded by their inertia so the force matches the reaction in all cases, producing equal accelerations. The geodesic of a mass will include falling to earth if its orbital speed is inadequate while a photon will go on by. The gravitational field is they same but the process of its action on masses and photons have different values.

Happy Trails,

Len

Dear Leonard Hall

Thank you very much for your viewpoint.

There are some words in Chinese that can be either nouns or verbs, such as ‘flow’. The river is flowing rapidly, in this case it is a verb; we can't see the ‘flow’ of the river, in this case it is a noun. So, in the sense of flow, can we think of it as being there, whether it is present or not, fast or slow.

The point I am trying to make is that all motion should be by the same mechanism, whether it be light or other matter, and no matter what kind of ‘force’ is involved. In fact, at the bottom of physics, we can completely discard the concept of force, and describe it simply as motion, or a deformation of the wave function. The only thing that motions have in common is that they are actions in space-time (which cannot be regarded as a pure background); the only thing that force ‘disappears’ has in common is that they tend to equilibrium. So, must we regard the free propagation of light as an equilibrium state? I think so, because it has no deformation.

Best Regards, Chian

Howdy Chian Fan ,

As you would expect English also has words that can be either nouns or verbs, and your example of flow applies equally well in English. Of course, when we engage in any philosophy, including science as one specialization, we cannot focus on the matching sets of letters making up the words that differ in meaning. As pointed out so strongly in the blue and brown books by Wittgenstein, the colloquial meanings that are so convenient in common use are misleading in philosophy. That is why we develop special words with precise definitions in all philosophies, but even that has proven misleading, if not dangerous.

As for your objective of "that all motion should be by the same mechanism" one wonders why if one includes a bird and a caterpillar. Now, we can abstract motion as you note, and I tend to do that also, at least to seeing so much of the universe in terms of fluid dynamics, and in trying to answer your questions. But, as noted elsewhere, I understood that part of the motivation for the invariance theories of Albert Einstein is to create a theory in which our observations and calculations are not diminished by special conditions, like a reference frame. But does Nature have to obey a benefit to human activity? Of course, as an art form the quest is as defensible as painting the Mona Lisa's smile. However, in application one must derive details for various phenomena and it becomes difficult to see the identity behind the details.

I do affirm your effort as one of the valuable directions to understanding. The issues you raise in your questions are all complex and background for a Theory of Everything, but why is it required that we discover the Identity of Everything in developing the theory? I can answer these issues in my world, but I would like to understand your world also.

"The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.

"The name that can be named is not the eternal name.

"The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.

"The named is the mother of ten thousand things."

If you do get the answer, can it be used without being diminished?

Happy Trails,

Len

Howdy Chian Fan,

On eletron - positron creation and annihilation in an earier post, I found in "A New Theory for the Essence and Structure of a Photon" that:

"Louis de Broglie was the first to propose a comprehensive theory on the possible internal structure of photons. According to his hypothesis, proposed in the 1930s, a permanently localized photon involves two particles or half-photons of spin 1/2, and the photon, comprising two elementary particles of spin h/4π, will obey the Bose–Einstein statistic, as required by the precision of Planck’s law for a blackbody [36]. Then, the double-particle photon hypothesis would imply that photons are required to be stable localized moving EM structures whose energy quantum could only logically alternate between two components’ electric state, with both components separating in space."

As noted by Stanley Earnest Grimm, it's all been thought before. It is pleasing to find such agreement with my sense of things, however.

Happy Trails,

Len

Dear Leonard Hall

You and De Broglie share the same view, as the saying goes, ‘Great minds think alike.’ However, I believe that the structure of a basic thing should definitely be the simplest structure that fulfils its function, no more and no less. Much less should it contain further complex structures.

Best Regards, Chian

Howdy Chian Fan ,

This is a very good situation. Our mutual respectful interaction enhances the potential for our success. The real answer may be different from either of our views. Exploring the issue from different directions may trigger the insight that accomplishes our objective of comprehending this part of the nature of Nature. I like it.

Happy Trails,

Len

Howdy Chian Fan ,

"However, I believe that the structure of a basic thing should definitely be the simplest structure that fulfils its function, no more and no less. Much less should it contain further complex structures."

The linear and rotational oscillations in a photon, for instance, are not simple. The complexity has to be somewhere, and if the basic things are very simple structures they must differ from one another and we end up with global complexity. Once we understand, that understanding may be partitioned in many ways for communication.

If we step back from the separated electron and positron component description in a De Broglie photon, we may find that the adjusted internal dynamics they bring to the photon is as simple as possible. That is closer to my view.

Happy Trails,

Len

Dear Leonard Hall

It seems that you really like De Broglie's point of view. In this context, Michaud, A. (2021). Our Electromagnetic Universe. in (pp. 64-82). https://doi.org/10.9734/bpi/nupsr/v12/11459D has more to play with. You may refer to.

Best Regards, Chian Fan

The thread question is essentially clarified in 3 SS posts on page 1, including that the Forces mediators aren’t particles, so don’t contain energy, and so don’t make any work impacting on correspondingly charged particles, etc., – Forces really only determine how at interactions in a system of material objects, the energy of the objects, say, of particles at particles collisions, is redistributed – quite analogously as details in a steam locomotive, which don’t make any work, and so not spending/transmitting any energy, re-distribute burning coal energy so that the steam locomotive moves well specifically in some direction. A few comments else:

Firstly – the at least Gravity, Electric and Nuclear Forces mediators [Forces fields], which [mediators] are constantly and always radiated by Forces charged particles, concretely by particles charges, with rather large probability [Electric Force for sure] don’t radiate some “secondary” own mediators.

At that in mainstream Standard Model Forces mediators are particles that constantly and always radiated by the charged particles , which are “virtual”; nonetheless in SM it is postulated that these virtual mediators must exist also – and so exist - as real particles. Gravity Force mediators are “gravitons”, rest mass=0, spin=2; Electric [in SM electromagnetic] Force – “photons”, rest mass=0, spin=1; Weak Force – W± and W0/Z bosons, restmasses more 80 GeV/c2, spin=1, Strong Force – “gluons”, restmasses=0, spin=1; Nuclear Force [which with a well non-zero probability is some action of Strong Force] – π-mesons, restmasses~140 and 135MeV/c2.

All the “real forms” of virtual mediators above are bosons, so, say,

“…"Louis de Broglie was the first to propose a comprehensive theory on the possible internal structure of photons. According to his hypothesis, proposed in the 1930s, a permanently localized photon involves two particles or half-photons of spin 1/2,….”

The “half-photons” in this proposition were [in those times rest massless] neutrinos, what looked/looks as is rather questionable since hasn’t any physical grounds – how two neutrinos could form a stable photon, etc., more see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_theory_of_light.

Really, as that is well scientifically rationally proposed in SS&VT Planck scale initial models of Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces [the link to corresponding paper see SS post on page 1, 5 days ago now], at least in Gravity and Electric Forces cases, photons and gravitons are particles that are created when the Forces mediators are specifically impacted, including at particles/[charges] acceleration,

- so that the mediators are transformed into these particles. However, though the particles’ algorithms FLEs have these Forces marks, i.e. photons and gravitons “are charged”, but, again, in contrast to the “ordinary charged” particles photons and gravitons don’t radiate the mediators, and – as how that the mediators do – interact with charged particles FLEs directly.

The post is rather long already, so now

Cheers

Howdy Chian Fan,

It turns out that my wholehearted agreement with you that basic particles must not be collections of other basic particles means that I do not like De Broglie's view as stated. I like my view, as stated before I saw his, that qualities of the particles and photon serve each well and there is no problem with creation or annihilation. The basic "qualities" are unchanging, the are just arranged differently in photons and particles. One must recognize "add to zero" for charge and spin in the transformations. It was only comforting to see some agreement with another view.

Happy Trails,

Len

Dera Leonard Hall

“One must recognize ‘add to zero’ for charge and spin in the transformations.”

I agree with this statement. They are not matter, they are not energy, and while related, they are not innate. In the reaction process γ+γ ↔ e+ e-, where did the charge, the spin, and the mass come from? Where did they go? Figure this out and it becomes naturally clear what photons and particles are.

Best Regards, Chian

It seems as is worthwhile to comment the passage from the SS post above

“…SS posts on page 1, including that the Forces mediators aren’t particles, so don’t contain energy, and so don’t make any work impacting on correspondingly charged particles, etc., – Forces really only determine how at interactions in a system of material objects, the energy of the objects, say, of particles at particles collisions, is redistributed …..”

- the Forces, of course, don’t arbitrarily distribute energy, they make that quite specifically in accordance with FLE logical scheme, and principally by functionally different ways – the Forces are fundamentally different, and so, say, development of some “Grand theories of Everything”, where “all Forces will be united” really is senseless.

Including the results of energy distribution between interacting particles, including distribution into creation of other particles, is completely specific, the unique common fundamental point is in that first of all the stable particles that constitute matter, are created at interactions only as pairs “particle+ antiparticle”, which practically immediately annihilate, and so the number of particles in Matter now is practically the same as that was created at Matter’s Beginning. Unique exclusion are neutrinos, which practically don’t annihilate, but that is a rather small part of Matter’s mass and contained in the mass energy.

So, say, there is nothing unusual in the reaction process γ+γ ↔ e+ e-; besides that it isn’t correct - photons don’t interact mutually, e± pairs are created at direct interactions of photons with particles – observable as mostly with nuclei, and at that [see the SS posts above and links in the posts] rather probably photons are created at impacts on/ “from” Electric Force mediators [say, at a charge acceleration], which [mediators] aren’t particles, and so, despite that their FLEs have this Force marks, the mediators mutually don’t interact [so fields of different charges are in linear superpositions],

- and interact only directly with E-Force marked FLEs that are [and flip] in given time moment in particles algorithms.

So photons interact really as that the E-mediators do – only with the E-marked particles FLEs directly [while particles interact at exchanges by the mediators]; including at interactions with having rest mass particles, which have 4D momentums with non-zero cτ-components the having rest mass e± pairs are created.

That doesn’t happen always, the energy distribution depends also on in what phases flipping photon’s and the particle’s FLEs are, so photons, say, can be scattered, etc.

Cheers

Howdy Stam Nicolis , Sergey Shevchenko and Chian Fan ,

You gentlemen have gotten me thinking again. The following observations are the result:

Stam Nicolis: "So the electromagnetic field is produced by objects that carry electric charge and it is this field that exerts a force on other charges, . .." This view is of course the classic view, but it has bothered me since I first ran across these issues. Are fields produced by charged objects, or is this just a left-over from when it was the best science had to offer? "We stand on the shoulders of giants," but we also have revised and sometimes rejected their results! The one-sided expression that “this field exerts a force” uses the test charge idea, but why not consider that not only do the fields exert forces on other charged particles, but also that the fields attract or repel and the whole of charge and electric field acts for each? In this "modern" world a "rest frame" has been reported from observations as well as "non-locality" of the universe and a universal electric field. On another thread we have the electric charge streaming into the field, and in textbooks the movement of a charge is broadcast as a wave at the speed of light to move the field along with the charged particle. Do these views hold up under new observations and theories?

Sergey Shevchenko: “… including that the Forces mediators aren’t particles, so don’t contain energy, and so don’t make any work impacting on correspondingly charged particles, etc., . .." [lfh] I don’t buy this restriction of energy to being limited to particles. There are just too many examples, say friction heating revealing conversion of mechanical energy to thermal energy. Energy is richer than that in its “chameleon-like” character apparently to manifest various types, mechanical, electric, thermal, etc.

“– Forces really only determine how at interactions in a system of material objects, the energy of the objects, say, of particles at particles collisions, is redistributed …..” [lfh] Excellent!

“… So, say, there is nothing unusual in the reaction process γ+γ ↔ e+ e-; besides that it isn’t correct - photons don’t interact mutually, e± pairs are created at direct interactions of photons with particles – …” [lfh] This a very good, insightful point as far as the linearity of photons is accepted. However, while I prefer the factoring of a photon in the field of a heavy nucleus that produces a e+ e- pair, it I is the case, I expect, that left and right polarized photons when superimposed break that linearity and the energy through which γ+γ => e+ e- caries polarization into spin and the opposite charges come from a zero sum in the neutral photons. Perhaps, the photons that could be factored into an e+ e- pair by passing close to a heavy positive nucleus must be linearly polarized by superimposition of left and right polarization, Again, what is energy that it could transfer these qualities between photons and charged particles may be answered, or at least described here.

Chian Fan: “They are not matter, they are not energy, and while related, they are not innate. In the reaction process γ+γ ↔ e+ e-, where did the charge, the spin, and the mass come from? Where did they go? Figure this out and it becomes naturally clear what photons and particles are.” [lfh] “… they are not innate…” is an excellent way to express that charge, spin and mass are not “things.” “Where … did they come from? Where did they go?" As noted in an earlier reply, they are not “things” to come or go, they are the nature of the reaction process which energy may manifest in specific environments, like propagating with polarization or “at rest” with spin, or inertially opposing acceleration.

Additional [lfh] observations: Acoustic waves of identical frequency but opposite phase interfere by adding to zero, but each wave is propagating “true to itself” so where are they when added to zero (?) is answered – they do not need our observations to exist; similarly +/- charges and radial distributed field interaction traces, one trace away from “charge” and one toward the opposite “charge;” trace speed is infinite if interfering complementary distributed field edges are parallel lines (for “rays”) or of identical wave shapes for more general cases; detectors (local conditions) determine spacing of the observations of “Alice and Bob;” similarly “spin(?);” [See my question How is “distributed action” `accomplished? here on ResearchGate.]

Trace speed; distributed action; non-local universe; speed of light vs trace speed of interaction of distributed fields; distributed field interactions need not carry information at trace speed, since it is already present where the second observation occurs, is “radiation of electric field from charge” a trace of radially distributed fields that yield charge at common intersection(?); distributed fields and charge would have formed together “in the beginning.”

Once again, its just a thought, but it rings true to me as an improved overview of the issues.

Happy Trails,

Len

Are electromagnetic waves just a product?

Dear Leonard Hall

You have raised very valuable questions and ideas. I try to express my views.

You talked about electric charge. Moving electric charges produce electromagnetic waves, which all agree is a valid description. But usually this description emphasises that the electromagnetic wave is just a product, not a reciprocal being like the electric charge, and that without the charge, there would be no electromagnetic wave. Is this true? Electromagnetic waves are a collection of ‘real photons’, while the force between charges is an exchange of ‘virtual photons’. We believe that all physical processes are processes of interaction. Repulsion between charges is a process of force. Isn't the movement of charges a process of force? Isn't the production of photons from moving charges a force process? Why is there a distinction between ‘real photons’ and ‘virtual photons’?

‘γ+γ => e+ e-, ....... Again, what is energy that it could transfer these qualities between photons and charged particles may be answered, or at least described here.’ Your question is revealing the essence of why energy should be hidden in particles? When symmetry and invariance are tangible in a particle, why are its conserved quantities not?

There should be an essential difference between maths and physics. Physics replaces physical reality with ‘ intrinsic’, such as the spin of particles, the curvature of spacetime, etc. The lack of corresponding physical expressions can be seen as a temporary transitional step. However, if this is considered to be the ultimate reality, it will surely become a barrier to the development of physics. My view is that the properties of elementary particles are all products of spin, including electric charge, magnetic charge, and mass, and that they have a common real quantum source [1]. Of particular importance is the understanding and definition of ‘mass’. gauge field theory requires that all elementary particles have ‘zero mass’, but except for the photon, all other particles are not masless [2]. My view is that all elementary particles themselves do have zero mass (rest-mass zeero) [3], as long as we consider mass to be an interaction concept, i.e., a property that manifested only in interaction. An isolated elementary particle, or a composite particle in equilibrium, does not need to have a concept of mass (it doesn't need to have one, and defining it to have one is problematic). This leads to two questions: 1) What kind of thing has this property, and fits this definition? 2) Can this concept be extended to the mass of a ‘graviton’? By answering these two questions, can we solve any more fundamental problems?

Spontaneous symmetry breaking is the setup for solving the mechanism of mass generation [3]. Let's think of it differently, and consider that there is no ‘spontaneous’ breaking of symmetries, It is interactions break their own original symmetries. It is the resistance to the ‘breaking’ that makes the mass manifest [1]. This is exactly what the Higgs mechanism describes, with the difference that it uses an external potential field. There is nothing wrong with the physics concept that ‘symmetry dictates interaction’[4]. The problem is only that we rarely see a clear explanation of it. In fact, ‘force’ is a manifestation of the ‘invariance’ (symmetry) that is maintained in the interaction [5]. This invariance is concrete and can be expressed abstractly as ‘conservation of energy dominates the interaction’.

Best Regards, Chian

------------------------------

[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384837870_A_Straightforward_Supersymmetric_Standard_Model

[2] Gross, D. J. (1992). Gauge theory-past, present, and future? Chinese Journal of Physics, 30(7), 955-972.

[3] Pauli,“one will always obtain vector mesons with rest-mass zero (and the rest-mass if at all finite, will always remain zero by all interactions with nucleons permitting the gauge group).” De Bianchi, S., & Kiefer, C. (2020). One Hundred Years of Gauge Theory: Past, Present and Future Perspectives (Vol. 199). Springer.

[4] Yang, C. N. (1980). Einstein's impact on theoretical physics. Physics Today, 33(6), 42-49.

[5] 戴元本. (2005). 相互作用的规范理论. 科学出版社.

The thread question is scientifically essentially clarified in SS posts on pages 1,2.

Including, say, that

“…Electromagnetic waves are a collection of ‘real photons’…”

- is correct, however that

:… while the force between charges is an exchange of ‘virtual photons’. …”

- fundamentally isn’t correct. Some evidently transcendent, quite naturally so experimentally never observable, “virtual photons” really cannot, and so don’t, exist. And quite naturally the postulates in QED that the “virtual photons” are particles that have/carry some energy/momentums – as that real photons do,

- while – since “virtual photons are Electric Fore mediators - they constantly and always are radiated by electric charges, what evidently violates the energy conservation law.

Real Electric Force’s – and at least Gravity and Nuclear/Strong Forces’ - mediators aren’t particles, and don’t have/carry energy/momentum;

- while real photons are particles that are created at impacts on real mediators [“circular photons” in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s Planck scale initial models of Gravity, Electric, and Nuclear Forces in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383127718_The_Informational_Physical_Model_and_Fundamental_Problems_in_Physics, section 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”]

- when to a circular photon some real energy/momentum is transmitted. The same is true relating to Gravity and Nuclear/Strong Forces, when impacts on real mediators [“circular gravitons” and “circular gluons”], which also aren’t particles, real particles “gravitons” and “mesons”, are created.

That above isn’t unique point that should be, and so are, clarified in the pointed SS, so for the readers who really want to know scientifically correct answers to the thread question, more see the posts and links in the posts.

Cheers

On the concept “Force”.

In the context of the hypothesis that the substance of gravitational (electromagnetic) fields is “information carried by informatons”, the idea is developed that the gravitational (electromagnetic) interaction between particles can be understood as the response of a particle to the disturbance of the symmetry of its “proper” gravitational (electromagnetic) field by the gravitational (electromagnetic) field that, in its direct vicinity, is created and maintained by other particles.

The effect of a gravitational field Eg on a particle anchored at a point in an IRF O is described by the following postulate ([1], §9 et seq.) : Because it tends to become blind for extern fields, a particle anchored at a point in a gravitational field Eg is subjected to a tendency to move in the direction defined by Eg. Once the anchorage is broken, the mass acquires a vectoral acceleration a = Eg.

And the effect of a gravitational field (Eg, Bg) on a particle that is moving relative to O is described by ([2], §9 et seq.): A particle moving with velocity v in a gravitational field (Eg, Bg) tends to become blind for the influence of that field on the characteristic symmetry of its proper gravitational field. If it is free to move, it will accelerate relative to its proper inertial reference frame with an amount a’ = Eg + (v × Bg).

So, relative to the IRF O, a particle with rest mass m0 in a gravitational field (Eg, Bg) experiences an action because of that field. That action depends on:

- The extent to which the characteristic symmetry of the proper gravitational field of m0 in the immediate vicinity of P is disturbed by the extern field, thus on (Eg, Bg) at P;

- On the magnitude of m0. Indeed, the disturbing effect of the extern field on the characteristic symmetry of the proper field of m0 is smaller when m0 is greater (because in that case the proper field has a greater density). Thus, to impose an acceleration a’, the action of the gravitational field on m0 must be greater as m0 is greater.

That action is represented by FG and this vectoral quantity is called “the force developed by the gravitational field on the particle” or the gravitational force on m0. It is defined by the relation: FG = m0.a’ = m0.[Eg + (v × Bg)], from which it follows that FG = dp/dt with p the lineair momentum of the particle relative to the IRF O.

The electromagnetic force can be defined in an analogue way ([3], §8)

References:

[1] https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2024.103056

[2] https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2024.103060

[3] https://doi.org/10.4236/jhepgc.2024.103061