The nature of force

Tom I do see your point. I still can see a particle having a much larger sphere of influence through charge without direct contacts between masses. An energy field around a particle is possible. If one area of space has less or no mass, it is subject to the energy of the areas of greater mass. The energy contained in a particle, has potential outside of the space in which it is contained, regardless of whether or not that space contains any particles. If some other mass or mass influenced space comes in contact with it, something is going to happen and there is nothing magical about it.

It is beginning to look like you guys are hardening your positions on this topic. The field vs. the particle contact as a means to transport force from place to place. Both views leave a lot to be desired and neither one makes a lot of sense to me. The field is a simple model and seems to match observations very well even though it does have a god like quality as TVF says. What other objection does to field have-I know it makes no sense to me but I don't know much. Maybe it is a mystery needing to be solved.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />Light waves are immaterial electromagnetic oscillations and merely release electrons on the surface of objects which then can collide elastically with surface atoms to produce the observed 'radiation pressure'.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">How can something "immaterial" affect something material? Define "immaterial". This appears to me to be a contradiction on its face, so you must be using a specialized definition.
One of my basic points is that it is not sufficient in physics to point to equations that work. In physics, all actions must be conveyed by tangible, material entities, where "tangible, material" means having a physical form capable of interacting with other physical forms. Only properties and concepts can be "immaterial" in this sense, but neither of those is capable of pushing a real body, or even of "releasing electrons" from one.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">OK, I call them 'material' electromagnetic waves then. This doesn't change the fact that they are in all respects different from particles (and macroscopic 'waves' consisting of particles) as indicated above.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And how are these "released electrons" supposed to produce a force of repulsion in the direction of the original lightwave/photon? Can you describe the momentum transfer details here? Where does the momentum come from, and how does it move from body to body if electrons are somehow involved as intermediaries? It appears that the electrons must be going the wrong way!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is obvious that if an electron released by the light parallel to the surface is subsequently elastically scattered away from the surface (which is the only way they can go) they impart momentum into the surface (the overall parallel component is zero if averaged over different directions).

---

www.physicsmyths.org.uk
www.plasmaphysics.org.uk

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />I still can see a particle having a much larger sphere of influence through charge without direct contacts between masses. An energy field around a particle is possible. If one area of space has less or no mass, it is subject to the energy of the areas of greater mass. The energy contained in a particle, has potential outside of the space in which it is contained, regardless of whether or not that space contains any particles. If some other mass or mass influenced space comes in contact with it, something is going to happen and there is nothing magical about it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">What is "magical" is imputing mystical, undefined properties to charge, energy, field, potential, and "mass-influenced space". In order to act on bodies, each of these must consist of tangible, material substance, which we could describe as "very small particles having momentum" as a shorthand for the composition entities that we cannot yet see.

That's what "not being magical" means. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />OK, I call them 'material' electromagnetic waves then. This doesn't change the fact that they are in all respects different from particles (and macroscopic 'waves' consisting of particles) as indicated above.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Please explain. How can anything material and tangible, able to act on bodies, be different in all respects from particles or from waves consisting of particles? These 'material' electromagnetic waves are either a mystical concept, or else one describable in physics. In the latter case, I have been asking you for specifics on how anything can possibly, even in principle, act on a body if it is not ultimately composed of "particles" (in the general sense of the word wherein all bodies are particles on some scale) that collide and transfer momentum.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It is obvious that if an electron released by the light parallel to the surface is subsequently elastically scattered away from the surface (which is the only way they can go) they impart momentum into the surface (the overall parallel component is zero if averaged over different directions).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Is the electron's momentum created from nothing? (Remember, momentum has size and <i>direction</i>.) Or is it brought by the lightwave? The picture you describe seems to have a problem either way.

What is wrong with the simpler picture that lightwaves are material entities that carry momentum? Why go to Hurculean lengths to avoid the simple and obvious answer to all these paradoxes? -|Tom|-

The discussion revolves around what is termed an undisputable fact, that there are material entities in our universe. That they are physical in nature (period), and differences in opinion come about as to whether there is a non-material to differentiate those material physical bodies.

I can only say that if you think that the universe is physical - You are being mystical, and your fancy is as real as what you term physical.