(bad joke aside): Russ do you have a specific type of force group of forces in mind?
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Russ Abbott <[email protected]> wrote: > One of the replies to my question on StackExchange was that what really > mattered was that something is accelerated. Since acceleration is really(?) > a matter of a change in energy of the thing accelerated, perhaps the most > fundamental interaction is the transfer of energy from one entity (whatever > an entity is) to another. Do we have any reasonable way to talk about how > that happens? > > > *-- Russ Abbott* > *_____________________________________________* > *** Professor, Computer Science* > * California State University, Los Angeles* > > * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* > * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 > Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ > * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ > CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach > *_____________________________________________* > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 2:09 PM, Stephen Guerin < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Along the lines that Lee is mentioning with fields being the first >> class objects, Bruce Sherwood may be able to illuminate some of the >> current thinking in Quantum Field Theory and how interpretations are >> made with respect to forces. >> >> Bruce? >> >> -Stephen >> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 1:36 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Russ asks: >> > >> >> Is there a mechanistic-type explanation for how forces work? For >> example, >> >> two electrons repel each other. How does that happen? Other than saying >> >> that there are force fields that exert forces, how does the >> electromagnetic >> >> force accomplish its effects. What is the interface/link/connection >> between >> >> the force (field) and the objects on which it acts. Or is all we can >> say is >> >> that it just happens: it's a physics primitive? >> > >> > I have the impression that the best you can say is that fields act on >> fields; fields are (the >> > only) first-class objects, and what you're calling "objects" are at >> best second-class--they >> > are epiphenomena of fields (or, of *the* field). >> > >> > There is (or was when I last tried to look into this, about 40 years >> ago) a concept of >> > "current" (which I suppose is a generalization of our familiar >> "electric current", but if so >> > is such a generalization that I was unable to see the connection at >> all) which was in some way >> > involved with interactions of fields. Maybe a Google search on current >> and Jakiw would turn >> > up something useful, but probably not. >> > >> > ============================================================ >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
