Einstein, forces, fields, and pi

[Curt McNamara]

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/03/13/einstein-and-pi/

A relation can be a force or a field.

What are the other fundamental relations?

    Curt

[Hillary Sillitto]

Not sure about a field being a relation, because a field can exist without a second object.

In most of classical physics, a field can be created by a single entity. A force is created when a second entity interacts with the field of the first. (Or maybe the field of the second interacts with the field of the first.) For example, a star's gravitational field exists whether it has planets or not. If it has planets, the planets also have their own gravitational fields, and the interaction of the planet (or  maybe of its gravitational field) with the star's gravitational field creates a force between them.

Best

Hillary

--
The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Lenard Troncale]

Curt,

Thank you for this. Nice read with clear explanation. As regards your question, I am also sending this to Luke who does not bother with this Google site to my knowledge, because he and I, in writing that fairly recent paper on Systems Processes (that appeared at the same conference as yours and mine developing more on Linkage Propositions), we have been puzzling on how the basics of physics, forces and particles relates to the systems process theory and systems processes in general. they should have strong relation.

Well we vehemently argue for inclusion of several physics-based SPs (isomorphies) that are not usually included in other systems theories, for example, "fields" "symmetry" "spin." And we link these as influences on all the other SPs in a network. ((Thus my prediction to Al Wilson many decades ago that the fundamental constants of nature, altho' they may appear to be odd numbers with untraceable magnitudes, they are actually all related to each other and the odd magnitudes are really just the intersects they have with each other in a network of relations.)) But I digress. Sorry.

So anyway we are concerned that SPT relate well to forces and fields. One of the SPs IS fields and it solves a lot of problems of action at a distance when you compare natural systems in our world with the quantum world. That too seems like quirky spooky action at a distance. I propose that that is because we are still not aware of how quantum fields relate to our world fields (gravity, electromagnetic). It is all a question of fields. And note that fields seem to be establishing the particleness of nature (matter) and so its forces.

Anyway, my prediction is that new super numary "fields" will be discovered eventually that will resolve and integrate what presently is separated and show that what we call particles, interactions, and forces are mere consequences of those fields and not fundamentals at all. This will simultaneously solve the mystery of the dominance of dark matter and energy IMHO.

Len

[Lenard Troncale]

One of the key Identifying Features of Fields as a Systems Process in SPT is that it is "distributed" rather than locational, Much as Curts referral article states and illustrates. That is why it SEEMS like action at a distance thru nothing and so no relation, but does influence another entity (as your examples describe) even tho' it seems to have no media or avenue for the influence. Perhaps the thing to do which has not been done is to describe the internal nature of the relations that constitute the distributed, yet connected aspect of a field (or fields, better a general description) and then we would understand the relation. I agree a field can exist without a second or influenced entity, but this discounts that there may well be a set of relations within the field that we usually do not see or measure.

Len

[Jack Ring]

And how do you know FOR SURE that there is no second object? 

Perhaps a relation, like energy, is potential and kinetic.

[Jack Ring]

Len, 

Pretty safe prediction because the phenomenon is already at work. Those who know call it system. Some almost ‘hep’ call it systems. Those beginning to comprehend call it system of systems.

Onward,

Jack

[Curt McNamara]

I admit to being an engineer! :-)

Which means that if something exists, there is a way to measure it.

And all measurements require a reference.

The measurement of a field can vary greatly based on the reference.

Put another way, there would be no field (nor measurement) without a difference.

     Curt

[joseph simpson]

Curt:

Interesting statement...

Could you please provide a definition of 'relation?'

I use the term relation to describe mathematical entities only.

I use the term relationship to describe natural language relational concepts.

How are you using the term relation?

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

    Curt

--

The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
 
Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world. 

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves. 

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

[Steven Krane]

Electromagnetic fields are made of photons so there is always more than one "object" present.  Or do packets of energy not qualify as "objects"?

[joseph simpson]

Len:

Interesting observation regarding the concepts of: distributed and locational...

Mary and I have developed the concepts of global and local to use with our structural modeling work.

These concepts, global and local, are used to transform the structural modeling matrices in various ways....

An example of a global application is the global structuring relationship that organizes a system.  

In most of our cases we use natural language relationships and their associated logical properties... for global application...

This specific approach creates a 'logical field' of influence that structures the system in a certain manner...

We have also developed processes and metrics that are used to transform a global logical field into a local logical element...

In any case there appear to be some similarities...

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Lenard Troncale]

Joe,

Very interesting comments and work. In a completely unexpected domain. It would seem to me that math is rather resistant to the concept of a "field" influencing particular local transformations? Or perhaps not; there are a lot of fields expressed in math terms in physics are there not? In biology, there has been a great deal of resistance to the suggestions that there are biological fields. There are some experimentally proven cases in developmental biology (morphogen gradients and therefore fields), but when one biologist suggested a wider influence of fields, his work was devestatingly criticized and thrown out. He did not have expt'l results tho', just theories.

In any case, the similarities you mention in your math and logic treatments do ring true to what I've seen in the physical science world so it is something we should really pursue. But how? Specifically? And do we have the time beyond our current commitments? Anyone else interested?

Len

[Jack Ring]

Len, 

Seems to me you are now ready to deal with the phenomenon called a catalyst.

Jack

[joseph simpson]

Len:

Mary and I find this work very interesting... and have a number of ongoing projects..

We have published two papers in the SE Journal that outline some of the main ideas in the approach...

The papers are available on research gate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245334556_Entropy_Metrics_for_System_Identification_and_Analysis

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220432552_Complexity_Reduction_A_Pragmatic_Approach

These two papers represent a part of our work that is different than the current logical, deterministic structural modeling work...

As the current structural modeling web applications are developed, we will turn our energy back to the non-deterministic clustering and analysis aspects of structural modeling...

The goal is to develop a process the integrates these approaches as well as others...

I just can not write code fast enough.... to do it all at the same time...

But we are starting to outline a body of work that other may find valuable...

That is why the code is open source.. so others can join in the fun if they wish..

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe