[infamous]

The best illustration that we have for this phenomenon is a simple bar magnet. Because we see no visual evidence that any surface has come in contact with another we conclude that a force field has been responsible for the attraction or repulsion that is observed. In all of physics this one principle of action at a distance is, I believe, the least understood and puzzling concept of nature that confronts the imaginations of man. In this thread, I would like for interested members to shed what light they may possess on this controversial subject.............................Please keep your offerings brief so that all of us can follow the rhythm of logic. My personal feelings are; If we could really understand the nature of space/time between the action and reaction, the knowledge would open up answers to a host of other unsolved or misunderstood phenomenon....................Infy

[dasraiser]

Hi inf,

There must be a mechanism similar to ocean waves carrying drift wood, if you find the right frequency and amplitude an object can gain momentum and surf, therefore gravity and magnetism must (i think) use the same mechanism but will probably require phased wavelengths (produced by billions of fixed frequency oscillators working together) to draw an object towards the source.

regards

[infamous]

Originally Posted by dasraiser

Hi inf,

There must be a mechanism similar to ocean waves carrying drift wood, if you find the right frequency

Frequency is certainly a factor, however, in ocean waves or in sound waves we have a medium through which the wave can propagate. In the case of the ocean we naturally have water, and in the case of sound we all understand that it is air which carries or transmitts the wave. In the case of gravitational waves, it is exceedingly more difficult to define the medium of transport. This is where field theory comes into play. But even this leaves us with many unanswered questions. What is a field, and what is it composed of. Taking this idea of field to it's limit, action at a distance implys, in the final analysis, a transmission of information through a measure of nothingness. If nothing exists between these two states, even though it may be on the order of 10^-43 centimeters, it may as well be across the entire universe.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by infamous

The best illustration that we have for this phenomenon is a simple bar magnet. Because we see no visual evidence that any surface has come in contact with another we conclude that a force field has been responsible for the attraction or repulsion that is observed. In all of physics this one principle of action at a distance is, I believe, the least understood and puzzling concept of nature that confronts the imaginations of man. In this thread, I would like for interested members to shed what light they may possess on this controversial subject.............................Please keep your offerings brief so that all of us can follow the rhythm of logic. My personal feelings are; If we could really understand the nature of space/time between the action and reaction, the knowledge would open up answers to a host of other unsolved or misunderstood phenomenon....................Infy

I thought this problem was solved long ago. It was shown that eather (ether) does not exist, that action at a distance was due to a field, not spooky magic. Thank Her Albert.

cc

[infamous]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

I thought this problem was solved long ago. It was shown that eather (ether) does not exist, that action at a distance was due to a field, not spooky magic. Thank Her Albert.

cc

But the question is: What is a field and what is it composed of................In logical terms if you please.........understandable for those of lesser intellect like myself.

[CraigD]

To my thinking, fields are not physically real things, but useful abstractions, similar to but more precisely defined than “beauty”, “fun”, or (apologies in advance to Sheldrake fans) “morphogenic fields”. There must be an underlying, physically real thing that causes a particular kind of field. For magnetism, the Standard Model predicted boson – the photon of magnetic force – seems pretty convincing. For gravity, the tentatively proposed, controversial boson – the graviton – seems much more troubled. In either case, what’s real is the quantum wave function of the boson. A field is just a way to visualize potential measurements of this wave function.

Regardless of the goodness of any past, present, or future theory, I’m pretty sure magnetic fields aren’t ensembles of any physically real stuff - ether, particles, zero point energy, or what-have-you. Some interpretations of the Higgs field do involve such things, while other’s don’t – this is another area of the Standard Model that’s not yet compelling.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

It was shown that eather (ether) does not exist, that action at a distance was due to a field, not spooky magic. Thank Her Albert.

General Relativity, I think (tentatively - I’ve not given this twist much thought), addressed only action at a distance due to gravity, not magnetism.

Also, for all its beauty, power, and some agreement with general particle theory predictions, GR is a classical theory. We suspect to the point of near certainty that it’s only a special case of an underlying physical law that’s yet to be well (or even partially) understood, and won’t hold for some uncommon situation or extremely accurate measurement.

Still, thank you Herr Albert – Relativity’s a great special case theory!

[infamous]

Originally Posted by CraigD

In either case, what’s real is the quantum wave function of the boson. A field is just a way to visualize potential measurements of this wave function.

Thanks for the feedback CraigD. At the risk of belaboring the issue I need to ask a few more questions. Is it not a true statement that by necessity a wave must have a medium within which to propagate? I would assume that the medium which gravity propagates within would be characterized as the space/time manifold, or put in more logical terms; The fabric of space/time. It may seem as though I'm forcing the issue because I understand that this question may not have a significant answer as yet. For this very reason I'm asking it, only to drive home the point that when scientists speak of fields, they really don't have concrete descriptions to define the term, Field. At least when speaking of the gravitational field.

Originally Posted by CraigD

Regardless of the goodness of any past, present, or future theory, I’m pretty sure magnetic fields aren’t ensembles of any physically real stuff - ether, particles, zero point energy, or what-have-you. Some interpretations of the Higgs field do involve such things, while other’s don’t – this is another area of the Standard Model that’s not yet compelling.

I'll say, not compelling because when science asks us to put faith in "fields that aren't ensembles of any physically real stuff" the logical mind is forced to ask the question; "If it ain't real, then why am I putting any faith in it?"

For what it's worth, a satisfactory definition for space/time must apply the character of substance to the mix for a wave to be able to propagate through the essence of same.

[arkain101]

Is there a all around equation that defines the ratio of magnetic attraction. Strength and distance? Could we add it here aswell.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by arkain101

Is there a all around equation that defines the ratio of magnetic attraction. Strength and distance? Could we add it here aswell.

Yes, there is:
F = K * (M1 * M2) / (r^2), where M1 and M2 are the magnetic strength of each pole, r is the distance between them, and K is a constant related to the permeability of the medium between them.

Although this looks much like the equation for gravity, it’s less easy to apply, since magnetic pole strength can be positive or negative, and depends on the shape of the magnet, where you consider the pole to be, and the permeability of the medium, making for some difficult practical calculations.