sci.physics.electromag

On Mar 16, 6:18 pm, "FrediFizzx" wrote:
> "Benj" wrote in message
>
> news:67f2df34-094c-4197-9899-f04150ee6f38@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 16, 2:46 am, khrapko...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Dear Benj: What's the matter? What's the thread? Fields are obviously
> >> real and mathematics is an idea.
> >> Radi
>
> > Dear Radi,
> > Forces are obviously real and fields are a mathematical idea.
>
> (real force)/(real charge) = (real E field)
>
> The fact that we can use mathematics to successfully express the
> relationship doesn't matter. If given the charge and value of the E
> field, you can calculate the real force. I do believe one can buy
> electric field meters. ;-)

We talked about this before and obviously there is a certain amount of
semantics involved, but What I'm saying is that while people will use
words like "magnetic field" and "electric field" we have to ask what
is MEANT by that?

When I say this magnet produces a "magnetic field" what I'm really
saying is that this magnet produces a magnetic force distribution
which more or less appears to have the properties of a mathematical
field. In other words it appears to be continuous, I assume it extends
to the edges of the universe. And it more or less follows the laws of
mathematical field theory. The problem arises when I start saying
that this force distribution actually IS a "field". Because, for
example, we already know that down at the electron level where these
forces are generated the "continuous" field theory is only an
approximation that is only valid when there are enough electrons
whereby a continuous model can average over the discrete particles.
Thus it clearly follows that while we all tend to use the WORDS
"magnetic field", the force distribution is in fact only approximated
by the mathematical field model! The fact that I can use the model to
make calculations that more or less agree with what I'm measuring only
says that the model is a reasonably good one. It does not in fact say
that the force distribution is in fact a true field no matter what we
call it. In fact we all know that at the quantum level, the continuous
field theory model is NOT valid and therefore in the ultimate sense
that apparently continuous "force field" we are seemingly measuring,
isn't actually a "field" at all! Only the AVERAGE of quantum
"granularity" and particle effects is anything like a "field". THAT
is what I"m saying.

Doesn't this make sense?