[Phys-L] Re: Definition of electric field

[Brian Whatcott <betwys1@SBCGLOBAL.NET>]

At 12:16 PM 5/30/2005, Jim G., you wrote:
[JD]
> >    *) from a purely technical point of view, not
> >     nearly as important as it might seem, for the
> >     following reason:  At the end of the day, the
> >     electromagnetic field is what it is;  it does
> >     what it does.  A caveman can build a fire that
> >     radiates electromagnetic fields, without needing
> >     to "define" the field.  Definitions have to do
> >     with how _we_ think about the field, whereas the
> >     field exists whether we think about it or not.
> [JG]
> Oh my, Folks, the "field" does NOT "exist" -- It is an INVENTION.  There
> was no field for cavemen as they had not yet invented one. Forces existed
> -- even without recognizing them but not "fields."  It looks as if we are
> off on another field trip (oops) to reify another concept.
>
> Jim

Ahah! Jim allows force to be transcendent, but field to be a model.

Why?  Perhaps he would say, "Even a cave-man knew what happened
  if he swung a stone on a cleft stick at an elk."

But wait: didn't he also know what happened if he sat too close to
the fire?

This seems to be a case of
"I can reify what *I* want, but you can't reify what *you* want!"
...or have I got it all wrong?

  :-)



Brian Whatcott    Altus OK    Eureka!
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l