| | Mr. Stolyarov, Mr. Jeremy Nix, Mr. Firehammer,
I have seen only the last few postings, so I could be misinterpreting your conversation. However, a few of the statements sounded inaccurate. So this is just to state the classical 'interpretations' of electromagnetic field:
1. A field, such as an electrostatic field, is postulated to exist *irrespective* of the presence of other charges. But you measure it *using* a second charge.
2. Jeremy Nix wrote: "To speak purely theoretically, a field would do nothing unless another entity entered it. "
This is not quite accurate: fields generated by one object can propagate and therefore transfer (dissipate) energy without the presence of a second one. An antenna radiating in free space is a classic example; the energy radiated by the antenna is lost forever unless received by another antenna. In other words, a radio station can transmit John Lennon's "Imagine" even if there are no radios to receive it:) Sun would still be radiating heat and light even if there were no earth to receive it.
In fact, this is what made the field interpretation more acceptable compared to the action-at-a-distance interpretation of Newton.
coaltontrail
|
|
