Talk:Force field (physics)

What is the definition?

I'm putting this question out to anyone who can answer it: according to what source is there an actual definition of "force field?" I ask this because I've hardly ever seen "force field" in a physics text. I've seen gravitational field and electric field, and I understand the concept that such forces are the gradient of their potentials. But according to whom are the forces associated with them defined as "force fields"?

If no one can provide a source for this particular definition of "force field" (while it makes sense), I say the article should be deleted.

I had a bit of trouble finding good sources, but here's a good definition from http://www.nksd.net/schools/nkhs/staff/john_daneau/cp_glossary.htm: "That which exists in the space surround­ing a mass, electric charge, or magnet, so that another mass, electric charge, or magnet intro­duced to this region will experience a force. Examples of force fields are gravitational fields, electric fields, and magnetic fields." For purposes of the article, I'd go for a more authoritative source - I believe this definition was written (or least typed up) by a high school teacher - but in terms of accuracy, it appears alongside good definitions of many other physics terms.

The force field has a place in science and therefore a place in Wikipedia. As the article states, it was Michael Faraday's concept. However, while that paragraph is not inaccurate, it does not make a good opening paragraph and requires the attention of someone able to write both clearly and knowledgeably. In other words, it is confusing and should be rewritten.

Another point about the opening paragraph: which Kuhn? The word "Kuhnian" links to a disambiguation page and I honestly don't know who the guy is.

Excellently worded examples;

or a smeared plum pudding of electric charges

not so good. MagnusW (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also like a reference to "force field". The expression "field of force" is certainly in play in physics, but "force field" is an atypical expression I think. Also, there is no reference to Faraday's initial coinage of the term. I know about places where he coins "lines of force" and other such expressions, but I don't have a reference for "force field". Can one be provided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindrek (talk • contribs) 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

@MagnusW 157.35.86.250 (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is no meaningful difference in this term and field lines. The material could easily be integrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashami (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

• A field can be drawn by using the lines. However, the field is not the same as a line of the field.Biophys (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Misleading reference

I just deleted this: 'The term appears to have been coined by Michael Faraday (J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans., 1996, 92, 353 - 362, DOI: 10.1039/FT9969200353).'

The reference is to the following journal article: Adri C. T. van Duin, Jan M. A. Baas and Bastiaan van de Graaf, Molecular mechanics force field for tertiary carbocations.

It is fairly apparent from the abstract that the referenced article describes a molecular mechanics force field and might therefore be discussed under Force field (chemistry), however there is no apparent relevance to this Wiki article.

A full reading of the journal article reveals no mention of Faraday. Those who don't have access to the Journal of the Chemical Society (anyone outside a large research institution?) will have to take my word for it - sorry!

Given that the reference is irrelevant to this article, and fails to support the attribution of the term to Faraday, I thought it best to just delete the whole sentence. miracleworker5263 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion

I nominate this page for deletion. I'm not against having a page on this topic (force field in physics), but this page is worse than nothing at all. The article doesn't mention anything that isn't already covered more accurately elsewhere. NOrbeck (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see the point. It should be merged with Field (physics). Biophys (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I tried to improve the article here. I don't think it should be merged, I hope that my rewrite and additions help justify that. --Steve (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Electric force field? No, this is just electric field. What would be the difference between "electric force field" and electric field? Biophys (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I added some text to clarify that example. Admittedly, there are some people who use "electric force field" as a synonym for "electric field" and "gravitational force field" as a synonym for "gravitational field". Obviously this is a pointless terminology and doesn't really make sense. But ignoring that, there does seem to be a primary and sensible and self-consistent definition of "force field" that most people use, and this article can and should be restricted to that sensible definition. That's how it is now. --Steve (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you quote at least one example when these expressions are not used as exact synonyms? And if they are always used as synonyms, the articles should be merged, I think. Biophys (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, look at any of the four citations in the article, they all use "force fields" that have units of force. The unit of electric field is not force, the unit of gravitational field is not force. The citations show specific formulas for gravitational force field as G*m1*m2/r^2, while the gravitational field is just G*m/r^2, and the show the specific formula for electric force field as k*q1*q2/r^2, while the electric field is just k*q/r^2. --Steve (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hence this is simply the force calculated for every position in space (it would be more clear if called "field of force"). Yes, this is quite different from "ordinary" fields in Physics, because it depends on properties of the body (charge or mass, for example). Thank you. Biophys (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Describes, entails, or what?

moved from my (Just plain Bill's) talk page;

"A vector field that describes..." is impossible unless construed as "a vector field that describes..." Per Merriam-Webster:

Definition of describe
 1 : to represent or give an account of in words
     // describe a picture
     // The police asked her to describe the thief.
     // There were so many things he wanted to describe …
        — James Joyce

--Kent Dominic·(talk) 14:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

That link to "field" in the context of a political campaign is a disingenuous Easter egg, in my view. Shenanigans like that do not improve the encyclopedia. Saying that a mathematical description entails physical reality is mistaking the map for the territory.

See WP:BRD. Until consensus is reached on this talk page, status quo ante should prevail. Just plain Bill (talk) 14:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

This is hardly a matter of WP:BRD; it's a matter of using simple phrasing. Granted: "a vector field that describes a non-contact force..." makes sense if describe is construed in an ergative manner, but then the lede acquires a poetic characteristic that a worldwide readership would find comical since most languages don't allow an inanimate object (such as a field) to describe anything or to otherwise act in a human capacity.

So, I'm not categorically averse to using "describe" in the lede; I simply want phrasing that's consistent with Just plain Bill's namesake in order to comport with a worldwide readership's disparate language ability. Rather than re-vert the reversion, I'm about to rephrase the lede using describe in an inflected manner that provides a straightforward, non-ergative sense.

And BTW, the link to field indeed was an Easter egg, but not a disingenuous one, and hardly a shenanigan. It serves to demonstrate how non-native English readers often find it difficult to construe nuance that less-than-circumspect native English speakers take for granted in favor of their own language biases and interpretive presumptions. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 15:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, considering all the comments and concerns from the prior threads, the lede might be better phrased as, "In physics, a force field is a vector field that is described as a non-contact force acting on a particle at various positions in space." Any takers? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 16:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

No, "a force field is a vector field as a non-contact force..." is a non-starter; it is incomprehensible gibberish, even to native speakers.

Hiding the meaning (target) of a link from this page's audience quacks, waddles, and flaps like a duck in the "disingenuous shenanigans" flock, again, in my view. Go ahead and play word games with my user name, if you want to look like a casuist who thinks he is clever. You have lectured me in the past about commenting on the content, not the contributor. Stop it.

This is the English Wikipedia. While I can get along in three or four Romance languages, and spent years playing with kids who spoke an agglutinative non-Indo-European language, in this arena it is OK to use "describes" in utterances such as "the PV diagram describes a Carnot cycle" without the need for a human to do the describing. Someone using this English Wikipedia as a resource for EFL study needs to be able to take it as it comes, IMO. If that makes for too much of a struggle, there is always the Simple English version.

The current first sentence may be "simple phrasing," but it gets things backwards:

In physics, a force field is a vector field that is described as a non-contact force acting on a particle at various positions in space.

Rather than continuing to edit war, we will do better to suggest alternatives here in this talk section, and allow some time for others to chime in. In the meantime, status quo ante is not so horribly wrong that it cannot stand until we find something more agreeable. 16:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

In short, the re-reverted lede is neither horribly wrong nor intrinsically wrong but (IMHO, contrary to yours) it's needlessly confusing to non-native English speakers. Moreover, a HUGE problem here, as indicated in the discussion page re the linked non-contact force article, is that the entire concept of non-contact force is notionally suspect from a quantum physics POV. Another problem is that this article tries to characterize a force field as a catchall set of electric fields, magnetic fields, and gravitational fields (among others) and invites conflation with Force field (chemistry) and Force field (technology). Question: Do we really need this article, with its field that doesn't describe anything adequately covered elsewhere? Ibid Talk:Force_field_(physics)#Nomination_for_deletion from NOrbeck. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Kindly stick to the topic at hand, which is your complaint that plain English is too hard for non-native speakers to understand (loosely paraphrased by yrs truly.) It is not about chemical bonds nor science fiction, and certainly not about a ten-year-old failed deletion discussion.

"In physics, a force field is..."

Just plain Bill (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Back atcha: "In physics, a force field is..." Kindly offer an alternative to what's currently in the lede, or restore my "entails" phrasing and see if anyone but you complains. (BTW, you've violated the WP:3RR. No hard feelings or urge to call the cops; I'm just saying.) --Kent Dominic·(talk) 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

As the one complaining, how about you try to find verbiage that works? I think the current version is more or less fine.

Violated 3RR? Read it more carefully, and count again. Also, one more time, with feeling: kindly try to stay on topic, and avoid baseless accusations. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Off-topic, I stand corrected as it's true enough:

1. 12:30, 25 April 2022‎ Just plain Bill talk contribs‎ 3,972 bytes +2‎ Reverted good faith edits by Kent Dominic
2. 14:50, 25 April 2022‎ Just plain Bill talk contribs‎ 3,972 bytes +2‎ Reverted 1 edit by Kent Dominic
3. 16:44, 25 April 2022‎ Just plain Bill talk contribs‎ 3,972 bytes −6‎ Reverted good faith edits by Kent Dominic

Accordingly, I'll restore my "entails" phrasing, which puts both of us at three reverts. That'll give us 24 hours see if anyone but you complains. Keep an eye on the clock but remember: "Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." Kent Dominic·(talk) 19:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Just plain Bill:
Wait until tomorrow to see if anyone else reverts. Assuming they don't, revert it tomorrow and have it your way. No skin off my nose. My own work links instead to the rightly couched Field (physics) article, and I have no use for the poorly worded conceptual bilge in Force field (physics), which I read only incidentally and edited de gratia. Meanwhile, have a look at the field disambiguation page to note that it omits each instance of Force field. Have a go at yourself since I have better things to do than seeing to such things. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I just now noticed the '"ergative" is a red herring here' remark from an edit summary in one of Just plain Bill's reversions. That observation couldn't be more incorrect as it's the root of my concern. Sinologically, phrasing such as "The Bible says XYZ" (versus, e.g., "St. Paul said XYZ in the Bible") is nonsensical despite how Native English speakers don't bat an eye at such everyday parlance with ergative verbs. For more than half the world's population, cars don't (spontaneously) crash, buildings can't (spontaneously) burn down, and fields have no ability to (spontaneously) describe anything unless, as one of my Korean acquaintances put it, "something spooky or Harry Potter-ish is going on." Yet, some Karen-like editors seem to think their provincial grasp of English should prevail against a more inclusive perspective. Last I looked, this article doesn't say, "In the discussion of physics as colloquially adapted solely for native English speakers who favor their own style of communication to the exclusion of a worldwide readership's language idiosyncrasies, a force field is a vector field that describes..." Cheers, all. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The vector field is the map; the distribution of force throughout some defined space is the territory. Mistaking one for the other is, well, a mistake. In the context of physics, legal definitions of "entailment" do not apply. Next item in the OED's array of definitions is "to bring on by way of necessary consequence." For the general run of cartography, the terrain is not a consequence of the map, so saying the map entails the terrain (or the vector field entails the force distribution) is getting it backwards.

The OED also lists an antique sense of "describe" where an object (such as a picture) can describe a person or thing. That's moot now, since you seem to have accepted "corresponding with" as encyclopedic English.

For now, I will ignore the implausibly deniable personal attacks above. I understand the motivation for getting that rant off your chest, but Wikipedia article talk pages are not the venue for it. Kindly keep that kind of thing on a shorter leash in future. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Water under the bridge:

• A vector field is a space. It could be a 2D map, a 2D plane (mapped or otherwise simply extant), or a 3D space. But, so what?
• A distribution of force can occur throughout a field or in a field line, depending on how specific one gets re the force being discussed (or, how finely one measures or hair-splits "field" versus "line").
• Of course "mistaking one for the other is a mistake", but such a mistake isn’t relevant to the describes versus entails matter at hand.
• Indeed any "legal definitions" re "entailment" do not apply. Why even bring up legality? Is that part of this article? On the other hand, the ordinary sense of "entail" simply means "to impose, involve, or imply as a necessary accompaniment or result" (per Merriam-Webster) or "to involve (something) as a necessary or inevitable part or consequence" per OED. In paraphrase, "a force field is a vector field that entails (i.e., involves; includes; is accompanied by, etc.) a non-contact force acting on a particle at various positions in space."
• Etymologically speaking, using describes in the manner of interprets or explains isn't wrong, and I daresay it's not as obsolete as the dictionaries make it out to be. It's just hard to construe for ppl who know only the more modern meaning of the word. I don't favor risking such misconstruction in this article's case but, moreover, it's simply the wrong word since the article treats a force field primarily as a physical occurrence complemented by a physics equation, not vice versa.
• The "corresponds with" verbiage isn't how I'd roll, but it's case of no-harm-no-foul unless anyone wants to hear the excruciating quarrel against it.

Extra credit: Thanks for acknowledging the "implausibly deniable personal attacks," which – if they were personal – would inarguably be implausibly deniable. (Ooh, another rimshot!) However, please give credit where it's due: my ribbing re misguided edits (or reversions, as the case may be) is always coded in good-natured if-the-shoe-fits-wear-it terms for ANY hypothetical editor. So there. carry on. Oops; Carry on. Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Right. All that blather about editors with a provincial view of a cosmopolitan language was aimed at that other fellow behind the tree. N.B. there is a fine line between ribbing and needling. Wikipedia not being a social networking site, neither style fits well here.

Legality? That is the context of the first three definitions in the OED, which makes #4 the first relevant one. That whole "carry on" business that you've lately taken a fancy to going on about dates back to a time when my amanuensis, archy, was handling such things. It amuses me to keep it that way. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Anything construed as ribbing or needling is intended to improve the Wikipedia product. Did it work in this case? I'm not about to play the ex post facto card. It suffices to say that the lede is better now whether because of or in spite of the blah blah blahs. A prudent editor's dilemma: ditch any knee-jerk reversions (and two-bit edit summaries) or suffer the piddling walls of text I can crank out on short order if only to amuse myself. Those who feel shivved might be best served to ignore them rather than to engage.

Side note: I honestly don't know which edition of OED you're quoting. I read only the online edition, which differs from what you've posted here re "entails." They have a second definition tagged as "law," which clearly isn't pertinent to this article. I vaguely recall legal entailment from my Property Law I course, or maybe it was Trusts & Estates(?), but that was a lifetime ago, and I barely passed either course.

Re "amanuensis" – is that a real word? I'm off to look it up to see if I'm being punked. Woo hoo if so; boo hoo if not. Cheers. Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:10, 28 April 2022 (UTC)