Do “fields” always combine by addition?Why must the field equations be differential?Superposition of...

New package vs new version?

After checking in online, how do I know whether I need to go show my passport at airport check-in?

Is there a lava-breathing lizard creature (that could be worshipped by a cult) in 5e?

Constexpr if with a non-bool condition

I have trouble understanding this fallacy: "If A, then B. Therefore if not-B, then not-A."

Why would space fleets be aligned?

Should I reinstall Linux when changing the laptop's CPU?

What is the difference between "...", '...', $'...', and $"..." quotes?

A starship is travelling at 0.9c and collides with a small rock. Will it leave a clean hole through, or will more happen?

How do I append a character to the end of every line in an excel cell?

GRASS not working with QGIS 3.6

Can you tell from a blurry photo if focus was too close or too far?

Would tunnel walls be stronger if built using cut granite block walls reinforced with carbon based cords?

What language shall they sing in?

How can I play a serial killer in a party of good PCs?

It took me a lot of time to make this, pls like. (YouTube Comments #1)

Let's Encrypt and EV certificates on the same domain

How do you catch Smeargle in Pokemon Go?

Why does photorec keep finding files after I have filled the disk free space as root?

Strange "DuckDuckGo dork" takes me to random website

Why avoid shared user accounts?

A man comes home from work

Salsa20 Implementation: Sum of 2 Words with Carries Suppressed

What would you call a real market that is close to perfect competition?



Do “fields” always combine by addition?


Why must the field equations be differential?Superposition of electromagnetic waves and energy localizationOperators is a infinite dimensional matrix, how can it multiply by a wave function that is a n*1 (n is finite) matrixWhat happens when a field turns on or off?How real are fields?Physical interpretation of differential forms with values in $E$ when $E$ is a vector bundle whose sections are fieldsRules of addition of electric fieldWhy do we need to embed particles into fields?Where does Field Theory come from?How do magnetic fields combine?













4












$begingroup$


"Field" is a fun word which clearly has several meanings.



In all fields I can think of in my learning career, the fields obey superposition. I can calculate the fields generated by each object independently, and then sum them to determine the total field. But all the fields I can think of are relatively simple.



Are there fields for which this superposition principle does not apply? In other words, if I have a system where two mathematical vector spaces do not add (perhaps they saturate due to nonlinear effects), would a a physicist say "that's not a field because it doesn't admit the superposition principle?" Is there another name which is used in such circumstances instead?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    9 hours ago


















4












$begingroup$


"Field" is a fun word which clearly has several meanings.



In all fields I can think of in my learning career, the fields obey superposition. I can calculate the fields generated by each object independently, and then sum them to determine the total field. But all the fields I can think of are relatively simple.



Are there fields for which this superposition principle does not apply? In other words, if I have a system where two mathematical vector spaces do not add (perhaps they saturate due to nonlinear effects), would a a physicist say "that's not a field because it doesn't admit the superposition principle?" Is there another name which is used in such circumstances instead?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    9 hours ago
















4












4








4





$begingroup$


"Field" is a fun word which clearly has several meanings.



In all fields I can think of in my learning career, the fields obey superposition. I can calculate the fields generated by each object independently, and then sum them to determine the total field. But all the fields I can think of are relatively simple.



Are there fields for which this superposition principle does not apply? In other words, if I have a system where two mathematical vector spaces do not add (perhaps they saturate due to nonlinear effects), would a a physicist say "that's not a field because it doesn't admit the superposition principle?" Is there another name which is used in such circumstances instead?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




"Field" is a fun word which clearly has several meanings.



In all fields I can think of in my learning career, the fields obey superposition. I can calculate the fields generated by each object independently, and then sum them to determine the total field. But all the fields I can think of are relatively simple.



Are there fields for which this superposition principle does not apply? In other words, if I have a system where two mathematical vector spaces do not add (perhaps they saturate due to nonlinear effects), would a a physicist say "that's not a field because it doesn't admit the superposition principle?" Is there another name which is used in such circumstances instead?







field-theory superposition






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 9 hours ago









Cort AmmonCort Ammon

23.3k34776




23.3k34776












  • $begingroup$
    Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    9 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    9 hours ago


















$begingroup$
Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
9 hours ago






$begingroup$
Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
9 hours ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















7












$begingroup$

There are really two parts to your question: first, given two field configurations $phi_A$ and $phi_B$, does it make sense to think of a field configuration $phi_C = phi_A + phi_B$? Second, is the time evolution of $phi_C$ the same as the sum of the time evolutions of $phi_A$ and $phi_B$? If it isn't, there's not much point in writing $phi_C$ as a sum in the first place.



To answer the first question: not always. Essentially by definition, field combinations can be added if the space of possible field values is a vector space. This is the simplest option, but not the only one. For example, for a permanent magnet at low temperature, the local magnetization field has a constant magnitude but can vary its direction; it can take on values in a sphere. But the sum of two vectors on a sphere doesn't necessarily lie on the same sphere, so taking sums doesn't make sense. For a more sophisticated example, the Higgs field does something quite similar.



Sometimes one refers to theories with fields of this type as nonlinear sigma models. We still call these entities fields; my impression is that any function either from or to spacetime can be called a field.



Even in cases like this, you can still add field configurations if you think of them as small deviations from a uniform background configuration. Geometrically, this is just the fact that when you zoom in around a point on a sphere, it looks like a plane, which is a vector space. That's part of why you haven't seen examples of fields that aren't additive. The zoomed-in perspective can do a lot, but it can't describe, for example, topological field configurations which wrap around the sphere.



To answer the second question: not always. Time evolution can be calculated using the superposition principle if the equations of motion are linear, which happens if the Lagrangian is quadratic in the fields. There is nothing stopping you from adding higher-order terms, and any interesting field theory is full of them; otherwise particles would just pass right through each other.



The fact that most fields you've learned about are free can be understood in the light of effective field theory. For example, for the electromagnetic field, effective field theory tells us that at low energies, almost all contributions to the Lagrangian are strongly suppressed, with the suppression higher the higher-order the term. Thanks to other symmetries at play, the only terms that aren't negligible are the quadratic ones, which are why they were understood a century before the rest. For QED, the full Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is given by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian and includes, e.g. light-by-light scattering, a nonlinear effect.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    6












    $begingroup$

    No, not at all. You would just classify them as non-interacting.



    For instance, in classical field theory the electric field $mathbf{E}$ and the the gravitational field $mathbf{g}$ are all perfectly well defined vector fields throughout all space, but don't add at all.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
      $endgroup$
      – lastresort
      7 hours ago



















    -2












    $begingroup$

    A field is a mathematical structure with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. So yes every field (combines) additively at least internally. Two different fields aren't going to add unless you can define a mapping between the fields (see InertialObserver's answer).



    Addition; however, may look different than what you expect. There exists finite fields where addition may be modulo a certain number. E.g. a 8 bit register in computing (modulo 256), or the set of rotation (modulo 2 pi).



    Nonlinear effects do exist, but they are nonlinear functions of an underlying field that does obey superposition.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$









    • 4




      $begingroup$
      You are giving the mathematical definition of a field. This is not the definition used in physics. In physics "field" is a term for a function of several continuous variables (most commonly the three or four dimensions of space(-time)). Its values don't even have to live in a mathematical field E.g., the electrical field is a vector field with three real components and as such doesn't allow for division.
      $endgroup$
      – tobi_s
      4 hours ago













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "151"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f463205%2fdo-fields-always-combine-by-addition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    7












    $begingroup$

    There are really two parts to your question: first, given two field configurations $phi_A$ and $phi_B$, does it make sense to think of a field configuration $phi_C = phi_A + phi_B$? Second, is the time evolution of $phi_C$ the same as the sum of the time evolutions of $phi_A$ and $phi_B$? If it isn't, there's not much point in writing $phi_C$ as a sum in the first place.



    To answer the first question: not always. Essentially by definition, field combinations can be added if the space of possible field values is a vector space. This is the simplest option, but not the only one. For example, for a permanent magnet at low temperature, the local magnetization field has a constant magnitude but can vary its direction; it can take on values in a sphere. But the sum of two vectors on a sphere doesn't necessarily lie on the same sphere, so taking sums doesn't make sense. For a more sophisticated example, the Higgs field does something quite similar.



    Sometimes one refers to theories with fields of this type as nonlinear sigma models. We still call these entities fields; my impression is that any function either from or to spacetime can be called a field.



    Even in cases like this, you can still add field configurations if you think of them as small deviations from a uniform background configuration. Geometrically, this is just the fact that when you zoom in around a point on a sphere, it looks like a plane, which is a vector space. That's part of why you haven't seen examples of fields that aren't additive. The zoomed-in perspective can do a lot, but it can't describe, for example, topological field configurations which wrap around the sphere.



    To answer the second question: not always. Time evolution can be calculated using the superposition principle if the equations of motion are linear, which happens if the Lagrangian is quadratic in the fields. There is nothing stopping you from adding higher-order terms, and any interesting field theory is full of them; otherwise particles would just pass right through each other.



    The fact that most fields you've learned about are free can be understood in the light of effective field theory. For example, for the electromagnetic field, effective field theory tells us that at low energies, almost all contributions to the Lagrangian are strongly suppressed, with the suppression higher the higher-order the term. Thanks to other symmetries at play, the only terms that aren't negligible are the quadratic ones, which are why they were understood a century before the rest. For QED, the full Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is given by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian and includes, e.g. light-by-light scattering, a nonlinear effect.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$


















      7












      $begingroup$

      There are really two parts to your question: first, given two field configurations $phi_A$ and $phi_B$, does it make sense to think of a field configuration $phi_C = phi_A + phi_B$? Second, is the time evolution of $phi_C$ the same as the sum of the time evolutions of $phi_A$ and $phi_B$? If it isn't, there's not much point in writing $phi_C$ as a sum in the first place.



      To answer the first question: not always. Essentially by definition, field combinations can be added if the space of possible field values is a vector space. This is the simplest option, but not the only one. For example, for a permanent magnet at low temperature, the local magnetization field has a constant magnitude but can vary its direction; it can take on values in a sphere. But the sum of two vectors on a sphere doesn't necessarily lie on the same sphere, so taking sums doesn't make sense. For a more sophisticated example, the Higgs field does something quite similar.



      Sometimes one refers to theories with fields of this type as nonlinear sigma models. We still call these entities fields; my impression is that any function either from or to spacetime can be called a field.



      Even in cases like this, you can still add field configurations if you think of them as small deviations from a uniform background configuration. Geometrically, this is just the fact that when you zoom in around a point on a sphere, it looks like a plane, which is a vector space. That's part of why you haven't seen examples of fields that aren't additive. The zoomed-in perspective can do a lot, but it can't describe, for example, topological field configurations which wrap around the sphere.



      To answer the second question: not always. Time evolution can be calculated using the superposition principle if the equations of motion are linear, which happens if the Lagrangian is quadratic in the fields. There is nothing stopping you from adding higher-order terms, and any interesting field theory is full of them; otherwise particles would just pass right through each other.



      The fact that most fields you've learned about are free can be understood in the light of effective field theory. For example, for the electromagnetic field, effective field theory tells us that at low energies, almost all contributions to the Lagrangian are strongly suppressed, with the suppression higher the higher-order the term. Thanks to other symmetries at play, the only terms that aren't negligible are the quadratic ones, which are why they were understood a century before the rest. For QED, the full Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is given by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian and includes, e.g. light-by-light scattering, a nonlinear effect.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$
















        7












        7








        7





        $begingroup$

        There are really two parts to your question: first, given two field configurations $phi_A$ and $phi_B$, does it make sense to think of a field configuration $phi_C = phi_A + phi_B$? Second, is the time evolution of $phi_C$ the same as the sum of the time evolutions of $phi_A$ and $phi_B$? If it isn't, there's not much point in writing $phi_C$ as a sum in the first place.



        To answer the first question: not always. Essentially by definition, field combinations can be added if the space of possible field values is a vector space. This is the simplest option, but not the only one. For example, for a permanent magnet at low temperature, the local magnetization field has a constant magnitude but can vary its direction; it can take on values in a sphere. But the sum of two vectors on a sphere doesn't necessarily lie on the same sphere, so taking sums doesn't make sense. For a more sophisticated example, the Higgs field does something quite similar.



        Sometimes one refers to theories with fields of this type as nonlinear sigma models. We still call these entities fields; my impression is that any function either from or to spacetime can be called a field.



        Even in cases like this, you can still add field configurations if you think of them as small deviations from a uniform background configuration. Geometrically, this is just the fact that when you zoom in around a point on a sphere, it looks like a plane, which is a vector space. That's part of why you haven't seen examples of fields that aren't additive. The zoomed-in perspective can do a lot, but it can't describe, for example, topological field configurations which wrap around the sphere.



        To answer the second question: not always. Time evolution can be calculated using the superposition principle if the equations of motion are linear, which happens if the Lagrangian is quadratic in the fields. There is nothing stopping you from adding higher-order terms, and any interesting field theory is full of them; otherwise particles would just pass right through each other.



        The fact that most fields you've learned about are free can be understood in the light of effective field theory. For example, for the electromagnetic field, effective field theory tells us that at low energies, almost all contributions to the Lagrangian are strongly suppressed, with the suppression higher the higher-order the term. Thanks to other symmetries at play, the only terms that aren't negligible are the quadratic ones, which are why they were understood a century before the rest. For QED, the full Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is given by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian and includes, e.g. light-by-light scattering, a nonlinear effect.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$



        There are really two parts to your question: first, given two field configurations $phi_A$ and $phi_B$, does it make sense to think of a field configuration $phi_C = phi_A + phi_B$? Second, is the time evolution of $phi_C$ the same as the sum of the time evolutions of $phi_A$ and $phi_B$? If it isn't, there's not much point in writing $phi_C$ as a sum in the first place.



        To answer the first question: not always. Essentially by definition, field combinations can be added if the space of possible field values is a vector space. This is the simplest option, but not the only one. For example, for a permanent magnet at low temperature, the local magnetization field has a constant magnitude but can vary its direction; it can take on values in a sphere. But the sum of two vectors on a sphere doesn't necessarily lie on the same sphere, so taking sums doesn't make sense. For a more sophisticated example, the Higgs field does something quite similar.



        Sometimes one refers to theories with fields of this type as nonlinear sigma models. We still call these entities fields; my impression is that any function either from or to spacetime can be called a field.



        Even in cases like this, you can still add field configurations if you think of them as small deviations from a uniform background configuration. Geometrically, this is just the fact that when you zoom in around a point on a sphere, it looks like a plane, which is a vector space. That's part of why you haven't seen examples of fields that aren't additive. The zoomed-in perspective can do a lot, but it can't describe, for example, topological field configurations which wrap around the sphere.



        To answer the second question: not always. Time evolution can be calculated using the superposition principle if the equations of motion are linear, which happens if the Lagrangian is quadratic in the fields. There is nothing stopping you from adding higher-order terms, and any interesting field theory is full of them; otherwise particles would just pass right through each other.



        The fact that most fields you've learned about are free can be understood in the light of effective field theory. For example, for the electromagnetic field, effective field theory tells us that at low energies, almost all contributions to the Lagrangian are strongly suppressed, with the suppression higher the higher-order the term. Thanks to other symmetries at play, the only terms that aren't negligible are the quadratic ones, which are why they were understood a century before the rest. For QED, the full Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is given by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian and includes, e.g. light-by-light scattering, a nonlinear effect.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 9 hours ago









        knzhouknzhou

        44.5k11121214




        44.5k11121214























            6












            $begingroup$

            No, not at all. You would just classify them as non-interacting.



            For instance, in classical field theory the electric field $mathbf{E}$ and the the gravitational field $mathbf{g}$ are all perfectly well defined vector fields throughout all space, but don't add at all.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
              $endgroup$
              – lastresort
              7 hours ago
















            6












            $begingroup$

            No, not at all. You would just classify them as non-interacting.



            For instance, in classical field theory the electric field $mathbf{E}$ and the the gravitational field $mathbf{g}$ are all perfectly well defined vector fields throughout all space, but don't add at all.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
              $endgroup$
              – lastresort
              7 hours ago














            6












            6








            6





            $begingroup$

            No, not at all. You would just classify them as non-interacting.



            For instance, in classical field theory the electric field $mathbf{E}$ and the the gravitational field $mathbf{g}$ are all perfectly well defined vector fields throughout all space, but don't add at all.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            No, not at all. You would just classify them as non-interacting.



            For instance, in classical field theory the electric field $mathbf{E}$ and the the gravitational field $mathbf{g}$ are all perfectly well defined vector fields throughout all space, but don't add at all.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 9 hours ago









            InertialObserverInertialObserver

            3,005927




            3,005927












            • $begingroup$
              And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
              $endgroup$
              – lastresort
              7 hours ago


















            • $begingroup$
              And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
              $endgroup$
              – lastresort
              7 hours ago
















            $begingroup$
            And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
            $endgroup$
            – lastresort
            7 hours ago




            $begingroup$
            And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
            $endgroup$
            – lastresort
            7 hours ago











            -2












            $begingroup$

            A field is a mathematical structure with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. So yes every field (combines) additively at least internally. Two different fields aren't going to add unless you can define a mapping between the fields (see InertialObserver's answer).



            Addition; however, may look different than what you expect. There exists finite fields where addition may be modulo a certain number. E.g. a 8 bit register in computing (modulo 256), or the set of rotation (modulo 2 pi).



            Nonlinear effects do exist, but they are nonlinear functions of an underlying field that does obey superposition.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 4




              $begingroup$
              You are giving the mathematical definition of a field. This is not the definition used in physics. In physics "field" is a term for a function of several continuous variables (most commonly the three or four dimensions of space(-time)). Its values don't even have to live in a mathematical field E.g., the electrical field is a vector field with three real components and as such doesn't allow for division.
              $endgroup$
              – tobi_s
              4 hours ago


















            -2












            $begingroup$

            A field is a mathematical structure with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. So yes every field (combines) additively at least internally. Two different fields aren't going to add unless you can define a mapping between the fields (see InertialObserver's answer).



            Addition; however, may look different than what you expect. There exists finite fields where addition may be modulo a certain number. E.g. a 8 bit register in computing (modulo 256), or the set of rotation (modulo 2 pi).



            Nonlinear effects do exist, but they are nonlinear functions of an underlying field that does obey superposition.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$









            • 4




              $begingroup$
              You are giving the mathematical definition of a field. This is not the definition used in physics. In physics "field" is a term for a function of several continuous variables (most commonly the three or four dimensions of space(-time)). Its values don't even have to live in a mathematical field E.g., the electrical field is a vector field with three real components and as such doesn't allow for division.
              $endgroup$
              – tobi_s
              4 hours ago
















            -2












            -2








            -2





            $begingroup$

            A field is a mathematical structure with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. So yes every field (combines) additively at least internally. Two different fields aren't going to add unless you can define a mapping between the fields (see InertialObserver's answer).



            Addition; however, may look different than what you expect. There exists finite fields where addition may be modulo a certain number. E.g. a 8 bit register in computing (modulo 256), or the set of rotation (modulo 2 pi).



            Nonlinear effects do exist, but they are nonlinear functions of an underlying field that does obey superposition.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            A field is a mathematical structure with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. So yes every field (combines) additively at least internally. Two different fields aren't going to add unless you can define a mapping between the fields (see InertialObserver's answer).



            Addition; however, may look different than what you expect. There exists finite fields where addition may be modulo a certain number. E.g. a 8 bit register in computing (modulo 256), or the set of rotation (modulo 2 pi).



            Nonlinear effects do exist, but they are nonlinear functions of an underlying field that does obey superposition.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered 8 hours ago









            Paul ChildsPaul Childs

            2345




            2345








            • 4




              $begingroup$
              You are giving the mathematical definition of a field. This is not the definition used in physics. In physics "field" is a term for a function of several continuous variables (most commonly the three or four dimensions of space(-time)). Its values don't even have to live in a mathematical field E.g., the electrical field is a vector field with three real components and as such doesn't allow for division.
              $endgroup$
              – tobi_s
              4 hours ago
















            • 4




              $begingroup$
              You are giving the mathematical definition of a field. This is not the definition used in physics. In physics "field" is a term for a function of several continuous variables (most commonly the three or four dimensions of space(-time)). Its values don't even have to live in a mathematical field E.g., the electrical field is a vector field with three real components and as such doesn't allow for division.
              $endgroup$
              – tobi_s
              4 hours ago










            4




            4




            $begingroup$
            You are giving the mathematical definition of a field. This is not the definition used in physics. In physics "field" is a term for a function of several continuous variables (most commonly the three or four dimensions of space(-time)). Its values don't even have to live in a mathematical field E.g., the electrical field is a vector field with three real components and as such doesn't allow for division.
            $endgroup$
            – tobi_s
            4 hours ago






            $begingroup$
            You are giving the mathematical definition of a field. This is not the definition used in physics. In physics "field" is a term for a function of several continuous variables (most commonly the three or four dimensions of space(-time)). Its values don't even have to live in a mathematical field E.g., the electrical field is a vector field with three real components and as such doesn't allow for division.
            $endgroup$
            – tobi_s
            4 hours ago




















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f463205%2fdo-fields-always-combine-by-addition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Benedict Cumberbatch Contingut Inicis Debut professional Premis Filmografia bàsica Premis i...

            Monticle de plataforma Contingut Est de Nord Amèrica Interpretacions Altres cultures Vegeu...

            Escacs Janus Enllaços externs Menú de navegacióEscacs JanusJanusschachBrainKing.comChessV