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?
$begingroup$
"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?
field-theory superposition
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"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?
field-theory superposition
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"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?
field-theory superposition
$endgroup$
"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
field-theory superposition
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
answered 9 hours ago
knzhouknzhou
44.5k11121214
44.5k11121214
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
$endgroup$
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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
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