Any field or dynamics not related to the 4 Forces?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion explores whether there are fields in physics that are not related to the four fundamental forces. Participants mention the Higgs field and the Inflaton field as potential examples, noting that these fields do not constitute forces of nature. The distinction between fields related to the four forces and those that are not is questioned, with a focus on defining characteristics. The Higgs field is highlighted as hypothetical and unobserved, while the concept of a dark matter field is also introduced. Overall, the conversation seeks to clarify the nature of various fields in relation to fundamental forces.
rogerl
Messages
238
Reaction score
2
In physics, is there any field (field like electric field, magnetic field, etc.) that is not related to the 4 Fundamental forces? Kinetic energy is not related to it because it is bulk action. How about "field"? Is Higgs field an example? It is not a force of nature. Also Inflaton field. It doesn't seem to be related to the 4 fundamental forces. How do you make the distinctions when a field is related to the 4 forces and when it is not? What's the defining distinctions and descriptions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The only fields that I know of are the ones from the 4 fudamental forces. The higgs field is a hypothetical field only that has yet to be observed. Can you name any other fields?
 
Drakkith said:
The only fields that I know of are the ones from the 4 fudamental forces. The higgs field is a hypothetical field only that has yet to be observed. Can you name any other fields?

How about Inflaton Field. Dark matter field (?) Can others share more?
 

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces not real just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Thread 'Derivation of Hamilton's Principle: Questions'

I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
View full post »

Similar threads

A Aligning effect in uniform field
Replies
7
Views
1K
Understanding energy conservation in a solenoid
Replies
5
Views
1K
How to characterize a power law field?
Replies
1
Views
6K
A Relativity: Test charge moving perpendicular to a current carrying wire exhibits a force
Replies
7
Views
1K
B Understanding the electric field
Replies
16
Views
1K
I Forces (Fields) of Nature and Quantum Foundations
Replies
5
Views
1K
I Charge movement relative to magnetic field frame dependence/invariance
Replies
5
Views
919
I How relative is the magnetic field of a current carrying conductor?
Replies
4
Views
1K
B Are real theories undiscoverable from effective field theories?
Replies
4
Views
2K
A Inertial mass, the Higgs field, and Mach's Principle
Replies
3
Views
250

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top