Understanding field representation of force

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of gravitational force as a field, specifically focusing on the concept of field lines and their implications for understanding gravitational force at various points in space. Participants explore the nature of fields, the continuity of gravitational force, and the interpretation of field lines as visual aids.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether gravitational force acts on points where no field lines pass, suggesting a potential gap in understanding the representation of force in a field.
  • Another participant argues that gravity is continuous and permeates all space, indicating that field lines are merely a visual aid related to the strength of the field.
  • A third participant emphasizes that field lines and the field itself are synonymous in the context of the referenced book, challenging the notion that field lines are not a direct representation of the field.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of having infinite lines of force and how that relates to the density of lines in a finite volume.
  • One participant notes that calculations should not be based on the visual representation of field lines, as they are not a precise map of the field.
  • There is a mention of the confusion surrounding magnetic field lines and their representation, suggesting that similar misconceptions could arise in understanding gravitational fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of field lines and their relationship to gravitational force. There is no consensus on whether field lines adequately represent the continuous nature of gravitational fields or how to interpret their density in relation to force.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of visual representations in textbooks, suggesting that they may oversimplify or misrepresent complex concepts in physics.

Anupam
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I am reading the book "The Evolution of Physics". I have a doubt in the topic "The field as representation". In this topic authors give the example of gravitational force represented as a field. In the following image the small circle represents an attracting body(say sun) and the lines are the well known lines of force of the gravitational field.
Image
![image](http://i.imgur.com/YC6m8fz.png)
It is said that the density of the lines of force in space shows how the force varies with the distance. Let us consider a finite volume ΔV in the vicinity of sun. Now the number of lines of force passing through this is finite but there are infinite points in this ΔV volume.
1.Is there any gravitational force acting on those points through which no line of force passes.
2. If the gravitational force acts on all the points contained in ΔV shouldn't there be infinite lines of forces passing through ΔV.

3. If it is supposed that there are really infinite lines of force passing thru ΔV then how to decide the density of no of lines won't it be infinite.
NOTE: "_lines of force_" and "_Field_" these two are synonymusly and interchangably used in the mentioned book.
Please cite some canonical references which explains the 3 different points i mentioned in your answer.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gravity doesn't just happen along those specific field lines. It permeates through all space continuously. What that drawing is telling you is that the density of the lines is related to the strength of the field. It's simply a visual aid, you can't make any direct calculations from it.

1. Yes, because a field, by definition, is continuous.
2. Technically, yes.
3. That's precisely why they don't draw an infinite number of lines. The idea is to give you a visual aid.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_line
 
@Legaldose you are using a different terminology. In the book [here](https://archive.org/details/evolutionofphysi033254mbp) the authors use the term "field" and "field lines" synonymously. It is the field lines which are in brief called the field. Field is just a representation. If you say field is continues than you will have to say "field lines" are also continues. "Field lines" are not a map of "field". "Field lines" are the "Field".
I have another question related to this post should i ask as a new post or should i post it here in this current post.
 
Anupam said:
I
1.Is there any gravitational force acting on those points through which no line of force passes.

Field lines are only a representation. The sort of field we deal with in Physics is continuous from location to location. The lines show the direction and the density of the lines indicates (only indicates) the amplitude. You would never do a calculation on the basis of the lines.

Magnetic field lines are even more confusing in regions where two N poles are close together. Also, those pesky iron filings can really mess up your understanding of the true shape of fields in places. It's a good thing we don't have the gravitational equivalent to iron filings! :big grin:

PS It is quite reasonable to be at odds with some of the things you can find in textbooks - especially when they are trying to be 'chatty' and to make a topic approachable. They can often over-egg that and give a wrong impression.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K