Understanding Fields: How Can They Be Represented and Applied?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nanoWatt
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Topic
nanoWatt
Messages
85
Reaction score
2
I've been wanting to catch back up on my physics and math. I was looking into equations on E&M, which led me to electric fields, which led me through differentiation, and on.

I am looking up on Wikipedia what a mathematical field is. Well, it's an algebraic structure. It's also a ring. A ring has more structure than an abelian group, but less than a field. A field is not just a ring, but a commutative division ring.

And so on. Now we have structures, fields, rings, abelian groups, and properties of commutativity to them.

I feel I'm going in circles. I just want to know what a field is, and if it's the same as a magnetic/electric field. How can I grasp this abstract math? My brain can't seem to grasp it.

I know a set is a group of numbers, like {1,2,3}
I guess this could be a 1x3 matrix too, and in computers it's an array.

How can this object called a "set" be represented as a field, structure, ring, abelian group, etc?

Isn't a field like a 2d or 3d (or n-dimensional) surface of points?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You have two different definitions of field here. The algebraic structure called a field is just an abstraction of the real numbers. An electric or magnetic field is a vector field. They are complety unrelated concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field
 
Ok, then I guess my next question is, how can I learn something when one thing leads to another, on and on? I'm thinking that Wikipedia isn't a good way to learn a new subject.

Even that link you sent says "In the rigorous mathematical treatment, (tangent) vector fields are defined on manifolds as sections of a manifold's tangent bundle. They are one kind of tensor field on the manifold."

Now I have more terms I don't understand:
1. rigorous mathematical treatment
2. manifolds
3. sections
4. tangent bundle
5. tensor field

So, it really didn't help me understand, although I do understand fields to be collections of vectors. However, wikipedia seems to go on forever.


Vid said:
You have two different definitions of field here. The algebraic structure called a field is just an abstraction of the real numbers. An electric or magnetic field is a vector field. They are complety unrelated concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vector_field
 
Last edited:
Thanks. I sent an application to a community college to audit a Calculus I class. I think that would be a good refresher. I also ordered an E&M textbook off Amazon. Since I have a degree in Physics (7 years old), I have covered this before.

Anyway, when I get sufficient knowledge from the Electricity and Magnetism then I'll be at the level where I can go for my masters in Physics.

Good advice though on getting the textbook.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top