I want to understand what force is. This seems to be a simple question. What complicates the issue is that there are two ways of looking at the question.
1. Physicist’s way
2. Scientist’s way
1. Physicist’s way
In physics there is nothing to question: Force is what is defined as force in legal physics.
For physicists, whatever they define as force is force. Since there are hundreds of definitions of force and species of force and other qualities analogous to force, such as potential, in physics force is devoid of meaning. There is a force for every potentiality.
In physics, force is a scholastic form that physicists use to make new definitions by speciating existing definitions of force. Therefore, as formal quality and the original faith force is independent of observations or reason. It cannot be observed, measured, proved or disproved.1
All the species of force are speciated from the initial definition of force by Newton. Newton’s definition is sacred and cannot be questioned. For a scientist this is unscientific and puts force outside of the realm of science. A scientist cannot understand Newtonian force since it is defined as faith and is not subject to scientific skepticism.
2. Scientist’s way
In order to understand what force is a scientist must question it. A scientist, unlike physicists, is not bound by Newton’s authority. For a scientist there is nothing sacred about Newton’s arbitrary definitions. To understand force a scientist must take it apart and then put it back together. Since this is forbidden and illegal in physics a scientific investigator must look at the Newtonian force from outside of physics.
But Newtonian occult force is a by-product of physics and has no meaning outside physics. Occult does not exist outside physics. Occult may be the official faith of physics and every physicist must believe in it as part of their professional faith but occult does not exist in nature.
To understand the Newtonian force physics must be exposed as a religion whose faith is force. When Newtonism will finally collapse force will disappear with it. Otherwise it is futile to discuss their faith with faithful physicists.
- Only charlatans claim to measure their faith. [↩]
Is it not a question of semantics? Force may not qualify for understanding fundamental aspects of physics, but be a useful term for classical mechanics, which is useful for the human scale of things? After all, particle physicists talk about “interactions”, rather than forces, which is a good word for something not well understood.
I’ve been reading your blog recently and I think you are on to something important. Yet, I would like to attempt on some general, constructive criticism:
1) Most posts are embedded in a rant on physicists, scholasticism and Newton. it becomes somewhat redundant and deludes your arguments, and the more interesting content. The accusations you make are often presented without strong arguments supporting them in the same post, which makes them empty. I am not saying you are not right.
2) You make a big issue about Newtonism in Physics. Maybe this critique is to be understood in the context of particle physics, etc, I can’t say (I do computational biology, and don’t have a strong background in physics, but I did some). With that reservation, wouldn’t you say that Newtonian mechanics have been a great contribution to science, with great applications in engineering?
3) Physics are not about discovering ultimate, universal truths, it is about discovering useful models, idealizations of nature. I think that there is a disease among scientists in general to believe that science is universal. If you think physicists are brainwashed with Newtonian mechanics, you should meet the biologists, it is much worse.
4) Scholasticism is a social force like any other, that will act on humanity for better or worse. It is utopian to think we can get rid of it altogether. I’d like to see more concrete ideas how to do it better, rather than blindly rant about it. There is a difference between the society and the individual phycisists working in it. My experience is that at least half is critical and perceptive about the academic system. Makes me wonder what people you have run into.
5) The fact that the wrong people (as you depict Newton) get credit for other eople’s work I think is widespread and common. It is good to point that out.
6) In general, I would like to see a few links in the marginal to some clear, concise posts about your main cases: relevance and problems with Cavendish experiment,
Newton wrongly accredited, problems of scholasticism etc.
All in all, your blog makes an interesting read, but with more clarity, more arguments and less ranting I think it would be a lot better.
best,
Fredrik
A very long time ago, while taking graduate classes in QM and various other things, I commented to a professor of physics that “I still really don’t know what a force is”. His reply was “perhaps you shouldn’t be studying physics, Carl”.
I’ve often wondered if what he meant was to shut up and calculate, was a comment on my stupidity or blindness, was said in ignorance of the fact that physics is more about what nature does than what she is, or was a joke about the mysteriousness of the universe. He died in 2004, so I guess I’ll never know.
Nice quote. I wish I was given this advice when I was studying physics and when I thought I could understand force by learning more physics.
My present understanding of force is that it is a label defined by Newton. Force does not exist as a measurable quantity in nature because the label F always cancels and does not exist in operational expressions.
Newton defined F = 1/R^2 and F = R/T^2 and called Kepler’s rule Newton’s laws.
This is why I have been looking at the Cavenish experiment. Cavendish used K3 to compute the mean density of the earth. A century after Cavendish’s death physicists formulated a Newtonian version of the analysis that included Newtonian sounding terms such as the G in order to define Cavendish experiment as the first experimental measurement of the occult force.
To me force is occult. And this fact is proof enough that Cavendish pendulum did not move under the influence of force. But to show this quantitatively would be nice.
I greatly appreciate your criticism and I agree with most of it. Thank you.
I have some comments:
I don’t agree with this interpretation of force. I don’t understand how force is useful in calculations of motion. Force is written and then cancelled. Force does not exist in the formulas used to compute positions. The only usefulness of force is to save Newton’s authority.
Force is a placeholder. As a placeholder it is not a measurable quantity. It must be removed from physics.
Is this a question of semantics? In other words, am I asking what is the meaning of the word force? No. I am asking: What does force do? What is its usefulness? Does it exist? Is force a magnitude or is it a placeholder?
It is a placeholder because it cancels. We cannot cancel radius R and Period T from R3 = T2. But if we write it as Newton did as
Force = R/T^2 = 1/R^2 = Force
we can cancel the superfluous terms of force. We can also write
Newton’s soul = R/T^2 = 1/R^2 = Newton’s soul.
Or
Newton’s wig powder = R/T^2 = 1/R^2 = Newton’s wig powder.
So planets may be powered equivalently by Newton’s force, Newton’s soul or Newton’s wig powder. The last two are as good as force. They are placeholders. Nature does not recognize placeholders.
You are exactly right. I feel the same way sometimes. My only justification for writing about physics and physicists is that the culture of physics and the hierarchy and the fact that physics is a professional industry controlled by governments and the big media define the content of physics.
No. I don’t believe that “Newtonian mechanics” have been a great contribution to science. It is an impediment to the development of science and consequently to human well-being.
I believe that the working part of Newtonian mechanics is Kepler’s rule, what is known today as Kepler’s third law. Removing Newton’s occult force from Kepler’s rule will free science from this occult soul.
I agree that physics should not be about ultimate universal truths. But it is. Physicists love ultimate truths because this is what sells. They keep finding ultimate building blocks of matter and absolute laws of nature. I did not know that biologists are Newtonians too.
Very true. You are right. But, do you think freeing human reason from scholastic doctors of theology in the 16th century has been good? Today human reason is monopolized and corrupted by doctors of philosophy. I believe it would be good thing to free human reason from the grip of doctors of any kind.
But this is not my point. My point is not that Newton plagiarized Kepler. I believe that plagiarism exists only in the academia. Doctors need to monetize what they know so they defined free exchange of information to be a crime. Knowledge is free and it belongs to everybody.
What is criminal is Newton’s transformation of Kepler’s rule into an occult soul. Newton invented this occult quality and used Kepler’s rule as authority to support his invention. F=1/R^2 on its own has no meaning. Physicists mistake F=1/R^2 to be a proportionality and believe that there is a discontinuity or divergence at R = 0. There is no divergence in R3/T2. This is the true and correct proportionality. Half of this proportionality 1/R^2 is not a proportionality. Only when you believe Newton’s fairy tale about force then there is a divergence. String theory was created because physicists refuse to give up their absolute worship of Newton. They cannot see that F=1/R^2 is a definition and not a proportionality.
Yes. I agree. I will post a summary in the near future.
Thanks again. I appreciate your comment.