In more advanced physics, force becomes abstracted: fields replace direct pushes and pulls, and interactions are mediated by virtual particles. Still, the underlying metaphor persists — force as action between entities.
But from a relational ontological perspective, force is not something exerted by one object on another. Instead, force reflects the degree to which a relational configuration is constrained or modulated — a systemic asymmetry that results in a reconfiguration of coherence across a field of potential.
1. Classical Notions of Force
Classically:
-
Forces (like gravity or electromagnetism) are vectors acting on bodies,
-
They are described by laws (e.g. F = ma or the inverse square law),
-
They require identifiable sources and targets — a particle A pulling or pushing on particle B.
This framework treats objects as primary, and force as external influence.
2. Relational Reframing: Force as Constraint Geometry
In a relational ontology:
-
There are no isolated objects or external forces,
-
What appears as “force” is a shift in the balance of constraints within a relational field,
-
Movement (or resistance to movement) reflects how the field reorganises under asymmetric tension.
Force, then, is not an action between two things — it is the differential in relational tension that drives local reconfiguration.
3. Fields and Forces Reconsidered
Quantum field theory and general relativity already begin to move away from the classical idea:
-
In QFT, forces arise from interactions of fields, not pushes between particles,
-
In GR, gravity is not a force but the curvature of spacetime — an expression of how the geometry of the field guides trajectories.
Relational ontology completes this shift:
-
There is no “field in space” — the field is space, structured by constraints,
-
Force is a topological gradient — an imbalance in the coherence of the system that results in directed transformation.
4. Newtonian Force as Emergent Approximation
Newtonian force laws work well as a local approximation when:
-
The relational field is stable enough to treat configurations as objects,
-
The constraint gradients are gentle, and transformations are reversible.
But at finer scales, or under relativistic or quantum conditions, this object-based model breaks down. What persists is the relational logic:
-
Constraint differentials produce preferred directions of actualisation,
-
What looks like “acceleration” is a shift in coherence within the local field structure.
5. Implications for Interpretation
Understanding force as relationally emergent allows us to:
-
Move beyond anthropomorphic metaphors of “pulling” and “pushing”,
-
Recognise that agency is systemic — not located in an object, but distributed across the field,
-
Reframe interactions (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc.) as modulations in how coherence propagates under constraint.
This applies equally well to strong and weak nuclear forces, which are better understood as phase-structured symmetries within relational fields than as particles “exchanging” force-carrying entities.
Closing
Force, like mass or energy, is not a substance nor a vector from one thing to another. It is a manifestation of asymmetry in relational constraint — a localised rebalancing of systemic tension. What moves is not a body under pressure, but a pattern adjusting itself in response to field-level coherence dynamics.
In the next post, we will turn to fields themselves — not as backgrounds for forces to play out, but as ontologically primary structures of relational potential.
No comments:
Post a Comment