Momentum, in classical physics, is defined as the product of mass and velocity. It is a cornerstone of Newtonian mechanics — conserved in interactions, transferred in collisions, and preserved in systems both classical and quantum. But this seemingly rock-solid concept rests on assumptions that relational ontology calls into question.
If mass is not an intrinsic property, and if velocity is not the motion of a substance through space, then what is momentum?
From a relational standpoint, momentum is not a thing a particle possesses or a vector it carries. It is a differential constraint across a field — a gradient of actualisation that reflects how a configuration tends to unfold within its structured possibilities. Momentum indexes the directional bias of transformation within a system’s relational topology.
1. No Substance, No Carriage
-
Classical views imply that particles “carry” momentum through space — it is transferred from one object to another, as though passed in a game of billiards,
-
But in a relational system, there are no independent particles and no underlying space through which they move,
-
Instead, momentum is a measure of how the configuration of the system is changing — and in what direction — relative to its own internal constraints.
2. Velocity as Rate of Reconfiguration
-
Velocity is not an entity’s motion across an inert background, but the rate at which a particular construal transforms relative to a chosen frame,
-
When multiplied by mass (i.e. the system’s resistance to reconfiguration), what results is a systemic gradient — a bias toward a certain direction of transformation,
-
This is momentum: a pattern of change unfolding through the field, not an object in motion.
3. Momentum Conservation as Constraint Symmetry
-
Conservation of momentum is often taken as proof that particles persist with inherent properties,
-
But what is being conserved is not a substance — it is symmetry across constraints: if the system’s relations are structured uniformly, transformations must preserve that structure's coherence,
-
Momentum conservation expresses the invariance of field dynamics under transformation, not the persistence of a moving object.
4. Quantum Momentum: Dualities of Constraint
-
In quantum theory, momentum is tied to wavelength via the de Broglie relation and becomes an operator in wave mechanics,
-
Yet even here, the deeper structure is relational: momentum reflects the periodic structure of phase change, not the movement of a particle,
-
What we measure as “momentum” is the manifestation of how a potential is being actualised through the field — in directional and structured ways.
5. Reframing Interaction: Not Transfer, but Redistribution
-
Collisions do not involve one particle handing off momentum to another,
-
Instead, what we call a “collision” is a redistribution of potential within a constraint field — a dynamic reorganisation of how affordances are actualising,
-
Momentum change signals a shift in the system’s field topology — a reweighting of directional gradients in response to new constraints.
Closing
Momentum, then, is not a force in transit or a quantity held in motion. It is a pattern of directional bias within a relational field — a vector not of thing-in-motion but of constraint-in-transition.
To reimagine momentum this way is to dissolve the last vestiges of metaphors based on substance, collision, and travel — and to replace them with a vision of reality as patterned transformation within structured potential.
In the next post, we’ll revisit force — and explore how causal metaphors obscure the relational nature of systemic constraint and transformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment