In classical mechanics, force is the agent of motion: the thing that causes bodies to accelerate. Newton’s laws define it as the product of mass and acceleration (F = ma) or as the rate of change of momentum. In field theory, forces are described as interactions mediated by fields — electric, gravitational, or otherwise.
All of these accounts depend on an object-based ontology: entities act upon other entities across space. But from a relational perspective, there are no isolated objects, no background space, and no causes pushing on things. There are only fields of potential undergoing transformation under constraint.
So what, then, is force?
1. Force Without Entities
-
The classical picture assumes a distinction between agent and acted-upon,
-
But in a relational field, this distinction collapses: no part is truly external to the system,
-
What appears as a force is better understood as a tension within the field — a configuration pulling toward transformation.
Force, in this light, is not a push from outside but a gradient in the structure of constraint.
Force is relational tension seeking resolution — a pressure to reconfigure.
2. From Acceleration to Transformation Rate
-
In Newtonian mechanics, force induces acceleration,
-
But acceleration presupposes an object changing its velocity in space,
-
In relational terms, we replace this with:
Rate of change in the field’s configuration, shaped by systemic potential.
Force is not about motion per se, but about the differential between current and preferred states — a field-theoretic pressure to reorganise.
3. Field Forces as Configurational Imperatives
-
Electromagnetic, gravitational, and nuclear forces are typically modeled as fields acting on particles,
-
But in a relational ontology, fields and particles are not separate: they are local expressions of global structure,
-
A "field" is a topology of potential — a structured pattern of constraints — and "force" is the resultant tension within that topology.
There’s no action-at-a-distance. Only local adjustments to relational pressure.
4. Interactions as Mutual Constraint
-
Traditional models imagine two bodies interacting via a mediating force (e.g. Coulomb’s law, Newtonian gravity),
-
But in a relational field, interaction is not between entities — it’s a shift in the entire system of affordances,
-
What we interpret as one body "acting on" another is actually a mutual realignment of coherence within the shared field.
There is no linear causality here. Only co-determination within an evolving structure.
5. Quantum Force as Phase Pressure
-
In quantum field theory, forces are carried by exchange particles (like photons or gluons),
-
But these too are expressions of a deeper field-theoretic structure — often modeled as virtual because they are not directly observable,
-
In a relational view, these interactions are not things being exchanged, but topological transitions — field regions seeking resolution.
The "force carrier" is not a particle. It is the tensioned potential itself, shifting toward a new state.
Relational Definition
We might say:
Force is the localised expression of tension within a field of relational constraint — a systemic pressure for transformation arising from disequilibrium.
Not a cause, not a push, but a tendency intrinsic to the system’s topology.
Closing
Force is among the most intuitively grasped concepts in physics — and also among the most misleading. Once we abandon the myth of separate objects being acted upon, the very notion of force transforms. It is not the cause of motion, but the signature of disequilibrium in a field of interdependent potential. What we feel as “force” is the world reorganising itself — not from outside, but from within.
In the next post, we’ll explore the question of energy — often treated as the currency of physical change — and examine how it can be reimagined as a systemic measure of relational tension and coherence.
No comments:
Post a Comment