In classical and quantum physics alike, fields and forces are invoked to explain how objects influence one another at a distance. Fields are imagined as invisible carriers of influence — continuous entities that fill space and act upon particles. Forces are the mechanisms by which these fields cause changes.
But from a relational ontology, this whole explanatory architecture must be rethought. There are no discrete objects transmitting energy across space. There is no interaction between separable parts.
Instead, what we call fields and forces emerge from structured constraints within a system of potential — not as entities or mechanisms, but as expressions of how relational coherence actualises across a given topology.
1. The Classical Picture: Fields as Substance in Disguise
In classical physics:
-
Fields (e.g. electromagnetic) are imagined as continuous media filling all space,
-
Forces are localised interactions: a particle experiences a force due to the field at its position,
-
This reinstates an object-based worldview: particles are “in” fields, and fields “act on” particles.
Even in quantum field theory, the language often reverts to metaphors of excitation and transmission: particles as quantised excitations in underlying fields.
Yet these models still presume a substrate — a space populated by entities, whether particles, waves, or fields.
2. The Relational Turn: Constraint as the Ground
From a relational perspective:
Fields are not things in space — they are the structure of potential itself, shaped by systemic constraint.
-
A “field” is the topology of possible actualisations available to a system under given conditions,
-
A “force” is not something acting on an object, but a gradient in the space of constrained coherence,
-
The notion of interaction is replaced by modulated actualisation: what occurs depends on how the system is organised, not on one entity acting on another.
3. Potential Is Always Relational
What we call a “field” is simply the structured interdependence of possibilities across a domain:
-
It is not something added to space,
-
It is the space — understood not as a container, but as a matrix of relational constraint.
This makes sense of why fields seem so universal and so abstract: because they are not “stuff” but patterns of affordance — expressions of what can happen, given how the system is configured.
4. Forces as Topological Gradients
A “force,” in relational terms, is not a causal push. It is a differential in relational tension:
-
When the potential for coherence varies across a region, actualisation favours resolution in a particular direction,
-
What we interpret as acceleration or influence is the system moving toward configurational equilibrium — the path of least resistance in potential space.
Thus, force is not imposed — it is inherent in the structure of constraint.
This reorients everything:
-
Not: “The field pushes the particle.”
-
But: “The system actualises in a way that resolves relational tension.”
5. Implications for Unification
This has consequences for the quest to unify the forces of nature:
-
If fields are not entities but expressions of systemic constraint,
-
Then the problem of unifying them becomes a question of identifying shared topologies of potential,
-
The Standard Model’s fragmentation of forces may reflect different cuts on the same relational field — not different forces acting independently.
Gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak interactions may all be perspectival enactments of a deeper coherence in the field of potential.
Closing
In a relational ontology:
Fields are not backgrounds; they are the structure of the world’s becoming.Forces are not causes; they are gradients in the system’s drive toward coherence.
We do not live in a space populated by things interacting through fields. We live in a field of constraints actualising relational coherence.
In the next post, we’ll take this logic further — and ask what it means to speak of energy in a relational world. If nothing is pushing or moving, what does energy measure?
No comments:
Post a Comment