Talk:Force field (physics)

message: I'm putting this question out to anyone who can answer it: according to what source is there an actual definition of "force field?" I ask this because I've hardly ever seen "force field" in a physics text. I've seen gravitational field and electric field, and I understand the concept that such forces are the gradient of their potentials. But according to whom are the forces associated with them defined as "force fields"?
If no one can provide a source for this particular definition of "force field" (while it makes sense), I say the article should be deleted.
: I had a bit of trouble finding good sources, but here's a good definition from http://www.nksd.net/schools/nkhs/staff/john_daneau/cp_glossary.htm:  "That which exists in the space surround­ing a mass, electric charge, or magnet, so that another mass, electric charge, or magnet intro­duced to this region will experience a force. Examples of force fields are gravitational fields, electric fields, and magnetic fields."  For purposes of the article, I'd go for a more authoritative source - I believe this definition was written (or least typed up) by a high school teacher - but in terms of accuracy, it appears alongside good definitions of many other physics terms.
: The force field has a place in science and therefore a place in Wikipedia.  As the article states, it was Michael Faraday's concept.  However, while that paragraph is not inaccurate, it does not make a good opening paragraph and requires the attention of someone able to write both clearly and knowledgeably.  In other words, it is confusing and should be rewritten.
: Another point about the opening paragraph:  which Kuhn?  The word "Kuhnian" links to a disambiguation page and I honestly don't know who the guy is.
Excellently worded examples; or a smeared plum pudding of electric charges not so good. MagnusW (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: @MagnusW 157.35.86.250 (talk) 10:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the definition?

message: There is no meaningful difference in this term and field lines. The material could easily be integrated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashami (talk • contribs) 00:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: I just deleted this:
'The term appears to have been coined by Michael Faraday (J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans., 1996, 92, 353 - 362, DOI: 10.1039/FT9969200353).'
The reference is to the following journal article:
Adri C. T. van Duin, Jan M. A. Baas and Bastiaan van de Graaf, Molecular mechanics force field for tertiary carbocations.
It is fairly apparent from the abstract that the referenced article describes a molecular mechanics force field and might therefore be discussed under Force field (chemistry), however there is no apparent relevance to this Wiki article.
A full reading of the journal article reveals no mention of Faraday.  Those who don't have access to the Journal of the Chemical Society (anyone outside a large research institution?) will have to take my word for it - sorry!
Given that the reference is irrelevant to this article, and fails to support the attribution of the term to Faraday, I thought it best to just delete the whole sentence. miracleworker5263 (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading reference

message: I nominate this page for deletion. I'm not against having a page on this topic (force field in physics), but this page is worse than nothing at all. The article doesn't mention anything that isn't already covered more accurately elsewhere. NOrbeck (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the point. It should be merged with Field (physics). Biophys (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to improve the article here. I don't think it should be merged, I hope that my rewrite and additions help justify that. --Steve (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Electric force field? No, this is just electric field. What would be the difference between "electric force field" and electric field? Biophys (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I added some text to clarify that example. Admittedly, there are some people who use "electric force field" as a synonym for "electric field" and "gravitational force field" as a synonym for "gravitational field". Obviously this is a pointless terminology and doesn't really make sense. But ignoring that, there does seem to be a primary and sensible and self-consistent definition of "force field" that most people use, and this article can and should be restricted to that sensible definition. That's how it is now. --Steve (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you quote at least one example when these expressions are not used as exact synonyms? And if they are always used as synonyms, the articles should be merged, I think. Biophys (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, look at any of the four citations in the article, they all use "force fields" that have units of force. The unit of electric field is not force, the unit of gravitational field is not force. The citations show specific formulas for gravitational force field as G*m1*m2/r^2, while the gravitational field is just G*m/r^2, and the show the specific formula for electric force field as k*q1*q2/r^2, while the electric field is just k*q/r^2. --Steve (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hence this is simply the force calculated for every position in space (it would be more clear if called "field of force"). Yes, this is quite different from "ordinary" fields in Physics, because it depends on  properties of the body (charge or mass, for example). Thank you. Biophys (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for deletion