Protons and electrons are supposedly point particles surrounded by electrostatic fields. But in what sense do the particles themselves ever directly interact without intermediation by the force-fields that surround them? When atoms and molecules interact, it is the same-charge repulsion of their electrons that act as an interface for exchanged work, correct? The configuration of the electrons within the atoms is the result of their attraction to the nucleus by the positive charge of the protons, right, not any direct interaction of the particles? So within the physics that models matter as consisting of such "point-particles," I wonder what the basis is for assuming the point-centers of the fields have greater ontological primacy than the force-fields themselves? I understand that there are analytical reasons to favor point-focus over field-focus, but from an ontological standpoint, I think the model lends itself more to field-force interactions than any direct apprehension of the point-centers of the fields. Am I missing something?

Edited February 27, 201114 yr by lemur

Protons and electrons are supposedly point particles surrounded by electrostatic fields. But in what sense do the particles themselves ever directly interact without intermediation by the force-fields that surround them? When atoms and molecules interact, it is the same-charge repulsion of their electrons that act as an interface for exchanged work, correct? The configuration of the electrons within the atoms is the result of their attraction to the nucleus by the positive charge of the protons, right, not any direct interaction of the particles? So within the physics that models matter as consisting of such "point-particles," I wonder what the basis is for assuming the point-centers of the fields have greater ontological primacy than the force-fields themselves? I understand that there are analytical reasons to favor point-focus over field-focus, but from an ontological standpoint, I think the model lends itself more to field-force interactions than any direct apprehension of the point-centers of the fields. Am I missing something?

Actually, you're not missing anything. One of the major points of all field theories is to analyze everything through the fields, rather than through the particles.

=Uncool-

Actually, you're not missing anything. One of the major points of all field theories is to analyze everything through the fields, rather than through the particles.

=Uncool-

Ok, what should I google then?