Do “fields” always combine by addition?












4












$begingroup$


"Field" is a fun word which clearly has several meanings.



In all fields I can think of in my learning career, the fields obey superposition. I can calculate the fields generated by each object independently, and then sum them to determine the total field. But all the fields I can think of are relatively simple.



Are there fields for which this superposition principle does not apply? In other words, if I have a system where two mathematical vector spaces do not add (perhaps they saturate due to nonlinear effects), would a a physicist say "that's not a field because it doesn't admit the superposition principle?" Is there another name which is used in such circumstances instead?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    2 hours ago


















4












$begingroup$


"Field" is a fun word which clearly has several meanings.



In all fields I can think of in my learning career, the fields obey superposition. I can calculate the fields generated by each object independently, and then sum them to determine the total field. But all the fields I can think of are relatively simple.



Are there fields for which this superposition principle does not apply? In other words, if I have a system where two mathematical vector spaces do not add (perhaps they saturate due to nonlinear effects), would a a physicist say "that's not a field because it doesn't admit the superposition principle?" Is there another name which is used in such circumstances instead?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    2 hours ago
















4












4








4





$begingroup$


"Field" is a fun word which clearly has several meanings.



In all fields I can think of in my learning career, the fields obey superposition. I can calculate the fields generated by each object independently, and then sum them to determine the total field. But all the fields I can think of are relatively simple.



Are there fields for which this superposition principle does not apply? In other words, if I have a system where two mathematical vector spaces do not add (perhaps they saturate due to nonlinear effects), would a a physicist say "that's not a field because it doesn't admit the superposition principle?" Is there another name which is used in such circumstances instead?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




"Field" is a fun word which clearly has several meanings.



In all fields I can think of in my learning career, the fields obey superposition. I can calculate the fields generated by each object independently, and then sum them to determine the total field. But all the fields I can think of are relatively simple.



Are there fields for which this superposition principle does not apply? In other words, if I have a system where two mathematical vector spaces do not add (perhaps they saturate due to nonlinear effects), would a a physicist say "that's not a field because it doesn't admit the superposition principle?" Is there another name which is used in such circumstances instead?







field-theory superposition






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked 2 hours ago









Cort AmmonCort Ammon

23.3k34776




23.3k34776












  • $begingroup$
    Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    2 hours ago




















  • $begingroup$
    Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
    $endgroup$
    – Dan Yand
    2 hours ago


















$begingroup$
Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
2 hours ago






$begingroup$
Consider the metric field in general relativity. A linear combination of legitimate metric fields is not necessarily a legitimate metric field. A simple example is $g_{ab}$ minus $g_{ab}$, which is zero -- definitely not a legitimate metric field. But we still call the metric field a field, specifically a particular type of tensor field. "Field" usually just means something like "a dynamic entity that is a smooth function of all the space coordinates."
$endgroup$
– Dan Yand
2 hours ago












3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

No, not at all. You would just classify them as non-interacting.



For instance, in classical field theory the electric field $mathbf{E}$ and the the gravitational field $mathbf{g}$ are all perfectly well defined vector fields throughout all space, but don't add at all.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
    $endgroup$
    – lastresort
    8 mins ago



















3












$begingroup$

There are really two parts to your question: first, given two field configurations $phi_A$ and $phi_B$, does it make sense to think of a field configuration $phi_C = phi_A + phi_B$? Second, is the time evolution of $phi_C$ the same as the sum of the time evolutions of $phi_A$ and $phi_B$? If it isn't, there's not much point in writing $phi_C$ as a sum in the first place.



To answer the first question: not always. Essentially by definition, field combinations can be added if the space of possible field values is a vector space. This is the simplest option, but not the only one. For example, for a permanent magnet at low temperature, the local magnetization field has a constant magnitude but can vary its direction; it can take on values in a sphere. But the sum of two vectors on a sphere doesn't necessarily lie on the same sphere, so taking sums doesn't make sense. For a more sophisticated example, the Higgs field does something quite similar.



Sometimes one refers to theories with fields of this type as nonlinear sigma models. We still call these entities fields; my impression is that any function either from or to spacetime can be called a field.



Even in cases like this, you can still add field configurations if you think of them as small deviations from a uniform background configuration. Geometrically, this is just the fact that when you zoom in around a point on a sphere, it looks like a plane, which is a vector space. That's part of why you haven't seen examples of fields that aren't additive. The zoomed-in perspective can do a lot, but it can't describe, for example, topological field configurations which wrap around the sphere.



To answer the second question: not always. Time evolution can be calculated using the superposition principle if the equations of motion are linear, which happens if the Lagrangian is quadratic in the fields. There is nothing stopping you from adding higher-order terms, and any interesting field theory is full of them; otherwise particles would just pass right through each other.



The fact that most fields you've learned about are free can be understood in the light of effective field theory. For example, for the electromagnetic field, effective field theory tells us that at low energies, almost all contributions to the Lagrangian are strongly suppressed, with the suppression higher the higher-order the term. Thanks to other symmetries at play, the only terms that aren't negligible are the quadratic ones, which are why they were understood a century before the rest. For QED, the full Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is given by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian and includes, e.g. light-by-light scattering, a nonlinear effect.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    0












    $begingroup$

    A field is a mathematical structure with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. So yes every field (combines) additively at least internally. Two different fields aren't going to add unless you can define a mapping between the fields (see InertialObserver's answer).



    Addition; however, may look different than what you expect. There exists finite fields where addition may be modulo a certain number. E.g. a 8 bit register in computing (modulo 256), or the set of rotation (modulo 2 pi).



    Nonlinear effects do exist, but they are nonlinear functions of an underlying field that does obey superposition.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "151"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f463205%2fdo-fields-always-combine-by-addition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      3












      $begingroup$

      No, not at all. You would just classify them as non-interacting.



      For instance, in classical field theory the electric field $mathbf{E}$ and the the gravitational field $mathbf{g}$ are all perfectly well defined vector fields throughout all space, but don't add at all.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
        $endgroup$
        – lastresort
        8 mins ago
















      3












      $begingroup$

      No, not at all. You would just classify them as non-interacting.



      For instance, in classical field theory the electric field $mathbf{E}$ and the the gravitational field $mathbf{g}$ are all perfectly well defined vector fields throughout all space, but don't add at all.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
        $endgroup$
        – lastresort
        8 mins ago














      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$

      No, not at all. You would just classify them as non-interacting.



      For instance, in classical field theory the electric field $mathbf{E}$ and the the gravitational field $mathbf{g}$ are all perfectly well defined vector fields throughout all space, but don't add at all.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      No, not at all. You would just classify them as non-interacting.



      For instance, in classical field theory the electric field $mathbf{E}$ and the the gravitational field $mathbf{g}$ are all perfectly well defined vector fields throughout all space, but don't add at all.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered 2 hours ago









      InertialObserverInertialObserver

      2,922927




      2,922927












      • $begingroup$
        And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
        $endgroup$
        – lastresort
        8 mins ago


















      • $begingroup$
        And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
        $endgroup$
        – lastresort
        8 mins ago
















      $begingroup$
      And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
      $endgroup$
      – lastresort
      8 mins ago




      $begingroup$
      And indeed from a dimensional analysis point of view, $mathbf{E}$ and $mathbf{g}$ cannot add, unless at least one of them is multiplied by an appropriate dimensional constant. And if such a physically significant constant did exist, that would be related to the interaction.
      $endgroup$
      – lastresort
      8 mins ago











      3












      $begingroup$

      There are really two parts to your question: first, given two field configurations $phi_A$ and $phi_B$, does it make sense to think of a field configuration $phi_C = phi_A + phi_B$? Second, is the time evolution of $phi_C$ the same as the sum of the time evolutions of $phi_A$ and $phi_B$? If it isn't, there's not much point in writing $phi_C$ as a sum in the first place.



      To answer the first question: not always. Essentially by definition, field combinations can be added if the space of possible field values is a vector space. This is the simplest option, but not the only one. For example, for a permanent magnet at low temperature, the local magnetization field has a constant magnitude but can vary its direction; it can take on values in a sphere. But the sum of two vectors on a sphere doesn't necessarily lie on the same sphere, so taking sums doesn't make sense. For a more sophisticated example, the Higgs field does something quite similar.



      Sometimes one refers to theories with fields of this type as nonlinear sigma models. We still call these entities fields; my impression is that any function either from or to spacetime can be called a field.



      Even in cases like this, you can still add field configurations if you think of them as small deviations from a uniform background configuration. Geometrically, this is just the fact that when you zoom in around a point on a sphere, it looks like a plane, which is a vector space. That's part of why you haven't seen examples of fields that aren't additive. The zoomed-in perspective can do a lot, but it can't describe, for example, topological field configurations which wrap around the sphere.



      To answer the second question: not always. Time evolution can be calculated using the superposition principle if the equations of motion are linear, which happens if the Lagrangian is quadratic in the fields. There is nothing stopping you from adding higher-order terms, and any interesting field theory is full of them; otherwise particles would just pass right through each other.



      The fact that most fields you've learned about are free can be understood in the light of effective field theory. For example, for the electromagnetic field, effective field theory tells us that at low energies, almost all contributions to the Lagrangian are strongly suppressed, with the suppression higher the higher-order the term. Thanks to other symmetries at play, the only terms that aren't negligible are the quadratic ones, which are why they were understood a century before the rest. For QED, the full Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is given by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian and includes, e.g. light-by-light scattering, a nonlinear effect.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        3












        $begingroup$

        There are really two parts to your question: first, given two field configurations $phi_A$ and $phi_B$, does it make sense to think of a field configuration $phi_C = phi_A + phi_B$? Second, is the time evolution of $phi_C$ the same as the sum of the time evolutions of $phi_A$ and $phi_B$? If it isn't, there's not much point in writing $phi_C$ as a sum in the first place.



        To answer the first question: not always. Essentially by definition, field combinations can be added if the space of possible field values is a vector space. This is the simplest option, but not the only one. For example, for a permanent magnet at low temperature, the local magnetization field has a constant magnitude but can vary its direction; it can take on values in a sphere. But the sum of two vectors on a sphere doesn't necessarily lie on the same sphere, so taking sums doesn't make sense. For a more sophisticated example, the Higgs field does something quite similar.



        Sometimes one refers to theories with fields of this type as nonlinear sigma models. We still call these entities fields; my impression is that any function either from or to spacetime can be called a field.



        Even in cases like this, you can still add field configurations if you think of them as small deviations from a uniform background configuration. Geometrically, this is just the fact that when you zoom in around a point on a sphere, it looks like a plane, which is a vector space. That's part of why you haven't seen examples of fields that aren't additive. The zoomed-in perspective can do a lot, but it can't describe, for example, topological field configurations which wrap around the sphere.



        To answer the second question: not always. Time evolution can be calculated using the superposition principle if the equations of motion are linear, which happens if the Lagrangian is quadratic in the fields. There is nothing stopping you from adding higher-order terms, and any interesting field theory is full of them; otherwise particles would just pass right through each other.



        The fact that most fields you've learned about are free can be understood in the light of effective field theory. For example, for the electromagnetic field, effective field theory tells us that at low energies, almost all contributions to the Lagrangian are strongly suppressed, with the suppression higher the higher-order the term. Thanks to other symmetries at play, the only terms that aren't negligible are the quadratic ones, which are why they were understood a century before the rest. For QED, the full Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is given by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian and includes, e.g. light-by-light scattering, a nonlinear effect.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          There are really two parts to your question: first, given two field configurations $phi_A$ and $phi_B$, does it make sense to think of a field configuration $phi_C = phi_A + phi_B$? Second, is the time evolution of $phi_C$ the same as the sum of the time evolutions of $phi_A$ and $phi_B$? If it isn't, there's not much point in writing $phi_C$ as a sum in the first place.



          To answer the first question: not always. Essentially by definition, field combinations can be added if the space of possible field values is a vector space. This is the simplest option, but not the only one. For example, for a permanent magnet at low temperature, the local magnetization field has a constant magnitude but can vary its direction; it can take on values in a sphere. But the sum of two vectors on a sphere doesn't necessarily lie on the same sphere, so taking sums doesn't make sense. For a more sophisticated example, the Higgs field does something quite similar.



          Sometimes one refers to theories with fields of this type as nonlinear sigma models. We still call these entities fields; my impression is that any function either from or to spacetime can be called a field.



          Even in cases like this, you can still add field configurations if you think of them as small deviations from a uniform background configuration. Geometrically, this is just the fact that when you zoom in around a point on a sphere, it looks like a plane, which is a vector space. That's part of why you haven't seen examples of fields that aren't additive. The zoomed-in perspective can do a lot, but it can't describe, for example, topological field configurations which wrap around the sphere.



          To answer the second question: not always. Time evolution can be calculated using the superposition principle if the equations of motion are linear, which happens if the Lagrangian is quadratic in the fields. There is nothing stopping you from adding higher-order terms, and any interesting field theory is full of them; otherwise particles would just pass right through each other.



          The fact that most fields you've learned about are free can be understood in the light of effective field theory. For example, for the electromagnetic field, effective field theory tells us that at low energies, almost all contributions to the Lagrangian are strongly suppressed, with the suppression higher the higher-order the term. Thanks to other symmetries at play, the only terms that aren't negligible are the quadratic ones, which are why they were understood a century before the rest. For QED, the full Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is given by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian and includes, e.g. light-by-light scattering, a nonlinear effect.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          There are really two parts to your question: first, given two field configurations $phi_A$ and $phi_B$, does it make sense to think of a field configuration $phi_C = phi_A + phi_B$? Second, is the time evolution of $phi_C$ the same as the sum of the time evolutions of $phi_A$ and $phi_B$? If it isn't, there's not much point in writing $phi_C$ as a sum in the first place.



          To answer the first question: not always. Essentially by definition, field combinations can be added if the space of possible field values is a vector space. This is the simplest option, but not the only one. For example, for a permanent magnet at low temperature, the local magnetization field has a constant magnitude but can vary its direction; it can take on values in a sphere. But the sum of two vectors on a sphere doesn't necessarily lie on the same sphere, so taking sums doesn't make sense. For a more sophisticated example, the Higgs field does something quite similar.



          Sometimes one refers to theories with fields of this type as nonlinear sigma models. We still call these entities fields; my impression is that any function either from or to spacetime can be called a field.



          Even in cases like this, you can still add field configurations if you think of them as small deviations from a uniform background configuration. Geometrically, this is just the fact that when you zoom in around a point on a sphere, it looks like a plane, which is a vector space. That's part of why you haven't seen examples of fields that aren't additive. The zoomed-in perspective can do a lot, but it can't describe, for example, topological field configurations which wrap around the sphere.



          To answer the second question: not always. Time evolution can be calculated using the superposition principle if the equations of motion are linear, which happens if the Lagrangian is quadratic in the fields. There is nothing stopping you from adding higher-order terms, and any interesting field theory is full of them; otherwise particles would just pass right through each other.



          The fact that most fields you've learned about are free can be understood in the light of effective field theory. For example, for the electromagnetic field, effective field theory tells us that at low energies, almost all contributions to the Lagrangian are strongly suppressed, with the suppression higher the higher-order the term. Thanks to other symmetries at play, the only terms that aren't negligible are the quadratic ones, which are why they were understood a century before the rest. For QED, the full Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field is given by the Euler-Heisenberg Lagrangian and includes, e.g. light-by-light scattering, a nonlinear effect.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 2 hours ago









          knzhouknzhou

          44.4k11121214




          44.4k11121214























              0












              $begingroup$

              A field is a mathematical structure with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. So yes every field (combines) additively at least internally. Two different fields aren't going to add unless you can define a mapping between the fields (see InertialObserver's answer).



              Addition; however, may look different than what you expect. There exists finite fields where addition may be modulo a certain number. E.g. a 8 bit register in computing (modulo 256), or the set of rotation (modulo 2 pi).



              Nonlinear effects do exist, but they are nonlinear functions of an underlying field that does obey superposition.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                0












                $begingroup$

                A field is a mathematical structure with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. So yes every field (combines) additively at least internally. Two different fields aren't going to add unless you can define a mapping between the fields (see InertialObserver's answer).



                Addition; however, may look different than what you expect. There exists finite fields where addition may be modulo a certain number. E.g. a 8 bit register in computing (modulo 256), or the set of rotation (modulo 2 pi).



                Nonlinear effects do exist, but they are nonlinear functions of an underlying field that does obey superposition.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  0












                  0








                  0





                  $begingroup$

                  A field is a mathematical structure with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. So yes every field (combines) additively at least internally. Two different fields aren't going to add unless you can define a mapping between the fields (see InertialObserver's answer).



                  Addition; however, may look different than what you expect. There exists finite fields where addition may be modulo a certain number. E.g. a 8 bit register in computing (modulo 256), or the set of rotation (modulo 2 pi).



                  Nonlinear effects do exist, but they are nonlinear functions of an underlying field that does obey superposition.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  A field is a mathematical structure with addition/subtraction and multiplication/division. So yes every field (combines) additively at least internally. Two different fields aren't going to add unless you can define a mapping between the fields (see InertialObserver's answer).



                  Addition; however, may look different than what you expect. There exists finite fields where addition may be modulo a certain number. E.g. a 8 bit register in computing (modulo 256), or the set of rotation (modulo 2 pi).



                  Nonlinear effects do exist, but they are nonlinear functions of an underlying field that does obey superposition.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 1 hour ago









                  Paul ChildsPaul Childs

                  2385




                  2385






























                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f463205%2fdo-fields-always-combine-by-addition%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      What are all the squawk codes?

                      What are differences between VBoxVGA, VMSVGA and VBoxSVGA in VirtualBox?

                      Hudsonelva