The Electromagnetic Field and Derrida

While reading the background readings, I was reminded of my time in a non-major physics class struggling with the concept of electromagnetism. Also, if I'm  mistaken in any of my explanations of electromagnetism, I apologize.

In physics a field of force is "the region of space surrounding a body, such as a charged particle or a magnet, within which it can exert a force on another similar body not in contact with it" (Free Dictionary). Force is "any influence that causes an object to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape" (Wikipedia).

These concepts are exemplified through the electromagnetic field. When an electron in an electric field is disturbed, it creates a magnetic field. Conversely, when a magnetic field changes, it creates an electric current or electric field. If we look to our "field" definition, we see that a field is created when two bodies are exerting force on each other. In this case, the electric field and magnetic field are simultaneously exerting forces on each other. Electrons change speed and shape after they are acted on by the magnetic force. When electrons change speed, their movement creates magnetic fields. Electric and magnetic fields are simultaneously maintaining and creating each other.

This website might be helpful in illustrating what I'm talking about.

Electromagnetic waves are made up of the interactions between those two fields: "a wave of energy consisting of electric and magnetic fields, oscillating at right angles to each other" (Free Dictionary). The energy flowing into my computer right now is a series of interacting fields dependent on each other. 

To sum this all up in one statement, everything we know of the world is made up of constantly moving fields. Neat, huh? 

 Now, how does this relate to Derrida’s differance?

Derrida suggests that a thing exists constantly deferred to something else, and the thing to which it is deferred is also deferred to something else. Since we cannot stop on the thing and hold it in our minds in itself, Derrida names this constant deferment a motion: “whether it is a question of verbal or written signs, monetary signs, electoral delegates, or political representatives, the movement of signs defers the moment of encountering the thing itself, the moment at which we could lay hold of it, consume or expend it, touch it, see it, have a present intuition of it” (284).

Here, Derrida calls “differance” a “movement of signs.” It is an invisible field (Rivkin and Ryan name  it the “field of contingency” 261) that is constantly moving around concepts, interacting with them without touching them directly (in the same way the field of gravity works on the earth) and relating them to each other. Similar to electromagnetism, what we understand as concepts are simultaneously in motion and the product of that motion, and this motion is "differance."

I was also reminded of one more thing while reading Derrida. When I was a freshman, I had to read this series of short stories called Ghostwritten. The book tries to answer the question, "why do things happen the way they do." Each story answers the question with a different "truth." The neat thing about the book is that each story stands by itself but also somehow connects to another story. The last story of the book goes back to the main character of the first story, creating a circle. The circular nature of the book reminded me of Derrida in that his "differance" creates a circle by never stopping on one concept. The short stories are simultanously indepedent and dependent on the other stories. 
More about David Mitchell and his book Ghostwritten.