beejewel Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 The wave function of what? The picture does not look anything like wave functions from any physics textbook I have seen. In a sea of time and space there is only one wave function. Well spotted, no I didn't copy and paste it from any text book or web site. It doesn't matter what you suspect; neither of them are absolute and, as far as I know, there is no reason to think that voltage difference is limited. Your opinion is not unique around here, but it's lacking in logic. Nor I Ditto.. I don't understand the resistance to a limited domain for potential. Gravitational potentials are often plotted as surfaces they always look like an inside out sombrero, combined with expanding space, this typically makes the function asymptotic to the space axis, from which it must follow that the ultimate height of the potential is limited for any given observer. If this is true, then it follows that all of the observers world must lie within a limited domain and potential thereby becomes absolute. There are so many arguments for a limited potential many of which I have brought up in earlier treads, yet I haven't seen one piece of hard evidence presented to prove the case for an infinite potential domain. __________________________________________________________________________________________ I work much better with encouragement (click the up arrow) -2
ACG52 Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Anything which is "but it's lacking in logic." tends to actually be correct. When it comes to matters of science and physics, logic sucks.
ajb Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 This is the wave function of what? Is it a solution to the Wheeler–DeWitt equation? Again, it does not look anything like what we usually mean by a wave function. You will have to explain this properly.
Strange Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Your opinion is not unique around here, but it's lacking in logic. It is not an opinion. It is a statement of scientific results. You have provided nothing to support voltage being either absolute nor limited. Anything which is "but it's lacking in logic." tends to actually be correct. When it comes to matters of science and physics, logic sucks. Particularly when "logic" is used to mean "makes sense to me". This is more or less how I would represent the wave function.. In a sea of time and space there is only one wave function. Can you show, mathematically, how you pretty picture relates to a wave function. And, for bonus points, can you also provide some support for the claim that there is only one wave function. What is the equation of this wave function?
swansont Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 The potential of the wavefunction is the wave height, usually referred to as U, this potential has two sides to it, one side is U/t and manifests itself as electrostatic force, perpendicular to this lies the space axis which gives rise to U/r and manifests itself as gravity. You can't just redefine words to suit your purposes. Wavefunction already means something in physics.
Strange Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 I don't understand the resistance to a limited domain for potential. Lack of supporting evidence? Gravitational potentials are often plotted as surfaces they always look like an inside out sombrero, combined with expanding space, this typically makes the function asymptotic to the space axis, from which it must follow that the ultimate height of the potential is limited for any given observer. That doesn't make much sense. What limits the height of this "sombrero"? Also, I am not convinced that is an accurate description of gravitational potentials. Can you provide an example? Finally, last time I mentioned that you were talking about gravitational potential you responded vehemently that you meant voltage, and insisted you were being consistent. But now we are back to gravity. I assume you have your own personal definition for "consistent" as well.
beejewel Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 Anything which is "but it's lacking in logic." tends to actually be correct. When it comes to matters of science and physics, logic sucks. My benchmark is real world observation, if a theory doesn't agree with the real world it's wrong. Science as an institution is more like religion, if the high priests of science like the theory then awards are presented, but if they give it the thumbs down no one has the guts to support it from fear of shame and ridicule. This is the wave function of what? Is it a solution to the Wheeler–DeWitt equation? Again, it does not look anything like what we usually mean by a wave function. You will have to explain this properly. I am not familiar with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation, I looked it up but it's not something I can grasp quickly. The diagram I drew above was intended to show how one wave can have several properties which classical science have given different names to. My approach has been to start from lowest level in the function and work up. The lowest level I can identify (with the exception of nothingness) is space and time, three dimensions of space meet one dimension of time, and providing there is some energy, also an axis called potential. If we imagine the wavefunction as a Sine wave, there is a positive energy component and a negative component to the wave, and a tendency for the wave to collapse which is provided by a tension factor or potential. These 4 wavefunctions have components; psi(t) , psi(x) , psi(y) , psi(z) and the potential (tension) axis is common to all, so it is simply impossible for the potential function to extend to infinity because a sine wave is by definition limited by its wave height. An infinitely tall wave would require an infinite amount of energy. Many have tried to depict what a four dimensional sine wave might look like and have failed miserably, but it's more familiar than everyone thinks. I am almost 100% certain that the single proton hydrogen atom is a 4D sine wave. All particles including photons and gravity waves are the same kind of waves, how they appear to various observers is a function of the observers potential on the absolute scale. This part is going to be the biggest challenge for me, because the common perception since the dawn of science is that we observe the world happening around us, but through GPT I have discovered that it's not like this at all, it is our position on the absolute potential axis which determines where in absolute time we are and how things move in absolute space. It is not an opinion. It is a statement of scientific results. You have provided nothing to support voltage being either absolute nor limited. Particularly when "logic" is used to mean "makes sense to me". If it only had to make sense to me I wouldn't be here trying to explain it to all of you. Common sense means by definition that more people than me agree. Sometimes if we are lucky, an equation can be laid down as a definitive proof, but even then it is necessary for the axioms to be agreed as true. Everyone agrees that F=Gmm/r^2 but few question where F came from... Newton invented it, so it's a fairy, it doesn't exist, it's an imaginary artefact to make the equation balance. In the days of alchemy and radium water for a healthy life, people were okay with a force that needed no strings, so they accepted the F readily. Try thinking of gravity as a velocity vector of absolute potential instead. Lack of supporting evidence? 1) The thought experiment of separating charges 2) The example of sorting black and white marbles 3) The impossibility of a sine wave with infinite wave height 4) Lack of evidence of infinite energy 5) The sombrero graph 6) The logic of my opening post That doesn't make much sense. What limits the height of this "sombrero"? Also, I am not convinced that is an accurate description of gravitational potentials. Can you provide an example? Here is the classic sombrero graph of gravitational potential. In this graph, the potential is the height, and if one were to extend the brim of the hat to infinity it seems likely that the height of the function is an asymptote. Once again a strong case for limited potential. Finally, last time I mentioned that you were talking about gravitational potential you responded vehemently that you meant voltage, and insisted you were being consistent. But now we are back to gravity. I assume you have your own personal definition for "consistent" as well. As I tried to explain with my diagram above, the electrical force and gravity share the same potential axis, so we can use volts to describe both. Volt works for solid objects, providing you use eV for energy and eV/cc for mass. just keep in mind that the term force doesn't come into the picture.
Strange Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 My benchmark is real world observation, if a theory doesn't agree with the real world it's wrong. Then why are you rejecting GR, as it has been confirmed by real-world observation? Science as an institution is more like religion, if the high priests of science like the theory then awards are presented, but if they give it the thumbs down no one has the guts to support it from fear of shame and ridicule. Do you have any real-world evidence to support this claim? Or are you just disappointed that your non-theory is not accepted? The diagram I drew above was intended to show how one wave can have several properties which classical science have given different names to. Please show, in appropriate mathematical detail, how your wave equation relates to this diagram. These 4 wavefunctions have components; psi(t) , psi(x) , psi(y) , psi(z) and the potential (tension) axis is common to all, so it is simply impossible for the potential function to extend to infinity because a sine wave is by definition limited by its wave height. This is simply a restatement of the same claim. There is no limit to the amplitude of a sine wave and so, by your argument, there is no limit to potential. I am almost 100% certain that the single proton hydrogen atom is a 4D sine wave. What "real world observation" do you have that supports this claim? Common sense means by definition that more people than me agree. It doesn't. And even if it did, it wouldn't mean they were correct. Common sense is a notoriously poor guide. That is why science relies on real world observation. Sometimes if we are lucky, an equation can be laid down as a definitive proof An equation can never be proof (in science). It needs to produce results that can be compared against real-world observations. Where are your equations? Where are the comparisons of your (quantitative) predictions against the real world? Try thinking of gravity as a velocity vector of absolute potential instead. Why? And what does this mean? 1) The thought experiment of separating charges A thought experiment is not evidence. 2) The example of sorting black and white marbles What example is that, and how is it relevant? 3) The impossibility of a sine wave with infinite wave height Why is that impossible? 4) Lack of evidence of infinite energy Of course, there are practical limits. 5) The sombrero graph What about it? 6) The logic of my opening post All three statements in your opening post have been shown to be false. And there is no logic: the third statement cannot be logically dervied from the first two (which are false anyway). Here is the classic sombrero graph of gravitational potential. In this graph, the potential is the height, and if one were to extend the brim of the hat to infinity it seems likely that the height of the function is an asymptote. Once again a strong case for limited potential. That is not a sombrero curve. A sombrero has a local minimum:
swansont Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Science as an institution is more like religion, if the high priests of science like the theory then awards are presented, but if they give it the thumbs down no one has the guts to support it from fear of shame and ridicule. You are at least as wrong about this as the rest of your nonsense. There are no "high priests" that can bless an idea and keep it as accepted science if the idea is contrary to how nature actually behaves. It's a great excuse if you want to fool yourself and feed a persecution complex, but the very first thing you have to worry about is whether you are actually right, or wrong. You are wrong, and it's been pointed out that you are trivially wrong. My benchmark is real world observation, if a theory doesn't agree with the real world it's wrong. Great! A charged particle with charge q accelerated through a potential V will acquire a kinetic energy of qV, and KE = 1/2 mv^2 (Classically). So V = mv^2/2q. This has been experimentally confirmed. Speed is not directly proportional so potential. Your theory doesn't agree with experiment. Therefore, it is wrong. This is YOUR BENCHMARK (as well as science's). So why do you persist in pushing it?
Strange Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 Here is the classic sombrero graph of gravitational potential. In this graph, the potential is the height, and if one were to extend the brim of the hat to infinity it seems likely that the height of the function is an asymptote. Once again a strong case for limited potential. The "brim" does extend to infinity (it simply isn't shown - to save paper). That has no connection at all to the height (or depth, in this case) of the function.
beejewel Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) Thanks for reply, I don't see the need for some of you to pick on every single sentence I write, just give me feedback on the main points you disagree with, enough said... Lets settle this now... The simple potential function is in the form [latex]U_p = - \frac{1}{r}[/latex] , for a positive radius this function does NOT cross zero so it is pointless to argue about the limit in that direction, this leaves only the other direction (downwards in the well) Relativity has demonstrated that there is a limit in the other direction and the corrected potential function is; [latex]U_p = - \frac{GMm}{r\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}}}[/latex] This relativistic equation for potential energy shows that there is a downwards limit at the SR radius. According to Wikipedia the decision to set potential equal to zero at infinity was an arbitrary one and seemed like a sensible way to avoid the SR radius complications. Personally I would like to see it turned around where potential is zero at the SR radius with an absolute constant value for infinity. maybe it will happen. Edited July 24, 2015 by beejewel
swansont Posted July 23, 2015 Posted July 23, 2015 [latex]U_p = - \frac{GMm}{r\sqrt{1-\frac{2GM}{rc^2}}}[/latex] This is the relativistic equation for potential energy and it shows that there is a limit at the SR radius. According to Wikipedia the decision to set potential equal to zero at infinity was an arbitrary one and seemed like a sensible way to avoid the SR radius complications. Personally I would like to see it turned around where potential is zero at the SR radius with an absolute constant value for infinity. maybe it will happen. All the other so called nonsense aside, does this proof at least earn me back a few points that I lost further up this thread? So what happens with this equation as M increases? Is U bounded to some value? Thanks for reply, I don't see the need for some of you to pick on every single sentence I write, just give me feedback on the main points you disagree with, enough said... We're focusing on the wrong stuff, or those things that are unsupported by evidence.
beejewel Posted July 23, 2015 Author Posted July 23, 2015 (edited) So what happens with this equation as M increases? Is U bounded to some value? [oops edit, my mistake] As mass increases potential energy increases but raw potential goes towards a limit. Potential energy is unlimited, but potential is not, the absolute maximum potential is 938 million volts, this seems to be a constant of nature (Phi) in the same way as the speed of light c. Knowing the constant allows us to express the ratio of potential to speed [latex]K = (\frac{\Phi}{c})[/latex] It follows that absolute velocity is related to absolute potential. [latex]v = c(\frac{\phi}{\Phi})[/latex] and [latex]\Delta v = c(\frac{\Delta\phi}{\Phi})[/latex] In nature we see that the lone proton is indeed the particle with the maximum potential. From the proton's potential it's all down hill, it's potential is 938 million volts, the proton is closely followed by Hydrogen which is lower by 13.6 volts, after this I think the H2 molecule and then the deuteron and for every chemical and fusion reaction the potential drops. This process continues until a mass reaches the SR radius where potential goes to zero. What is commonly called binding energy might be better described as reduced potential. PS: Corrections made, can I have a point back please .... [+1] Edited July 24, 2015 by beejewel -3
Strange Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 Potential energy is unlimited, but potential is not, the absolute maximum potential is 938 million volts, And we are back to unsupported assertions. Please provide either a theoretical derivation of this result, or some experimental evidence.
beejewel Posted July 24, 2015 Author Posted July 24, 2015 So we are back to ground potential theory... Not my objective to derail my own thread, just trying to give swansont a full answer to his question. I feel that I have now demonstrated conclusively that the observers potential is limited, but it would be nice if at least one of you guys were prepared to acknowledge it. Limited potential is indeed one of the axioms for GPT but that's for another thread another day. And we are back to unsupported assertions. Please provide either a theoretical derivation of this result, or some experimental evidence. Yes I can support my assertions are show that they are correct, but as mentioned above, this is better done in the speculations forum with moderators permission.
Strange Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 I feel that I have now demonstrated conclusively that the observers potential is limited, but it would be nice if at least one of you guys were prepared to acknowledge it. You haven't. Every attempt to do so has been shown to be mathematically incorrect or simply an assertion.
beejewel Posted July 24, 2015 Author Posted July 24, 2015 So what happens with this equation as M increases? Sorry, it seems I misread this question by swansont, the answer to his question is not simple. Black hole formation and mass to radius comes down to things like density which opens a whole can of worms. I shall have to pass this one.
ajb Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 How was Up derived? It looks different to the effective potential of a particle on the Schwarzschild geometry. Without angular momentum, we have that the potential is [math]U = \sqrt{g_{00}} = \sqrt{1- \frac{r}{r_{s}}}[/math] in appropriate units and the obvious choice of coordnates. One problem that you will have to contend with is translating Newtonian concepts to the proper concepts in general relativity. Gravitational potential is one such concept.
imatfaal Posted July 24, 2015 Posted July 24, 2015 ! Moderator Note Beejewel You have been told twice in moderation notes that hand-waving assertions are unacceptable and not to reintroduce your pet-theory unless you can begin to fulfill the evidence requirements of this forum. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88628-is-electrical-potential-limited/page-2#entry864221 http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/88438-dark-matter-get-over-it/page-8#entry862962 It seems that the third time was not the charm. You have been given ample opportunity to provide a sound theoretical basis and evidence for your ideas and have failed to do so. This thread is locked - you do NOT have permission to reopen this discussion.
Recommended Posts