Potential Energy of Quantum Field?

The word potential in this case refers to the possibility of becoming real or actual. Now, when we deal with systems of energy,we deal with their ability to work. If we take your apple on a ladder seriously, then the apple has some potential work available for it.

The gravitational potential, is usually given the units GPE, and we find that the weight is the mass times the acceleration of gravity, or mgh=GPE, which means that GPE=weight x height. The unit of gravitational potential energy is the Newton Meter (N x m), which is the identical measurement used for work.

So, if you take an apple up a ladder, we measure the potential energy by the work put into the system to get it into that state. In your example, F can be an application of upward and is equal magnitude to the force of gravity, so W_k=Fh, and W_k=mgh by Newtons second law. At the top of the ladder, W_k=PE(top), this quantity will be positive, beause it took work to get it into its new position, which is above any zero-point threshold. If it is sitting on the ladder, then the apple has zero kinetic energy. If the apple fell from the top of the ladder, the apple would gain kinetic energy, and just a fraction from striking the floor, it's potential energy will be zero.

But i need to go.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not going to pretend to have understood any of the subsequent discussion in this thread. However, you have seemed to change your mind about something. Do you now agree that the potential energy of a quantum field is the result of a force acting upon that field? And if so, what is that force?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I wouldn't tick that answer in an exam, if I were you.
A force is not the thing that "results" in potential energy, it's the other way around.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So, what did BenTheMan change his mind about?

 

John, did you understand my explanation? If not, i can go into work and potential energy some more.

 

Absolutely not.

In fact, I am now more convinced that I am correct, except in the case where you have some strange topology, in which case, no obvious statement can be made about the relationship between forces and potentials. As Guest said, you just have to work it out. Well, I'd have to work it out---maybe the relationship is obvious to someone else.

The fundamental thing is the potential, the derived thing is the force. You have it backwards.

 

That one still has a gauge invariance when there exists a non-trivial cohomology.

 

Mod Note:

Let's keep the posts SOMEwhat on-topic. Whatever that topic is, it's not generators and magnets.

Warning to Bishadi---

Off topic posting can result in a temporary ban.

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/pegrav.html

this will offer a few who are reading a little foundation

even if some of the participants suggest that they are the last word


there is a progression to energy that many of the so called physics people just cannot comprehend


mass increases its potential by cutting lines of force; not by velocity

 

Funnily, if i had more to contribute, i would have given it more or less in the link Bishadi gave. The last link however, i think he gave it because of chemical potential formulas derived in the paper... am i wrong Bishadi?

 

For instance, in some ideal conditions, we assume that PE+KE=(some valued constant). If we where able to freeze the apple in Johns scenario momentrarily in spacetime, the instant it falls off the ladder is given in unites h/2, which only means it is h/2 units above the ground. We can then say that

\(-h/2=v*^{2}-v^{2}/-2g\) because it is uniformly an accelerated motion

so \(gh=v*^{2}\) because \(v=0\).

So, KE=1/2m(gh) for PE=mg(h/2) because the apple is h/2 units above the ground. So for the predicted constant of PE+KE=(some valued constant), we can now say that

\(KE+PE=mgh/2+mgh/2=mgh\) where mgh is the constant we are wanting to derive.

 

no you are seeing what i was placing into the data pile

in which the physics here in this thread are following laws and not data

it seems that to apply laws often share what needs to be repealed; the 2nd law

the idea that velocity is mass; is newtonian

and we all know, he doesn't work to well in the micro

but to observe chemistry opens up a can of worms and as it seems, to share items that go against the flow, kind of pisses people off.

no one is put a 'new theory' on the block, but sharing data that will offer real thinkers a method of rehashing their physics.

nothing it to harm but assist in the evolution

i was sharing appreciation of the depth these few were observing in cohomology of systems but apparently i was thinking too far ahead and assumed another approach would be enjoyed

in my eyes, everyone should be on a quest to learn, not comply with paradigm just because it is accepted by the community

like i said in my first post; potential energy increases but cutting line of force in time.

potential based on velocity is an incorrect anology and isolates the system from its environment

 

''in my eyes, everyone should be on a quest to learn, not comply with paradigm just because it is accepted by the community''

Lol... trust me... i know this part for sure

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

i am going to be honest with you.

when i was a kid, running a whole cycle in a combined set of theorem in my head was nothing. And to many how i came up with the values was not understood and my instructor began to make me write out everything for review especially in the realm of anything regarding energy to potential.

my point is, there is a form in my head now that i will not put to paper, but i would love for someone else (or a group) to actually run the framework through the gamut but rule one is, the model needs to be understood and that is where the issue is.

just to go to a planck level (smash the constant) does nothing for the comprehension. Nor will posting a short summary without the experimental data converted. And then the people reviewing need to be able to understand the application. That means either i publish and simply release the math and see what happens or follow my gut. Which is not to publish and simply share as time goes while i am learning and addressing items and questions i had not seen before. My issue about this is not to reach a point to publish, but to be responsible to the future and being sure it is correct.

this has been between my ears for a long time, and if there was any doubt as to the absolute reality of the paradigm change to come, i would be looking into those forms right now. The problem is the change is real.

this thread shares how potential and what force affects the increase of total energy as if an apple were dropped and i shared the correct frame

and since it is against the mainstream physics, people get mad and call me ignorant but really don't realize that is real old stuff and there is another method to observe the phenomenon of gravitational potential.

Gravity is simply the energy entangled between mass in time. Energy is any line item unit of the em spectrum, and mass (an H atom) is simply a unit of mass which is a spectrum of energy, affixed in time (rest/BEC cold).

and if 2 points of mass, share energy they are entangled hence the vector of momentum.

this requires the interacting energy upon the environment to be observed and any change of momentum has both the cause and association to be addressed.

my problem is the frame does apply to all scales of mass and yet in today's understanding the micro and macro do not mesh well and why all the patch work, such as the varieties of 'free energy' to make up for the error that was imposed to physics by the 2nd law

I was sharing the chemistry issue because it is within this form of science, the law breaking is easy to observe.

I apologize for being presumptuous in thinking that when I saw one man bend, that maybe to bend a lot while pursuing understanding, would be easy in the cause of science and the integrity of them who want to simply comprehend.

But heck a vast amount of kids can do basic calculus before leaving high school.

If that is what this thread is about, then I am sorry to interfere.


may be i was wrong with this statement

 

But doesn't gravity have to be pushing on the apple for there even to be a potentional energy, when the apple is sitting on top of the ladder? So, isn't the force of gravity responsible for the potential energy?

 

There is certainly a back reaction to the equations, since we describe a potential energy as being the product itself of the work involved before the action of any real attributes. In other words, we cannot deal with the potentia of a system, unless we derive the statistics that gave that system the potential attributes laid out for it.

In this case, gravity is certainly responsible for our coordinates when speaking about anything potential that is derivable of the system.

 

good stuff and is like taking an application from a prospective employee

but then the regression

gravity?

dadd burn it....... so now we back to that velocity game, with the increase attributed to the rate of change

i was hoping you be capable of possible going to the next level... like the cohomology ..

albeit with the environment .....


oh well..... i guess with an apple it works for the simple system

 

Yeh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Gravity is worked out by the equation i gave, GPE=mgh, so the weight of a system is mass times the acceleration of gravity itself.

As for velocity, i know no equations that describes the apple in this case, other than the kinetic energy that can be derivable within the equation, when added to the potential energy when giving a final constant

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Popcorn? This aint a movie.

The Kinetic energy is brought about through equations describing a mass that is moving. In the example way above, i showed that you can derive the kinetic energy of an apple falling off the top of a ladder.

I know we haven't got off to good starts me and you, but please don't spam about, like i originally blamed you for.