Infinite Potential

[Write4U]

So I guess we won't be hearing any more about "infinite potential" from you in future, then?

I am pretty sure you will.
There is this;
Extended interview with Sir Roger Penrose - from the movie Infinite Potential

When Penrose sings Bohm's praises, I consider that worthy of attention.

 

[James R]

Write4U:

No, I accepted that a photon does stay in motion

Of course if capacity to stay in motion into the future is not forever, then that begs the question how long it can stay in motion. If it does stay in motion forever, then that would imply an infinite potential to do so, no?

Okay. So you seem to be missing the point here.

Instead of me telling you where you're going wrong, let's try the Socratic method instead, because when I tell you why you're wrong it just seems to go in one ear and out the other. So, I will ask you some questions, and you consider them and give me your best answers. We'll go back and forth and we'll see if we can reach agreement after a while. Okay? Here are my first few questions. Please try to answer them as fully and honestly as you can, or this won't work.

1. Can you think of anything that might prevent a photon from staying in motion forever?
2. If you thought of something in question 1, please describe why you think it would prevent the photon from staying in motion forever. Do this for at least one of the things you thought of.
3. In using the term "infinite potential", are you referring to the physics meaning of "potential", or the lay meaning of "potential"?
4. Please write down a sequence of logical steps that would lead from "an object is in motion forever" to "there is an infinite potential"? Try to write this as a logical syllogism. Example structure:

1. All objects that are in motion forever have ... [property X]
2. [Property X] is a type of potential, as defined by the answer to Q3, above.
3. The particular type of potential represented by [Property X] must be infinite.
4. A photon is an object that can be in motion forever.
5. Therefore, a photon has an infinite potential to stay in motion forever.
​

5. Now try answering your own question about infinite potentials and photons, quoted above.

Once you have responded to these questions, I will tell you whether I agree with you or take issue with one or more of your answers - possibly by putting further Socratic questions to you. The idea here is that you come to an answer for yourself, rather than having to just trust me and believe things I'm telling you.

In relation to the term "infinite potential", this was the actual question I posed to the forum:

Question: If a particle in a box never comes to rest, does that imply a potential of infinite energy?

What is so obscure and difficult to understand about that?

Well, we'll see. If this is as easy as you say, you'll have no trouble at all in answering the 5 questions I have put to you, above.

Why do you always have to complicate a simple question? You either know the answer or you don't.

I gave you an answer. You either didn't understand my point or my answer wasn't the one you wanted so you decided essentially to ignore it.

Not all answers in this world are easy answers. Just because I know the answer doesn't necessarily mean I will be able to communicate it to you in a simple way, especially if the question itself is problematic. You might not always be in the best position, initially, to decide whether a question is simple or complicated. Some of the simplest-seeming questions can sometimes turn out to have very complicated answers. A good goal is to try to answer a question in a way that is as simple as it can be, but no simpler than it needs to be.

There is no need to unpack the question and look for hidden variables (Bohm).....

A recurring problem that comes up time and again in conversation with you, Write4U, is that you insist on using words whose meanings you don't actually understand - especially when it comes to technical meanings. Worse, when you don't understand the meaning, you're inclined to just make up your own and expect others to be somehow in tune with you.

 

[exchemist]

Frankly, I could not care less about the term "infinite potential". I didn't invent it and to me it is meaningless, other than Bohm's "Quantum Potential" that apparently is so large that it might as well be infinite as far as human science is concerned.

What? This is your thread, you titled it "Infinite Potential" - and your OP not only highlighted the term in bold in the first sentence but also included a link to a video with that exact title.

And now you say you don't care about it and it's meaningless to you. What, then, is this thread supposed to be about and why have you misled us about the topic you wish to discuss?

 

[Write4U]

In context of my "original question"

Question: If a particle in a box never comes to rest, does that imply a potential of infinite energy?

1. Can you think of anything that might prevent a photon from staying in motion forever?

Yes, a universal limitation of some kind. As in Newton's Third Law.
I wonder what is the opposite reaction to the action of a photon at the speed of light.

As far as I know, an object "at rest" is the lowest energy state a quantum value can possess.
I think of a photon as a highly energetic quantum. Is this energy inherent in the photon and limited to the speed of light or is there an inherent energy in a vacuum that is causal to pushing the photon at the speed of light.
In either case, there is a limitation that restricts a photon to the speed of light if a photon is "quantum"

This does not imply the quantum is not moving. The quantum can be at rest riding a larger universal wave function.
This concept is contained in Bohm'd Pilot Wave theory.

If the photon has a dualistic energetic particle /wave quality, then there is still the question of "original" causality that compels the photon to move. Is there a law that compels dynamic motion?

3. In using the term "infinite potential", are you referring to the physics meaning of "potential", or the lay meaning of "potential"?

I am referring to the qualities both uses have in common regardless of application.

Potential = That which may become reality"
This means that while not all potential (probabilistic implicate) becomes expressed in reality, all expressed reality past present and future was, is, and will be preceded by potential. This is what Bohm identified as the relational quantum mechanical interactions of the most subtle enfolded potentials becoming unfolded in gross physical reality, alternately unfolding and enfolding at the surface of a deeper plenum of infinite pure potential from which discrete patterns emerge (quantum foam?)

Infinite Potential: What Quantum Physics Reveals About How We Should Live
By Lothar Schäfer

..........

Behind the physiological processes of our brain, nonempirical forms are at work that control our actions and give meaning to our life. These forms aren’t visible to or measurable by brain scientists. They are true forms of potentiality, because they exist before they manifest themselves in the visible world by affecting your body and controlling its processes. Its states are possibilities that are waiting to appear in the visible world. Yet, there is enormous power in it.

Everything that exists in the visible world has first existed as a state in the cosmic field of potentiality. Nothing comes out of the blue; everything emerges out of the cosmic potentiality. We build our dreams, hopes, and visions on what is possible: finding perfect love, ending war and violence, feeling the presence of God. What would be important to learn, if it can be done, is how to use our mind to tap into the cosmic field of possibilities, in order to make our dreams a reality.

....

You can think about the states of cosmic potentiality in the same way you think about the inner images of your mind.

The cosmic potentiality is a field comparable to other fields spread throughout the universe, such as the gravitational field, except that cosmic potentiality doesn’t contain any matter or energy, just states of what is possible in the world.

What exactly do I mean by that?
So far, the best that physics has come up with is the suggestion that the states of the cosmic potentiality are forms, meaning mathematical forms or numerical patterns: not patterns of energy or matter, but just plain numbers. We must always keep in mind that we can’t really know what the nonempirical realm of the world is like.

It can interact with our world in space and time, but we can’t even know that space and time apply to it, inside it. Perhaps the best way to think of the nonempirical realm of the world is like how many mystics have described their experience of God: it wasn’t of anything that appeared to their senses—it wasn’t anything that they could feel, hear, or see - and yet it was real and powerful.

more ....
https://www.scienceandnonduality.co...ntum-physics-reveals-about-how-we-should-live

p.s. Qualification: replace the term "God" with "Logic" and it comes close to my perspective.

 

[Write4U]

Well, that didn't stay on topic for long.....

 

[Tiassa]

Well, that didn't stay on topic for long.....

Depends on what you call the topic.

 

[Write4U]

But is the electron's "negativity" a "real physical thing" about the electron?

No, it's part of the electron's potential.

 

[Write4U]

Depends on what you call the topic.

LOL, that wasn't a complaint, I enjoy free-wheeling discussions (debates). I just get called on mine.

 

[Write4U]

Why not remove the distinction and just deal with natural relational values of everything, physical or not.
The inherent relational potentials contained in all causal forces. Doesn't everything work via "differential equations"?

 

[arfa brane]

Why not remove the distinction and just deal with natural relational values of everything, physical or not.

Sorry, the distinction between what and, what?

The inherent relational potentials of all causal forces. Doesn't everything work via "differential equations"?

You will need to define those terms more closely. What is a relational potential? The differential equations you refer to are sometimes called equations of motion . . .?

 

[Write4U]

Sorry, the distinction between what and, what?

Physical and non-physical values. I am not speaking of numbers per se, those are but human symbols for relational values. But I believe it is axiomatic that all extant properties of spacetime have inherent relational values or potentials. We have learned to codify these values and use them to make predictions, be they practical or theoretical.

You will need to define those terms more closely. What is a relational potential? The differential equations you refer to are sometimes called equations of motion . . .?

I like to apply it to all dynamical events.

Unpack the phrase.
Potential, an inherent (enfolded) excellence that may become expressed (unfolded) in reality.
Relational, relating to the relationship or connection between two or more things. Jul 21, 2017

dynamic systems theory

a theory, grounded in nonlinear systems principles, that attempts to explain behavior and personality in terms of constantly changing, self-organizing interactions among many organismic and environmental factors that operate on multiple timescales and levels of analysis. See chaos theory; complexity theory.

https://dictionary.apa.org/dynamic-systems-theory

 

[arfa brane]

Potential, an inherent (enfolded) excellence that may become expressed (unfolded) in reality.
Relational, relating to the relationship or connection between two or more things.

Well, in physics you need to be careful about using words like potential.

But, as I'm trying to establish here, the subject with its theories and experiments doesn't say anything about what a physical unit of potential is.

In 1st year physics, most universities teach theory and how to do experiments properly. The theory doesn't really say much about what things are beyond some standard definition. The closest you get to finding out what mass or charge "really are", is probably doing experiments.
In 1st year, experimental physics is about learning the arts of measurement, accounting for all the errors, doing some statistical analysis etc. This is sometimes easy and sometimes not.

There is no philosophy taught, if you want to know about existentialism, ontology and so on, you most likely will be advised to enrol in a philosophy course. Or of course, to construct your own.

Ultimately, there are those labels we use; a philosophy of labeling might be useful. Or not.
But imagine trying to write a computer program that simulates some physics, and doing it without using labels for the 'data'. I can't do it, sorry.

 

[Write4U]

Well, in physics you need to be careful about using words like potential.

Thank you for your kind indulgence. This allows me to explain my use of terms and why.

I know the difference, but the use of potential in physics is not different from the underlying "meaning" of potential as it is defined in the dictionary. How can that possibly be wrong?

Potential

Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people.

The philosopher Aristotle incorporated this concept into his theory of potentiality and actuality,[1] a pair of closely connected principles which he used to analyze motion, causality, ethics, and physiology in his Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, and De Anima, which is about the human psyche.[2]

That which is potential can theoretically be made actual by taking the right action; for example, a boulder on the edge of a cliff has potential to fall that could be actualized by pushing it over the edge.

In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived.

Leading examples are the gravitational potential and the electric potential, from which the motion of gravitating or electrically charged bodies may be obtained.

Specific forces have associated potentials, including the Coulomb potential, the van der Waals potential, the Lennard-Jones potential and the Yukawa potential. In electrochemistry there are Galvani potential, Volta potential, electrode potential, and standard electrode potential. In the thermodynamics, the term potential often refers to thermodynamic potential. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential

But, as I'm trying to establish here, the subject with its theories and experiments doesn't say anything about what a physical unit of potential is.

Because it depends on the type of potential associated with the object, see above.
The application of the term is much wider than in physics, but it certainly includes physics, see above.

This is why I am astounded at the objection to my use of the term in a general sense. The topic is about potential in general, not just about its specific application in physics.

This is why I can identify with the statement "infinite potential" as a conversational term.

In 1st year physics, most universities teach theory and how to do experiments properly. The theory doesn't really say much about what things are beyond some standard definition. The closest you get to finding out what mass or charge "really are", is probably doing experiments.

Yes, but I am not doing experiments. I am trying to paint a landscape that allows for a deeper understanding of what Bohm calls the "enfolded" implicate order that may become "unfolded", explicated in our reality.

In 1st year, experimental physics is about learning the arts of measurement, accounting for all the errors, doing some statistical analysis etc. This is sometimes easy and sometimes not.

I am a retired bookkeeper, so I am familiar with the proper use of accounting via the use of symbolized relational values (numbers).

There is no philosophy taught, if you want to know about existentialism, ontology and so on, you most likely will be advised to enroll in a philosophy course. Or of course, to construct your own.

And that is precisely what I am trying to do, except my quest is not to introduce new theories, but to try to identify those theories that have "common denominators". I am trying to create a mental "wholeness".

Ultimately, there are those labels we use; a philosophy of labeling might be useful. Or not.

But there is a philosophy of labeling. Don't we call this "symbolizing" certain relational values and mathematical processing functions? Human maths rests on the philosophy of representing relational values by the use of symbolic representations.

But imagine trying to write a computer program that simulates some physics, and doing it without using labels for the 'data'. I can't do it, sorry.

I completely agree, but I am not writing a computer program. For me this is about acquiring understanding.

I am in process of gaining knowledge of the universal potentials (see above) and thereby acquire an understanding of the "universal creative dynamical processes" and their common denominators.

Potential(s) is a quality that all physical objects and dynamical conditions seem to possess. It is a common denominator of all things, not just electricity.

When I read a scientific paper, I almost completely ignore the "numbers", but I read the accompanying narratives.
If I understand the narrative, I understand the concept. I don't need to know the scientific symbols used for practical application. I'll leave that to the scientists that do the work.

I understand the concept of combustion engines that convert the potential energy contained in gasoline to power the engine of my car. I don't need to know the exact ratio of air-to-fuel mixture to understand the functional principles involved.
OTOH, I do use the exact recommended mixture of oil and gas in my weed wacker...

 

[Write4U]

Potential is the property that gives a thing it's relational value to other things.

A physical property is any property that is measurable, whose value describes a state of a physical system.[1] The changes in the physical properties of a system can be used to describe its changes between momentary states. Physical properties are often referred to as observables. They are not modal properties. A quantifiable physical property is called physical quantity.

Physical properties are often characterized as intensive and extensive properties. An intensive property does not depend on the size or extent of the system, nor on the amount of matter in the object, while an extensive property shows an additive relationship. These classifications are in general only valid in cases when smaller subdivisions of the sample do not interact in some physical or chemical process when combined.

Properties may also be classified with respect to the directionality of their nature. For example, isotropic properties do not change with the direction of observation, and anisotropic properties do have spatial variance.

It may be difficult to determine whether a given property is a material property or not. Color, for example, can be seen and measured; however, what one perceives as color is really an interpretation of the reflective properties of a surface and the light used to illuminate it.

In this sense, many ostensibly physical properties are called supervenient. A supervenient property is one which is actual, but is secondary to some underlying reality. This is similar to the way in which objects are supervenient on atomic structure. A cup might have the physical properties of mass, shape, color, temperature, etc., but these properties are supervenient on the underlying atomic structure, which may in turn be supervenient on an underlying quantum structure.

Physical properties are contrasted with chemical properties which determine the way a material behaves in a chemical reaction.

Yet all are preceded by a common denominator of "potential", that which may become reality.

potential (adj.) (etymology)

late 14c., "possible" (as opposed to actual), "capable of being or becoming," from Old French potenciel and directly from Medieval Latin potentialis "potential," from Latin potentia "power, might, force;" figuratively "political power, authority, influence," from potens "powerful," from potis "powerful, able, capable; possible;" of persons, "better, preferable; chief, principal; strongest, foremost," from PIE root *poti- "powerful; lord."

The noun, meaning "that which is possible, anything that may be" is attested by 1817 (Coleridge), from the adjective. Middle English had potencies (plural) "a caustic medicine" (early 15c.).

Entries linking to potential
*poti-
Proto-Indo-European root meaning "powerful; lord."

It forms all or part of: bashaw; compos mentis; despot; hospodar; host (n.1) "person who receives guests;" idempotent; impotent; omnipotent; pasha; plenipotentiary; posse; possess; possible; potence; potency; potent; potentate; potential; potentiate; potentiometer; power; totipotent.

It is the hypothetical source of/evidence for its existence is provided by: Sanskrit patih "master, husband;" Greek posis, Lithuanian patis "husband;" Latin potis "powerful, able, capable; possible."

pluripotential (adj.)

"capable of developing in any of various directions," 1925, from pluri- + potential. Related: Pluripotent; pluripotency.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/potential

While not all potential may become reality, all reality is, was, and will be preceded by potential.

 

[exchemist]

Groundhog day.

 

[Write4U]

Groundhog day.

Yes, just as true today as it was yesterday.

Are you going to object again?

 

[Write4U]

I can no longer bear all this drivel about the color of roses and if mass can be bottled. This is not a discussion on floral arrangements.

The subject is Potential or "That inherent (excellence) which may become reality".
Note that not all potential does become reality. Hence the term "may".
It indicates an abstract mathematical quality that may become expressed as a real-world object.
This is Bohm's "Enfolded Implicate" that may become the "Unfolded Explicate".

Let me make this unambiguously clear with a real-world example.
Inasmuch as a mountain lake has no particular energetic properties, it does possess an "enfolded" variable potential for the production of energy. This ability can become expressed dependent on the difference in elevation between the lake and a lake-fed energy-producing mechanism.
When we attach a pipe to the lake and attach this pipe to a turbine generator 300 feet below the lake, the gravitational force on the "falling" water produces a kinetic force that can drive the turbine and generate a certain considerable amount of electricity.
When we install 2 such systems we are able to produce twice the amount of electricity..... etc.

Each installation reveals the inherent potential for energy production of that lake as long as it contains sufficient water to feed the turbines below.

Now there is a real-world example of Potential as "That (excellence) which may become reality"
What this does prove is that while not all potential becomes reality, all reality was, is, and will be preceded by potential. Not all mountain lakes are used to produce energy.

Forget the trying to force roses into bottles nonsense. That has nothing to do with potential as an intellectual concept and is way off-topic for the last 5 pages, but escaped notice because it was cloaked in sophistry.

In fact, one of the forum's moderators was probably the greatest offender and should be disciplined for his transgression.

 

[exchemist]

I can no longer bear all this drivel about the color of roses and if mass can be bottled. This is not a discussion on floral arrangements.

The subject is Potential or "That inherent (excellence) which may become reality".
Note that not all potential does become reality. Hence the term "may".
It indicates an abstract mathematical quality that may become expressed as a real-world object.
This is Bohm's "Enfolded Implicate" that may become the "Unfolded Explicate".

Let me make this unambiguously clear with a real-world example.
Inasmuch as a mountain lake has no particular energetic properties, it does possess an "enfolded" variable potential for the production of energy. This ability can become expressed dependent on the difference in elevation between the lake and a lake-fed energy-producing mechanism.
When we attach a pipe to the lake and attach this pipe to a turbine generator 300 feet below the lake, the gravitational force on the "falling" water produces a kinetic force that can drive the turbine and generate a certain considerable amount of electricity.
When we install 2 such systems we are able to produce twice the amount of electricity..... etc.

Each installation reveals the inherent potential for energy production of that lake as long as it contains sufficient water to feed the turbines below.

Now there is a real-world example of Potential as "That (excellence) which may become reality"
What this does prove is that while not all potential becomes reality, all reality was, is, and will be preceded by potential. Not all mountain lakes are used to produce energy.

Forget the trying to force roses into bottles nonsense. That has nothing to do with potential as an intellectual concept and is way off-topic for the last 5 pages, but escaped notice because it was cloaked in sophistry.

In fact, one of the forum's moderators was probably the greatest offender and should be disciplined for his transgression.

This is really quite funny. You have spent years hijacking threads, on all manner of topics, and diverting them to your pet subject, or else just posting internet stuff of tangential relevance that takes the thread off-topic. But it's a different story when someone does it to your pet thread, isn't it?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

 

[Write4U]

This is really quite funny. You have spent years hijacking threads, on all manner of topics, and diverting them to your pet subject, or else just posting internet stuff of tangential relevance that takes the thread off-topic. But it's a different story when someone does it to your pet thread, isn't it?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Then why is the sauce only good for this gander when no other geese are being subjected to this foul sauce? Already you are completely missing the point. It is typical of prejudicial treatment. But of course, you cannot see that, because you are prejudiced.

This is typical of your hypocrisy. You expect to be able to post anything in my threads without penalty while I am being punished for the slightest reference to my pet subjects in other's threads, even if they are pertinent to the topic in some way. None of those post were designed to hijack anything, but to contribute to the topic from a different perspective.
I am not forcing anyone to reply or even acknowledge my posts, let alone hijacking an entire thread. Are you that paranoid or limited in scope that you need to worry about what I think might be valuable to the discussion?

You don't see me complain, do you? I am complaining now about the prejudicial treatment of one poster without the standards applying to all the darlings that grace this thread with their profound off-topic knowledge and insights.

I am one of the most prolific contributors of scientific material to this forum and I expect a certain courtesy in response, at least other than your derision and insistence on your narrow-minded conventions, that really never result in an increase of general knowledge, other than perhaps some practical experience from being an exchemist.

All I see in most threads is futile argument about everything except the topic itself. But you don't see that do you?

 

[exchemist]

Then why is the sauce only good for this gander when no other geese are being subjected to this foul sauce? Already you are completely missing the point. It is typical of prejudicial treatment. But of course, you cannot see that, because you are prejudiced.

This is typical of your hypocrisy. You expect to be able to post anything in my threads without penalty while I am being punished for the slightest reference to my pet subjects in other's threads, even if they are pertinent to the topic in some way. None of those post were designed to hijack anything, but to contribute to the topic from a different perspective.
I am not forcing anyone to reply or even acknowledge my posts, let alone hijacking an entire thread. Are you that paranoid or limited in scope that you need to worry about what I think might be valuable to the discussion?

You don't see me complain, do you? I am complaining now about the prejudicial treatment of one poster without the standards applying to all the darlings that grace this thread with their profound off-topic knowledge and insights.

I am one of the most prolific contributors of scientific material to this forum and I expect a certain courtesy in response, at least other than your derision and insistence on your narrow-minded conventions, that really never result in an increase of general knowledge, other than perhaps some practical experience from being an exchemist.

All I see in most threads is futile argument about everything except the topic itself. But you don't see that do you?

You’ve brought it all on yourself, but you fail to see it, even though it has been explained to you countless times.