Is There a Limit to Electrical Potential Difference?

[Steven Sesselmann]

This question is critical to Ground Potential theory, so it needs to be discussed, so please get involved here and agree or disagree as you like. There are many ways to attack this problem, and this is just one.

We understand that charge is a property of particles and that it comes in two varieties, positive and negative. These particles of opposite charge tend to attract each other so we end of with clumps of matter which is composed of roughly 50/50 positive and negative particles, and therefore appear realatively neutral.

Actually in the real world there are only two particles of significance, these are of course protons and electrons, so let us for now ignore all the other short lived particles, many of which we only have indirect evidence.

Protons, we know their mass and charge with great accuracy, and as far as we can tell, every atom in the universe is made of protons, and they all have excactly the same rest mass, which in itself is pretty amazing. An arbitrary charge of +1 has been assigned to the proton.

Electrons, like the proton we have a universe full of these particles, they appear to all be the same size and have a charge equal but opposite to the proton, and we have given the unit of charge to be -1.

These are the charges that dominate in the Universe, and we have learned to manipulate these partices to create local differences in the electrical potential. Once upon a time there were a couple of guys called Cockroft and Walton, pretty sure one of them was an Irish guy, and they succeeeded in building a device that could separate charges to a great potential, several tens of thousands of volts for sure.

Walton, Rutherford and Cockroft

04walton.jpg (20.93 KiB) Viewed 19981 times

Having worked with high voltage myself, I understand how difficult it is to build up a large potential, because materials break down and conduct electricity at high voltage, and the higher the voltage the harder it gets. 10,000 volts can easily be achieved, 100,000 volts can be achieved with a little more insulation, and 1,000,000 volts potential becomes almost impossible.

But let us introduce the mad professor Dr. G. who wanted to create an infinitely large potential, he set about making a machine which could separate electrons and protons with 100% efficiency. He immediately realized a problem, because as his cathode approached 100% electrons, and his anode approaced 100% protons, he was approaching a limit for potential difference. he realized that even if he gathered up all the protons and electrons in the Universe, the potential difference between his anode and cathode could not be increased further.

Dr. G knew excactly how much energy went into separating the particles, as you can imagine, the potential energy between his cathode and the anode was enormous, so Dr. G. decided to divide the total potential energy by the total number of particles. and he got the figure 469 million electron volts per particle.

Dr. G realized that since half the particles were negative and the other half were positive, the electrical potential between the anode and the cathode would have to be 938 million volts. This made him realize that 938 million volts would have to be the cosmic limit for electrical potential difference.

What Dr. G. realized is of fundamental importance to our understanding of physics, as it sets the absolute boundaries for time and space. More on this later, for now we shall just postulate as follows.

Postulate #1
That the maximum electrical potential difference achievable anywhere in the universe is 938 million volts.

Do you agree with Dr. G?

Please post your comments positive or negative (pun) below.

This has the potential to be a lot of fun (another pun) ;)

Steven

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to StevenS, re: potential

In the normal course of events, threshold "potential" is limited to the "mass-in-place" such as wire-gauge etc.

In my mind (perhaps wrongly) this presents the possibility that "all of given amount of copper wire is already "charged"

in w/ regard to limit (as per my concept of dimensional-energy) and therefor the wire begins to "emit" as soon as

an input threshold is reached...i.e, the "wire" emits heat in response to a forced stimulus (current flow is too great)

.....

The above scenario posits that a wire, although in a "rest state" is in effect "already charged" in terms of dimensional-

energy...every atom is "full" at all times, and cannot "hold more energy input". The excess of energy becomes

manifest as "moving in a linear fashion" from source to terminus...except the energy is NOT moving in the conventional

meaning of the word..."jumping from one electron surface-potential to another".

.....

If the wire is examined at any FoR of it's length, it will demonstrate the same velocity "in-place". The amplitude and

voltage may vary w/distance, but never the "speed" of electricity. I am using this fact to establish that the current

flow is actually being manifested at any given faction of the wire...the electricity is not "moving" in a real sense of

physical transit...it is simply "there", manifested in-place.

.....

The "causality" of the manifestation is traceable to the source, such as a battery...electron orbits have reached a

threshold of disturbance by the means of chemical imbalance, and find no "escape" from the physical confines of

the battery (insulation barriers will not allow it) yet the instant the cathode/anodes find a path (wire) the "disturbance"

finds itself a "quantum-pathway" and "push" this "disturbance" against the rest-state of other electrons available

in the wire, causing the wire's electrons to react IN-PLACE.

.....

You will note that none of the electrons of the battery or wire experienced any physical "movement" in terms of

distance...none of them had to move. The "response to a stimulus" all occurred at a "pre-existent" quantum level.

Of course, there can and will be a "physical" reaction of the wire and battery IF the disturbance of reciprocal "Relativity"

of densely-spaced electrons is perturbed...the mass of the battery and wire will react in direct proportion to the

amount of stimulus (as per Lorentz, as well as Einstein) usually in the form of hyper-thermic destabilization of the

physical mass (wire and battery melt) as matter could not react at anything near a relativistic speed to radiate "out"

the excess energy fast enough.

(Thanks for reading!)

[Steven Sesselmann]

Gerry,

How about some fruitcake algebra...

Theoretically apples have the potential to come in eny colour but experience of the world tells us that apples dont come in all colors, so lets do the maths..

one green apple
-------------------- = Ø = green
one apple

So "one apple" in the numerator goes against "one apple" in the denominator and what we are left wirth is the pure potential to be green. We then repeat this with every known type of apple and discover that there are no apples redder than red and no apples greener than green. We conclude that potential itself is unlimited, but the possible colours available in our world is not.

Likewise we live in a world where there are no stable particles with more than 938 MeV and no stable particles below 511 keV, we take any mass and divide by the number of elementary particles, to obtain its surface potential, and find that there is an upper and a lower limit to electrical potential in our world.

It does not matter if we are looking at a single proton, a single electron or a piece of swiss cheese, the rule is the same, simply divide the total mass energy by the number of elementary patrticles to obtain its surface potential.

Once we know an objects surface potential, we can calculate how it will move relative to another object.

Relative Velocity

Vrel.png (10 KiB) Viewed 19963 times

The relative velocity, unless physically restricted will be the difference in potential divided by the proton potential constant, multiplied by the speed of light.

In the case where two objects of differing potential are restricted from obtaining relative velocity, the compression provided by the restricted movement simply aligns their potentials. This is essentially what is happening when we stand on the ground. The compression of gravity aligns the potential of our bodies with that of the earths surface, by compressing it slightly.

Allthough charge is quantised, the notion of electrons travelling through wires seems unlikely, potential is the energy stored between electrons and protons, and by giving an object a positive charge we are in fact not removing electrons, but rather increasing the radius of every atom in the object.

Keep thinking..

Steven

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to Steven, re: fruitcakes...(ugh!)

So where are we? In agreement w/ surface "potential" values? Yes.
.....

Gravity as "push?" No. Not in a physical sense.

If you regard gravity as being "bound by Relativity" (I do ) then gravity must considered as a "co-equal linear" of matter.

(gravity must answer to the same "rules of the road" as energy, although their respective "affects/effects" are different)

I must tell the I agree w/ your models of "potentials" insofar as "surface values" are concerned...it is the "rest of it" in

terms of manifested energy where there is a conflict.

Consider the "frame of reference" problem inherent in your surface potentials...are you certain that each FoR can

represent a "totality of value?" w/regard to all the matter in the Universe?

.....

(Thanks for reading!)

....

[Steven Sesselmann]

In reply to Steven, re: fruitcakes...(ugh!)
So where are we? In agreement w/ surface "potential" values? Yes.

Gerry,

I havent had a chance to reply to your other post yet, remember this stuff is relatively new to me as well, and I need to think about each question before I answer. The surface potential of any object is just it's mass energy divided by the number of elementary charges. I think neutrons count for two, but let me ponder on that before committing to an answer.

Gravity as "push?" No. Not in a physical sense. If you regard gravity as being "bound by Relativity" (I do ) then gravity must considered as a "co-equal linear" of matter. (gravity must answer to the same "rules of the road" as energy, although their respective "affects/effects" are different) I must tell the I agree w/ your models of "potentials" insofar as "surface values" are concerned...it is the "rest of it" in terms of manifested energy where there is a conflict. Consider the "frame of reference" problem inherent in your surface potentials...are you certain that each FoR can
represent a "totality of value?" w/regard to all the matter in the Universe?

Gravity does not exist in GP theory, in fact there are absolutely no forces that do any pushing or pulling. Which is rather nice, because how can anything push or pull via nothing (empty space), Force is a nonsense postulate which has remained with us for 300 years, time to bin it.

In GP theory the apparent push and pull between objects is simply due to relative velocity and the equation is simple enough for a grade 7 school student to work out. Here it is again...

relative Velocity Equation

Vrel.png (10 KiB) Viewed 19961 times

Using the above equation one can also describe the apparent repulsion between protons, this apparent repulsion is simply caused by the particles enormous velocity relative the us observers at ground potential, causing a bunch of protons to act as a gas under pressure.

I am not sure if you are seeing it yet, but the GP approach to explain the natural world is far simpler than both Newton and Einstein, and so it should be. It would be tragic if the average person would have to learn tensor calculus to understand the natural world.

Steven

[Gerry Nightingale]

Cheers to StevenS!

In regard to the gravity question...my own interpretation is that gravity exists as a "potential"...a metric of self.

The "potential" exists every "where/when" and by this interpretation, matter would serve to cause the manifestation

of gravity as a "real" presence...and further, the "actual matter gravity" is still "part and parcel" of the potential of'

quantum-gravity...they interact as a "metric tensor" and this "tensor" causes matter and mass to react "in-place" by

demonstrating both rotation and orbit.

(I know this is huge chunk to bite into, so to speak...so feel free to "attack it". I won't be upset...I know how huge

the implications are of such a proposition, and yet it still is "in-line" w/Relativity)


(Thanks for reading!)

[Steven Sesselmann]

Cheers to StevenS!
my own interpretation is that gravity exists as a "potential"...a metric of self. The "potential" exists every "where/when

Gerry,

I have a problem with your interpretation "every where and when" because time and space is subjective. In GP theory all fenomena are the result of the complex interplay of matter, antimatter and the observer.

That said, there are many ways to rationalize the effect we call gravity, apart from the Newton and Eintein interpretation there have been others that just didn't make it, which doesn't mean they are wrong. Lot's of different schemes may actually work. generally we a looking for the simplest interpretation to match our physical experience of the world.

Once we get a deeper insight into how we think the world works, we are usually able to use that new knowledge to improve our life in the world.

What has led me in the direction of GP theory is my work on fusion and experiencing first hand how difficult it is to force ions of deuterium together under vacuum, that apparent Coulomb force which is so hard to overcome. 65 years of fusion research has cost billions and yielded absolutely nothing. Compare this to fission, which only took around 10 years, to make a commercial reality. So we need to get a grip on what's going on.

What also sat uncomfortable with me is that we had to invent no less than four forces to make the standard model work, and force, tugging without strings, is black magic to me. I was pleased when I discovered through GP that forces don't even exist. Two protons will happily drift together and fuse, when encountering each other at the same potential in their own time. The apparent Coulomb repulsion is only apparent to us, because we reside at a potential which is 8 million volts below the proton, and as such the relative velocity between us and the proton is c(8/938) = 2.5 million meters per second. So imagine trying to confine two flies and get them to mate when both flies are moving at 2.5^6 m/s !! That's why we are not achieving fusion.

negative energy <> observer <> positive energy

These three states and the relationship between them should explain every physical reality we experience. And it is easy to see that everyone has their own world, because no two bodiescan ever be at excactly the same potential.

Steven

Steven

[Gerry Nightingale]

StevenS, Hello yet again!

I knew you would not be happy w/idea of gravity as a "quantum potential" that is actualized by the existence of

matter...however, I am not interpreting "gravity as a force" but rather a "manifested presence". Gravity could never

exist as a "real thing" w/o matter and mass to serve as causation...no matter=no gravity, yet the "potential"

remains as a "Constant", always "there".

......

If you aren't understanding my explanations, then blame my poor writing skills...not the theory.

As for "force", this only applies (to me) w/ regard to "positional changes of matter and mass" that involve some

form of contact as dictated by gravity and assumed velocities...two "bits of matter" or masses are interacting, and

this allows "dimensional-energy" to become manifest. (discounting kinetic energy of matter/mass, which is

actually a "side effect" of gravity influence)

Later...Gerry.

[Steven Sesselmann]

StevenS, Hello yet again! I knew you would not be happy w/idea of gravity as a "quantum potential" that is actualized by the existence of matter...however,

Gerry, it's not important weather I am happy or not, the only thing that matters is that the theory agrees with the natural world, and that you are able to communicate it to the general scientific community. This requires effort and discipline. So to start off with you have to define every new term you introduce, especially if it is used in a new context. Take for example "quantum potential" what is your definition of quantum potential, can you provide an equation or other way to accurately define it?

Steven

[Gerry Nightingale]

In reply to Steven S.

"Communicate effectively"...and use scientific terms. The drawback w/ this is I am not a scientist, nor have I

any ambition to be recognized as such.

I am trying to describe things as I see them and believe them to be, and I obviously am not doing that very well.

And that's okay...all I can do is my best, Steven.

The "scientific community" is completely unreachable, and in any event NOT interested in "new theory" from the likes

of me. "They" are quite happy w/ things as they are! Can it be you think otherwise? (maybe you will be lucky, it's

been known to happen...but I would not expect it)

......

The "potential of gravity" exists at all times, at any "frame of reference".

The "actuality of gravity" is made manifest by the existence of matter at any "frame of reference".

The "potential of radiant-energy" exists at all times, at any "frame of reference".

The "actuality of radiant-energy" is made manifest by the interactions of matter and mass, at any "frame of reference".

......

These four sentences comprise the "gist" of my observations and conclusions, at least w/regard to energy and

gravity...I don't know how to express this w/ more simplicity.

If it's wrong, then it's wrong...no harm, no foul. I have doubt that the Universe or any person in it would have any

loss of sleep over "what I think" of "how things may actually work".

PS...none of "The Beatles" could read or write music, or ever had any "professional training" whatsoever. Still, they

managed to "get by" in spite of lack of credentials or knowledge of "diatonic theory in octave scales".

(Thanks for reading!)

****addendum*** my gmail address is 2020nightingale@gmail.com, "just in case".