Infinite Potential

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In context of my "original question"

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?

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

..........

....

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Depends on what you call the topic.

 

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

 

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

 

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"?

 

Sorry, the distinction between what and, what?

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 . . .?

 

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.

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

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

 

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.

 

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

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

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

potential (adj.) (etymology)

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

pluripotential (adj.)

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

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

 

Groundhog day.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yes, just as true today as it was yesterday.

Are you going to object again?

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.