Talk:Potential

message: The potential of an isolated sphere is defined as the work done in bringing a unit charge from infinity upto the sphere. So what is the potential at infinity?? Any comments welcome. Light current 02:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See Electric potential#Mathematical introduction.  The potential at infinity is zero by definition. --Smack (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So if the sphere is not now isolated but is a sphere at the top or a Van de Graaf generator (say) whose refence terminal is connected to earth, where does the current from the corona discharge go?. To earth or off to infinity?? And if not infinity, Why not?Light current 18:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm aware, the potential at infinity is whatever one defines it to be. Setting it to zero simply happens to be convenient for some cases. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.22.102.200 (talk) 07:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential of (Isolated) Sphere 

message: Isn't eq. 2 supposed to be :\vec F = -\nabla V ?
:I think it's right as it stands.  \vec F points in the direction of increasing V. --Smack (talk) 04:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: anon poster was right, smack got it wrong, it should be negative. I merged those paragraphs into scalar potential where they belong.  linas 21:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct? 

message: I completely disagree with the proposal to merge the potential articles.  There are different uses of the term potential in different areas of physics and mathematics.  The definition that Mr. Johnson gave in this discussion is one that arises in classical mechanics, vector analysis, and fluid mechanics.  It has a precise mathematical meaning, which is not the same as a potential difference, nor is it the same as an action potential, which has a precise meaning in biology.  I recommend keeping these terms in separate articles.  
The definition given by Mr. Johnson, (i.e., "a potential is a scalar field used to describe a conservative (curl-free) vector field such that the vector field is the gradient of the potential") is the accepted definition in physics and mathematics.  I considered suggesting changing the term to "potential function," but in math and physics, the term "potential" is used.  For references, I suggest any vector analysis book.  For a higher level, very thorough reference, I suggest Kellogg's book "Foundations of Potential Theory."  
As for giving a lay definition, it is really nice to read explanations of things in physics and math that are easy to visualize or grasp intuitively, but that may also cause a lot of the meaning to be lost.  Maybe we could say something like this: A vector field is a kind of function or mapping that assigns a vector (a magnitude and a direction) to every point in space.  We can imagine a fluid flowing in the directions indicated by the vector field, u.  If the flow is rotational, then the curl of the vector field has a value that is not equal to zero.  If the flow is not rotational, we say that it is "irrotational," "conservative," or curl-free (curl = 0).  In this case, there is some function, F, such that the vector field u is the gradient of F.
This is still very technical, and I think the more concise definition should still be given.  Links are needed to "scalar field," "vector field," "curl," "gradient," and, perhaps, fluid mechanics.
I also recommend referring to the Wikipedia article on "Conservative Vector Fields."  The conservative vector field is the direction of the potential.   I think the two articles should compliment each other in style and content. 
Alarussa (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagreement with suggestion to merge pages. 

message: This "article" doesn't have a topic, it's just a rambling disambig page. It should redirect to Potential (disambiguation). If you think otherwise, can you tell me what the topic actually is? Volunteer1234 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is the broad concept? The article is just rambling on about the word and then has two unrelated sub-sections. Volunteer1234 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The broad concept is the idea of that which is currently unrealized. In other words, energy potential and human potential are not unrelated, but are merely two different kinds of the phenomenon of some reservoir of capacity existing but not yet being executed. BD2412 T 01:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry they are completely unrelated. Is this some personal essay idea? Volunteer1234 (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your response amounts to Wikipedia:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are literally arguing that a form of unrealized capacity is unrelated to another form of unrealized capacity with the same name. I have already pointed you to the correct forum to resolve your concerns, which is WP:Requested moves (although you could just as easily propose the current article for deletion at WP:Articles for deletion). Lastly, please observe WP:FIXDABLINKS. BD2412 T 20:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  No I'm saying the article is WP:SYNTHESIS or an WP:ESSAY and not a topic. As another editor stated this was supposed to be a broad-concept article about "potential" in physics but it never happened. (the article isn't currently a dab so why are you asking me to fix links?)  Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Re WP:FIXDABLINKS, with this edit, you redirected the title to a disambiguation page. The policy identified requires that if you edit an article "to redirect that name to a disambiguation page" then you must fix the disambiguation links. With respect to the article content, I actually think that the primary topic of the term is the general scientific and mathematical sense. Human potential could be moved to a separate article, which needs writing, as there is clearly a concept of the term that exists. BD2412 T 23:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course links need to be fixed after a move, but you reverted the move before I could fix the links. There's no need to explain this. Volunteer1234 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  That makes no sense, since the letter of the law is that the links are supposed to be fixed before the article is changed. If you had fixed the links before making changes to the page, this would not have lit up as a problem at WP:DPL, and probably no one from that project would have even looked at it. BD2412 T 04:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  You make is sound like the wikipedia police will arrest me. Where is this legal document? Volunteer1234 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  What will happen is that your edits of this nature will draw the scrutiny of the disambiguation project, and will be reverted by participants in that project. BD2412 T 19:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

text:  So now the article has 2 topics instead of three, which is an improvement. Can we reduce it to a single topic? Volunteer1234 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  What two topics? It has one topic which is expressed in different ways for different fields. BD2412 T 04:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Potential (physics), Potential (math), expressed by you as a WP:SYNTHESIS. Volunteer1234 (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is this any different from Gravity being a primary topic, despite there being a physical and a mathematical description of it? BD2412 T 19:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  So we should move the page to Potential (physics) Volunteer1234 (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is the primary topic of the term, then why move it anywhere? BD2412 T 01:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a weird disambig page, it should just redirect to the actual disambig page 

message: From Black's Law Dictionary, 2d Edition (1910), p. 920-21:
----
M. L. Gambhir, Stability Analysis and Design of Structures (Springer, 2004), p. 43:
----
Belle Wallace, Teaching the Very Able Child (2012), p. 7:
----
Donald Kalsched, The Inner World of Trauma: Archetypal Defences of the Personal Spirit (Routledge, 2014), p. 141:
----
Peggy Rosenthal, Words and Values: Some Leading Words and where They Lead Us (Hamilton Books, 2005), p. 73:
----
Peter Consenstein, Literary Memory, Consciousness, and the Group Oulipo (Brill Academic Publishing, ‎2002), p. 19:
Peter Consenstein, Literary Memory, Consciousness, and the Group Oulipo (Brill Academic Publishing, ‎2002), p. 97:
----
Herbert Charles Elmer, "The Supposed Potential Use of the Subjunctive Mood", Cornell Studies in Classical Philology (1898), quoted in William Gardner Hale, "Is There Still a Latin Potential?", in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Volume 31 (1900), p. 139.
----
Cheers! BD2412 T 02:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some quotes