potential rise  will only depends on positive charge .so increased amount of positive charge will increase the potential till the breakdown stage .

     The definition of a potential is through a spatial derivative (gradient) and therefore it is independent of any function independent of the space (gauge dependence of the scalar potential). All these potentials give the same electric field although the potentials can be very different and the electric field is the unique object which only allows us to count the electric charges. Thus, your picture unfortunately fails to be translate in electric charges. 

    I hope that this can helps.

Jitendra, Daniel and Christian, thank you for replies.

For clarification my question is purely theoretical and does not relate to any practical application, I am fully aware of any breakdown limits at least on a macroscopic scale.

Potential energy does as Christian said depend on the distance between charges and the number of charges involved, but in this case we are not interested in the energy only the potential, so as in the marbles we are looking at colour only. 

In the case of total charge separation the amount of energy ∆ØN required in separating the -1ØN charge from the +1ØN charge from zero to infinity is indeed 2ØN and to find the raw potential we divide by N and find that ∆Ø = 2

Switching to real electrons and protons may make it easier to explain.

Within matter exists a known potential E = mc^2 

Let us separate any number of protons from the same number of electrons to a radius infinity, then divide by the number of nucleons to find the mass per nucleon.

We now agree the proton (nucleon) has a mass of ~ 938MeV/c^2

We multiply by c^2 to convert mass to potential energy, and divide by 1e to get raw potential 938 million volts.

My interpretation of this is that the surface potential of the proton is 938 MV and likewise we can apply the same logic to the electron and state that its surface potential is 511 kV

So in the case of a hydrogen atom I think there exists an electrical potential between the electron and the proton of 938 million volts. This potential is only 13.6 eV less than when the charges are separated to infinity.

Do you guys follow this?

  Dear Steven,

   In your reasoning there are too many assumptions which makes it wrong. Let me to write only some of them:

   1. The energy associated to the mass, E=mc^2, cannot be transformed in electric potential between electron proton or so on.

   2. The atoms interact creating quantum mechanical states for the charges: bonding and antibonding which depends strongly of the crystilline symmetries. You do not consider this, which is fundamental.

   3. The potential needs always to define a gauge condition. If this is to have zero value in the infinite, as you suggest, then you must say what is the one for the surface atoms (electrons and protons).

   4. Finally, the electronic structure is very important for taking into account the kinetic energy (hopping and so on) for the electrons. Without entering in phonons ( Born-Oppenheimer assumption), magnons, ...

V is the zero component of the 4-potential and transforms under Lorentz boosts to any arbitrary magnitude (= number) if the 4-current is unequal zero.

Thanks for more answers,

I am specifically trying to formulate a theory with a minimum number of assumptions, the standard model theory has many fairies and unicorns so I want to avoid as many as possible of these, and build something on a foundation of logic. 

Let me reply to Daniels points first.

1. The energy associated to the mass, E=mc^2, cannot be transformed in electric potential between electron proton or so on.

This is not what I said, I said the mass was derived from the potential energy stored between the electron and the proton. and when expressed as eV/c^2 can be converted to potential by multiplying it with c^2 and dividing by the number of electrons.

   2. The atoms interact creating quantum mechanical states for the charges: bonding and antibonding which depends strongly of the crystilline symmetries. You do not consider this, which is fundamental.

I intend to show later how the electrons and protons are wave crests and troughs of the same wave respectively. Once we acknowledge that the electron is the protons antiparticle I think we will see that quantum mechanics applies. The belief that particles and anti-particles have to have the same mass is one of those standard model unicorns. 

   3. The potential needs always to define a gauge condition. If this is to have zero value in the infinite, as you suggest, then you must say what is the one for the surface atoms (electrons and protons).

Precisely my point, and I have discovered that you can calculate the surface potential of any solid body by taking it's mass in eV and dividing it by the number of nucleons. The proton therefore has a surface potential of 938 million volts and the electron 511 kV. This is a general rule, and you can even apply it to the earth, and fyi ground potential works out to a staggering 930 million volts, which is the same as the surface potential of Ni62.

   4. Finally, the electronic structure is very important for taking into account the kinetic energy (hopping and so on) for the electrons. Without entering in phonons ( Born-Oppenheimer assumption), magnons, ...

The quantum states all make sense when you consider the wave like nature of the proton-electron pair.

I am not aware of any bonafide reason why all particle pairs should appear to have the same mass, the mass of the negative and the mass of the positive is a function of the observers potential and we can describe this equation as.

a = ((c-b)/2) * (1-(b2/c2)1/2

Where a is the electron potential, b is ground potential and c is the proton potential.

i.e. when the observers potential is asymmetric to the wave function particles appear as having different mass.

I am not suggesting here that particle pairs are not created equal, what I am suggesting is that after a stable particle is created the observers potential changes and so too does the p to e mass ratio.

What I am proposing here is 100% in agreement with SR, because I have used SR without assumptions to derive these ideas.

Is there a limit to electrical potential? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_limit_to_electrical_potential [accessed Mar 10, 2016].

Christian says: 2) the electron is point-like, i.e. has no "surface".

This is another unicorn that needs to be chased away with a proper explanation, we can not simply accept that something with mass can have zero dimensions. The classical charge radius makes sense, but I understand it disagrees with experiment. 

I suggest that the electron is anti matter and has a negative mass,  this would cause a classical charge radius to become negative, and a body with negative radius would indeed appear point like.

Christian said: Is this really something you want to suggest?

I cautiosly think it makes sense, to understand my point of view you have to understand my thinking with ground potential theory (GPT). GPT says potential is an absolute and not a scalar as currently believed. Absolute potential has a limit just like absolute speed, this limit is the proton surface potential 938 million volts as defined further up this thread. So absolute potential stretches from 0 to 938 million volts.

I have chosen the proton surface potential because we know of no other stable particle with higher energy density than the proton. In the table of isotopes H has the highest mass per nucleon.

Based on the first asumption my second asumption is that ground potential must lie somewhere between zero and 938 million volts.

Using the equation described above, ground potential works out to 930 million volts, this correlates with the table of isotopes because Ni62 has the lowest so called binding energy. My interpretation of this is that Ni62 is already at ground potential so it can fall no further.

So now you can think of the observer as floating at ground potential much in the same way a boat floats on water.

Bodies with surface potentials higher than ground potential move up, while bodies with surface potentials lower than ground potential move down, not unlike the laws of buoyancy in classical mechanics.

In the case of the electron I predict it is indeed moving upwards and I estimate it will be less than 25 years before we can say with certainty that ground potential is falling, this will be evident by measuring a mass increase in the electron.

Theoretically we already know this is the case, because the Earth contains large amounts of Th, U and K which are undergoing contunuous decay, by emitting gamma rays and falling to lower potential, likewise the sun is undergoing nuclear fusion which is also a decay process and results in a lower potential. 

Everywhere we look matter is in a state of constant decay, so it is obvious to me that time and a falling ground potential are one and the same thing. 

      Dear Steven,

       It seems that you are inventing a new Physics:

       "Once we acknowledge that the electron is the protons antiparticle I think we will see that quantum mechanics applies"

      The proton is not a fundamental particle. It is made by quarks (uud) while the electron is a fundamental particle of the family of the leptons which only sees the electromagnetic interaction. Therefore they never could be one the antiparticle of the other.

      Respect to the possibility of having negative mass. Yes, in one crystal it is possible to have negative mass depending of the curvature of the band where it is. If you go to the first Brillouin zone it is immediate to see where the positive or negative mass is for the electron.

      Frankly, I think that you mix  the concepts of mass,electric potential, energy and electric charge in a wrong way for reaching a limit, which it exists if you think in terms of energy, but no with respect to the electric potentials.

Thanks for more replies...

Why is it so hard for me to explain this, it seems so perfectly clear to me, it must be my poor communication skills. 

My question put simply says:

is there a lighter element than Hydrogen?

If the answer is no, then the surface potential of the proton is the limit, at least in our neck of the woods (lets not speculate on other worlds).

The mass per nucleon doesn't get any bigger than in H...

Therefore when you separate the electron  from the proton to infinity, the surface potential of the proton becomes 938 million volts (give or take a few volts).

This doesn't mean the concept of electric potential is limited, it means the bubble we live in, is limited, in the same way we could say speed has no limit, but in the physical world it is c.

Daniel argues that electons can't be anti-protons for known reasons, but there are several unicorns in there, quarks being one of them, no one has ever seen a quark, and never will.

The electron, when observed from ground potential is extremely far away, deep down in a potential energy well, the depth is in the order of twice the galactic radius (just stating this now but I have reasons to believe this distance is correct). Try to imagine observing a proton from a distance of 60 kpc,  it will look point like.

I need to understand the simple electron and proton before I begin to worry about quarks and Brilluin zones, otherwise I feel it's like discussing the aerodynamics of fairy wings and helical structures of unicorn horns.

Remi, 

If you added positronium as a new element to the periodic table, where would you put it?

@Christian Baumgarten "...unless you can show that the theory of confinement is flawed" There is no "theory of confinement", it's just a hypothesis. Some 100 years ago "atoms" were the final building-blocks, just indivisible. Later they found it was made of three kinds of particles. Next, nobody understood nucleons, again extended particles. Excellent idea to put again THREE particles in it, because of a certain su(3) multiplet structure of some(!) mesons and baryons. Therefor we have to BELIEVE in confinement, meanwhile superconfinement. A new Rutherford experiment - scattering electrons on protons - would clearly show whats inside the proton, probably nothing. (partons? laughable) Note: a alpha particle clearly consists of four nucleons and is NOT a ball of 3x4 = 12 quarks! Same with deuteron. And where are the 5 quark systems? nucleon-pion, perfectly "confined"?

Christian,

If you can't observe quarks in a proton, then how can you say with certainty that there are no quarks in an electron? 

@Remi Cornwall , no positronium belongs next to Ni_62 in the periodic table, because it is has by far have the lowest potential and mass per nucleon.

@Remi Cornwall, I acknowledge that there is a theoretical framework and indirect evidence to support this framework, but there is no guarantee that other frameworks could not produce the same or similar results. If the electron and the proton were opposite ends of the same wave as I am suggesting, although a theory would have to be developed to show that. 

I think there is a strong reason to investigate ground potential further, because it can explain many of todays un-answered questions. It would be a mistake to dismiss the whole theory because of the quark model. When we eventually find the right model it will explain everything. 

My proposal to consider the electron and the proton as one wave instead of two separate waves may not upset everything we understand. It makes sense if particles with half spin are half waves and particles with spin 1 are full waves, and that would make the proton and electron half waves. A half sine wave is made up of three tension points, and up vector, a horizontal vector and a down vector, so if the proton is such a half wave it seems likely that these different tension points could give results in agreement with quark theory. Spin can also be explained very easily by GPT, because relative velocity is a direct consequence of relative potential, so this means protons and electrons have spin. So rather than throwing out the old theory I am proposing a tweak to make more sense of it. Dirac proposed this about 100 years ago and only after they discovered the positron which they thought was anti matter did Dirac change his mind. I don't think the positron is the anti matter I think it's the matter particle, the electron is the real anti matter, it makes sense even from the charge aspect. I think GPT solves more problems than it creates. 

Some time ago I made a brief explanation of this subject for a friend of mine. 

https://youtu.be/sxWXMW-GbtE

The idea that protons, electrons, neutrinos, etc. and even photons might have a common substructur and that proton, electron etc. differ from each other just by  different configurations of that substructure is essentially the very central idea of the so-called "hypotron theory" (HT), which is still under construction.

Similar to the quark model, in HT each "elementary" particle 'contains' 6 fractional charged constituents, called "hypotrons", which are 'surrounded' by some photons and other zero-charge bosons and by a 'cloud' of hypotron dipoles AND !!! hypotron quadrupoles. This 'shell' of zero-charge bosons and the 'cloud' of hypotron dipoles are considered to mediate the interaction between the particles at short distances, which can be classified into 3 parts: strong and weak and electromagnetic. This is due to the 3 types of hypotron quadrupoles which can be formed from 2 types of hypotrons.

By introducing a quantity called "supercharge", which is related to charge in a non-linear way, the stability of the known stable particles and the stability of the known stable nuclei can be explained just on the basis of a minimum principle for the square of supercharge.

An "up-hypoquark" and a "down-hypoquark" can be considered as pairs of hypotrons. 

The neutron is considered to be the compound object

neutron=(proton)(electron)(antineutrino)

and thereby it turns out that this is equal to (with respect to the hypotron content) 

neutron=(up-quark)(down-quark)(down-quark)(neutrino)(antineutrino)

For some working papers (in german) see

http://kreuzer-dsr.de/kdsr/bulletin/KDSR_HypotronTheory_Flyer.pdf

Relative velocity is limited to the speed of light, the only cause of relative velocity is relative potential, therefore relative potential is limited.

My proof is here:

http://groundpotential.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=50

Yesterday I wrote a new paper on this subject, it has been uploaded here, I would be most interested in receiving some feedback. Thank you. 

Working Paper A Case for Absolute Electrical Potential

To my point of view one of the most fundamental questions of physics is the question of the origin and nature of electric charge and of mass of the most fundamental 'particles', the origin and nature of spatial distance and temporal distance of 'events', and the origin and nature 'space' and 'time', which are both approximated !!! as a continuum and which are merged to a continuous 'spacetime' considered as a 4-dim. manifold which allows for tackling with the phenomenons of gravity.

The ultimate type of 'interactions' of fundamental charged objects should not be restricted to the 'classical' ideas of classical electrodynamics which leads to conceptual and mathematical difficulties in the case of 'pointlike' charged objects (e.g. self-interactions, etc.).

If one could get rid of the 'continuum' as a mathematical tool for 'space' and 'time' the question of beeing 'pointlike' might become meaningless, or might be replaced by quite different questions.

The mathematical formalism of QED seems to be the starting point for investigations of local gauge symmetries of a field which is specified by some amplitudes psi_n(t,x) , n=1,2,...,N and A_m(t,x) , m=0,1,2,3 ( gauge field amplitudes ). In QED A_0(t,x) can be considered as the 'electric' potential.

With respect to the ideas of "ground potential limit" (GPL) the interesting point then seems to be (at least for me) to find out to what extent gauge field theory would be in harmony with GPL. To get some ideas for an answer to this question it might be important to note that even general relativity can be regarded as a kind of gauge theory.

In 'extended particle' models which are involed whith (non-abelian) gauge theories the role of c  --i.e. the upper bound of the relative speed of a particle which is created in a collision process with respect to the 'rest frame' of that collision process--  and its relationship to bounds of the 'electric' components of gauge fields might give a hint to get an idea how a generalization of 'electromagnetic interactions' might look like at very short distances from atomic scale down to Planck scale. I remember some work and a seminar talk of A.O.Barut in which he went in this direction. Unfortunately the success and the hype surrounding the quark-model seems to have stopped further investigations in this direction.