swansont

What chapter of Serway talks about loop quantum gravity? The big bang, based on general relativity, doesn't cover the beginning as a point, since it breaks down when you approach a singularity. It goes back to ~10^-43 seconds, but before that you need a quantum theory. So no t=0, no point. A wave function isn't made of anything. Light does not require a medium. You're focusing on the analogy as if it were the actual science, which is a common mistake. Some physicists care, and work on foundations of physics. Others test to see if they are actually constant. But physics is a pretty big tent, so many of us go on about our jobs without having to worry about these questions, as there is no real impact on the work we do. Models require more than this. Wave functions are not bosons, and the dictionary is not a technical resource. "Graviton" is already taken. The universe is expanding faster than c, which would be impossible if spacetime were a substance.

Positive and negative come out of the math so you'd have to make changes in the equations, and some of them really wouldn't work anymore. The choice of what is zero is arbitrary but since what you are interested in is the change in energy between two states, it's often moot. if you chose a nonzero number you'd have it in two places that are subtracted, so it would cancel. Adding more terms that don't matter is kinda pointless.

The energy of binding for electrostatic and gravitational interactions is negative, that is, you have to release energy to form a bound system. It’s an energy deficit, as compared to having free particles, so there is no energy bound up in the bonds.

! Moderator Note That we’ve seen this before? https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/122571-associate-a-harmonic-oscillator-with-the-functioning-of-the-universe/#comment-1147154 https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120416-anharmonic-oscillator/page/11/#comment-1140394 https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/125640-unification-of-quantum-mechanics-by-qft-and-gravitational-oscillator-revision-of-the-higgs-potential-in-the-higgs-field-in-relation-to-singularity-avoidance-and-correction-of-the-metastability-of-the-true-false-vacuum/#comment-1184138 And threads were locked, with you being told not to bring the subject up again

One thing I’ve noticed about folks with similar stances is that they never seem to be able to articulate what their specific issues are. It’s always some vague complaint, often citing some caricature of the group they are railing against. Manufactured outrage, based on propaganda rather than fact. I note that you aren’t denying that you’re failing to follow the rules, only that you see it as a burden and blaming others for it. Am I the chief or the sidekick?

It’s a geometry and the speed of light is involved. Yeah, this makes little sense.

Fiction and hallucinations have been around even longer than that. This would follow from “There is no evidence that they came here” Flawed reasoning. Superstring theory is only a small part of physics, so it can’t be used to represent the whole. Theory work is crucial to advancements. What innovations in physics have come about because of new age crystals?

Argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy. Zero seems to me like something that requires no preparation at all. Spacetime is a geometry, not a substance. It’s not “made of” anything, any more than a shape (triangle, cylinder) is made of anything.

Shortest recorded in the last ~50 years, but reconstructions show it was faster in the past, and we’ve gone to negative excess length of day in the atomic clock era. In the early 2000s ELOD was negative during part of the year. No leap seconds were inserted for 7 years. Then the days got longer again. https://www.ststworld.com/understanding-day-length-fluctuations-what-they-are-and-what-causes-them/ Even with the fluctuations, you can see the long-term trend is toward longer days, and that we’ve had negative ELOD in the 1930s and a much larger dip from ~1860-1900 https://geodesy.geology.ohio-state.edu/course/refpapers/dLOD_1800-2000.pdf Earth rotation rates have geologic- and climate-related contributions, so focusing on very short time scales is a tad misguided

Atomic fountain clock. To reduce scattering with background gases, the device is run under high vacuum. It attaches to a controller which provides the high voltage needed and measures the pressure.

This stuff is debunked elsewhere, so there's nothing new, but more to the point, there hasn't been any evidence presented! Trying to cast this as a discussion that has any merit is foolhardy.The OP was afforded an opportunity to present evidence and they chose to not even try.

! Moderator Note You were told not to bring this up in other threads when your original foray into this was locked. Those pesky rules, ruining your fun...

! Moderator Note You are free to post your musings on a blog somewhere, and the government can't throw you in jail to stop that. That's freedom of speech (here in the US, at least). This freedom does not involve being free from repercussions for that speech. But this site is not the government. We have rules, designed to facilitate discussion, and you are expected to follow them. Included in those rules is providing evidence to back up what you say.

! Moderator Note Post the information here, as required by the rules

No

We have used ion pumps for our clocks since we wanted what is ultimately an oil-free system for long-term operation, though we use a turbo + mechanical pump to get down to the pressure where the ion pump will start. I used a diffusion pump in grad school. Luckily it never vented to air while operating, so I never had to clean up the resulting mess. I put various interlocks in place to shut pneumatically-operated gate valves in case it was exposed to higher pressures (like if there was a serious leak) and shut things down if the pump cooling was interrupted.

I would add that the photon does not require any external field. No photon, E and B have zero amplitude. There is no analogue of the rope present.

Where (i.e. in what context) does this term show up? AFAIK it's not phrasing that's used much in QM. An electron is a wave. The "cloud" in this description is a probability of finding it somewhere if you were to try and localize it; the probability function looks like a cloud. But one has to not try and impose notions of classical physics on this description - it would be incorrect to think of the electron existing at specific points at times when you aren't measuring it, and that it's moving from place to place. Because it is a wave, it exists everywhere.

You said orbit, and said it implied movement. There is no denying that. And by using the terminology and description, you give the impression that you don't actually know the correct model. You suggest that I made an unwarranted conclusion, but I say I made one based on the evidence before me. If it's the case that you misspoke, then all you have to do is say that, and we can move on to the next point about how we had gone from energy to movement; the original claim was about the latter, not the former. That's not what I said, so I will you refer you to your own comment about snarky responses. What I want is for people to be able to back up what they claim, and to have put in the minimal effort of learning the basics, rather than going on some wild conjecture. I will repeat: the claim was not in the OP, and was not phrased as a question. I was presented as a fact. You followed up with "As far as my imagination takes me, if no energy moved in the universe, there would be no time expended." Which is fine as a concept to explore, but you have to be prepared to defend it, or you can accept responses from people who are correcting misconceptions. You've been fighting that.

What's your point? What is it you want to discuss? Just giving us bullet points like this was a powerpoint slide isn't particularly illuminating.

! Moderator Note What we want is for you to write out the text of what you are discussing. Upload of images only in image file. That way we can quote specific parts. If you can't be bothered to do that, then don't expect anyone to put in the time to read or respond to you.

Nit-picking is actually required sometimes. The terminology we use often has specific meaning, which is why "orbital" is used rather than "orbit" because they refer to different things. We can't read your mind to know what you mean, we have to go by what you actually say/write. Orbit, as you wrote, implies motion. QM orbitals do not imply motion within an atom.

You would have to demonstrate that this is relevant to the broader question, that energy causes time. What is the nature of that relationship? I'm pretty sure I can rebut the claim, but I have to know exactly what the claim is. But I have no interest in vague descriptions where the game is to try and find loopholes. People who don't really know what they are talking about might describe electrons as having an orbit; that model went out of fashion ~100 years ago. And we have gone from "energy" to "movement" which was not the claim. At rest means no center-of-mass kinetic energy. If you want to invoke vibration as the energy, I need a more precise model in order to show that it's wrong. this is physics. We quantify things. Something made of matter. If you need these definitions then you are obviously not prepared to defend any of these WAG claims.

The claim was made subsequent to the OP, and was not phrased as a question. Such is the problem of relying on pop-science as your source of information. A photon has energy, and the photon is moving. But if I throw you a red ball, does "the red is moving" make much sense? Or if we agree the ball is small, does "the small is moving" make sense? It is not "composed" of energy, as energy is not a substance.

You shouldn't make claims you can't support I'm not sure what "energy moving" means. Energy is a property of a system, not a substance or particle. An object moves and it has kinetic energy. You toss a ball in the air and its kinetic energy decreases as its potential energy increases; the sum remains constant. Is energy moving? A block of a radioactive material just sits there. Half of its atoms decay in one half-life. Or just one atom sits there, and decays after some time. Where is the "moving energy"? This additional information that's required does not make the information a dimension. Color could then be a dimension. It fits some of the parameters - it's orthogonal, for one, but suffers from some of the other shortcomings I pointed out.