swansont

Frank Martin DiMeglio has been suspended for two weeks for spamming us with the same topic, after repeatedly being told not to re-introduce the subject.

puppypower has been suspended 7 days for repeated thread hijacking and soapboxing.

The speculations section is not an open forum for discussing whatever you wish. You are expected to follow the guidelines and the broader rules of the forums, and that includes addressing questions/objections (i.e. not soapboxing) and supporting your claims. If you don't you will lose the privelege of further discussion on the topic. The staff isn't particularly interested in the prospect of repeating the effort of reminding you to follow the rules if you've never demonstrated any inclination of doing so.

puppypower has been suspended a week for repeated thread hijacking.

What distance is measured in an atomic clock?

We're not talking about a pendulum clock, we're talking about quantum mechanics. This is the same issue I've had all along in this thread: the presumption of classical physics when dealing with QM. You can't do it. What distance is measured in an atomic clock?

Your answer addressed nothing about what I asked, which was about the best way to go about effecting change. You will be relieved to know that I said nothing of the sort. Go ahead and reread it. I mentioned archaeology once, and it's difficult for me to see how you misconstrue what I actually said to mean that it doesn't deserve its own section. Could be discussed is not the same as must be discussed. No, not really. If you bring up an aspect of e.g. relativity that's philosophy, then you discuss it there. But if it's not, then it's not appropriate to discuss it there. It's not like these are interchangeable. Religion and philosophy are considered to be part of the humanities. The bottom line is that anyone who runs an internet discussion board can decide what gets discussed there. Do you get that? You have zero actual leverage in this. You have persuasion, and (getting back to what I asked earlier) you might consider what happens depending on how you present your position. You come in with swagger and bluster with the appearance of attempting to intimidate, and no attempt at presenting a case, then I'm not inclined to acquiesce to your request. All you do is make it easy to tune you out.

Carbon dating is a matter of physics. Mathematics used by ancients, hmm, where could we discuss that? Maybe in mathematics? Evolution and natural selection... gosh, if only there was a subtopic of biology where we could discuss that. Oh wait, there is! Psychology — hey, there it is in the medical science forum! Ethics? We've got that, too. And you're also listing chemistry as something we don't have? Are you kidding? So in your shopping list of complaints, you whiffed on eight of the nine items. Combined with this "slap in the face" comment below, it sounds an awful lot like this is just an example of being an outrage troll. Religion is included as a subset of philosophy, which has a connection with science. Given your success rate of complaint, I have to wonder how you can see blinders with the blast shield down. P.S "threw" is the past tense of throw. One who "threw out history" tossed history into the trash. What you want to use is "through"

Literally classical bigotry. Or classification. Many of these fields are widely considered to be part of the social sciences rather than the physical sciences (and others are humanities). So be angry with is if you want, but remember to be angry with pretty much every college and university that teaches the liberal arts and don't count those classes against their science requirement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Social_sciences Also that you listed religion, which is a topic we have. As far as archaeology goes, I don't necessarily disagree, but one might reflect on whether your approach is the best that one might follow if one is hoping to effect change. What do those social sciences tell you? Given the scientific nature of this site and the staff, especially.

This isn't a matter of making a small error where the person is otherwise well-versed in the material (like, you forgot to add a "+ C"; indefinite integrals only give an answer to within a constant.) But if the person hadn't learned calculus, that wouldn't make much sense. Do you think you could teach someone calculus — so they could actually DO calculus — in a forum post? Keeping in mind that it's a semester of college? Now multiply that, because the immersion into QM is multiple years (an intro "modern physics" class where you learn some basic concepts, undergrad QM, and graduate QM, which is often more than a year, and then applications of QM if you are doing physics that requires it) So no, I can't explain this to you in such a setting. Suffice to say that pop-sci exposure means you have learned a little about QM, but you really haven't learned any QM. If you can't go through and solve problems and understand their application, you aren't doing science. The thing that digs at me (here and elsewhere, since this isn't my first quantum rodeo) is the insinuation that your unwillingness to invest the time to learn or that it's not possible to gain the requisite expertise by reading a post or pop-sci article or wikipedia summary, somehow is my fault. (If you want to ensure someone's response, the best thing to do is to quote the post, so it's possible for a notification to appear.) In a microwave atomic clock, the transition is a spin-flip, and the electron is a point particle. (I.e. spin isn't physical motion). There is nothing that ties into distance traveled.

That's even more wrong than what Daedalus had claimed.

GlobalIntegrationInitiate has been banned as a sockpuppet of MWresearch

MWresearch has been suspended a week for abuse of the report post system. (i.e. repeatedly reporting posts as a protest because he disagreed with a finding/action, and threatening to continue.)

I can only lead the horse to water. If you want to insist on how things work while admittedly not understanding QM, there's a limit to how much I can do.

IOW, motion within these systems is an ill-formed concept. So you can't say anything about motion. If that's what you call pointing out a claim that's wrong, then OK. I can see how that implies motion to someone who is interpreting effects from the perspective of classical physics. However, the lesson of QM is that these classical concepts don't apply.

The thing about science is that we try and have precise definitions that everyone uses, so how you define it means a lot less if you are trying to make a physics argument. You don't have a trajectory, and you don't have a momentum for the electron. And it gets worse... If that's motion, then you should be able to ascribe a momentum to the electron; it moved from one point to another in a certain interval, meaning there would also be an angular momentum associated with this motion about the nucleus. How does that work, given that they have quantized angular momentum and we know that some states have zero angular momentum? That demands linear motion, and yet the probability distribution of an S-state is a sphere. Doesn't work. As above, I'm not ignoring it, I'm disagreeing with it, and how is it cherry-picking? And why are you surprised at my focusing on one part of an argument? I don't need to dismantle the whole model to show that it's wrong, just one crucial linchpin. Further, parts of a model can be correct, but the whole can be wrong, because of some fundamental error or omission (e.g. the Bohr model. It gets some things right, but the model as a whole is wrong)

That's a dynamic system in which they've just ionized an atom, so it's not the same conditions, and you're relying on the press-release wording. The part that says the electron does not exist at a single point can be written as the electron exists everywhere. If something exists everywhere, how can it move? The larger issue is you can't rely on pop-sci descriptions of QM to understand QM, especially when you interpret it in terms of classical physics. That way is doomed to failure.

Energy is not an object, it is a property of objects. An electron has energy, or an electron-nucleus system has energy. It is not a "thing" unto itself. You can talk about energy transfer, but energy motion. And until you can give an equation describing it, you can't infer motion in QM. (I mean, you can, and obviously do, but it's not rigorous) What's the equation of motion of an electron in an atom? Of its spin orientation?

MrIntelligentDesign has been banned for excessive violations of the advertising and soapboxing rules.

What is a thread hijack? We have a FAQ "The topic of discussion is set by the first post in a thread. If your post is such that it changes the discussion from what the original post(er) (OP) was talking about to what you want to talk about, you are guilty of attempted hijacking. Posting your own pet theory anywhere but in its own thread in the Speculations forum is always considered a hijack." So if someone posts something about thinking the moon is made of green cheese, you talk about that person's theory — why it's possibly wrong, what evidence there is, etc. Even if you have your own theory about how the moon is made of green cheese, if you post it in the thread you are hijacking the discussion. You only discuss your pet theory in its own thread in speculations. Not in anybody else's thread (unless explicitly invited to do so, such as a thread that says "I want to hear your theories on how the moon is made of green cheese")

James.Lindgaard has been banned as a sockpuppet of jlindgaard. Sorry it took so long to recognize this.

Theoretical has been suspended 3 days for repeated thread hijacking. The lesson here is when mods tell you to stop hijacking a discussion, you need to actually stop hijacking the discussion. Not continuing to post, especially in response to modnotes telling you not to respond to modnotes.

Bruno da Silva has been banned by Austin Powers for his threats against humanity. He may stroke his cat in some other hollowed-out volcano.

! Moderator Note Regarding the previous request: responses to the requestor should be via PM

veproject1.org has been suspended for repeatedly posting to advertise a youtube channel, in violation of rule 2.7