swansont

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

Harold Squared has been banned. In keeping with his posting style, I will not provide any supporting documentation for this action. (<–– but it was that)

s1eep has been exiled for repeated soapboxing violations (on topics that nobody seemed to be able to parse) and re-opening the subject of closed threads, with a sprinkling of abuse here and there.

davidelkins has been suspended for soapboxing: starting cryptic threads and never returning to them to answer questions. (30 days, increase the chance it covers a period of time where he might show up and want to post)

Also a NIST database http://www.nist.gov/pml/data/asd.cfm But a program that calculates the transitions? Probably not. I don't think you can solve for anything but Hydrogen, and even then the Schrödinger equation leaves out some of the structure.

yuno44907 banned for posting hateful crap.

Periodic reminder that being wrong is not a rules violation. Moderators will not step in and correct anyone on points of fact — participation in that manner is that of a member, not a moderator, so there is no utility in reporting posts using this complaint.

PSA reminder: If you encounter spam please report it, but you only need to report one post by each offender. We can remove all of the posts more easily than clearing multiple reports.

david345 suspended a week for a rash of attempts to circumvent thread closure, culminating with a rather inappropriate tone.