swansont

y = sin(x) represents motion? How so? Your claim, your burden of proof. It's not my job to teach you QM, nor is math without experimental support sufficient to show anything; your math so far has been describing classical physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_atom#Wavefunction Where is the motion?

You say it's not a particle, but then you go and treat it like a particle. Go find some experiments where the electron's motion can be measured in these transitions.

The description does not include motion of state vectors, because the concept does not apply. 1. Electrons are not particles — they do not behave like little marbles. They are localized when they interact in certain ways, but they aren't interacting in those ways while an atom or ion is oscillating in a clock. 2. I didn't ask if the air (the medium) was moving, even of the drum was producing a standing wave. I asked if the wave was moving.

Sure we can. In fact, I have already done so. So has Klaynos. So not only can we deny it, it's trivially easy to do so. But whether one can claim or deny it is not the point. What's important is if one can back it up with any physics, and you simply can't. What you have done is declare it to be so and in doing so, ignored quantum mechanics. Example: you have a standing wave, with a wavelength of 1m, located between 0 and 1 in some coordinate system. Is the wave moving? Where is it located?

The dictionary is not a technical resource. QM tells us (via deBroglie and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) that the electron is a wave and there is a limit to how well you could determine its location. If you knew it was at rest, its position uncertainty becomes infinite — it exists at all points. The opposite of what you contend. At the subatomic level the notions of motion are not classical. To say that the state change is motion lacks foundation; in the most widely-used kinds of atomic clocks, the state change is a spin flip, not even a change in an orbital. During the oscillation, it's in a superposition of the two spin states, but that's only because we chose a particular basis for the description of the system — you could easily choose that state as a stationary state of the system. Further, these are S-states, with no angular momentum. There is no implied classical orbital motion (which is one example of the failure of classical physics at this level) Short answer is that inferring motion is a naive interpretation of the physics.

You can't say the electrons has a specific location at any point in the measurement, so how do you know there is motion? This is quantum mechanics we're talking about.

mpc755 has been banned for continuing to hijack threads and ignore moderator warnings. mpc7555 banned as a sockpuppet account. And mpc866

I don't think you have to worry about igniting helium

Aluminized mylar, perhaps?

mpc755 has been suspended for two days for repeatedly raising and advertising his speculative ideas in other threads, despite multiple warnings, in violation of rules 2.5 and 2.10

griffithsuk banned for being a sockpuppet account. (gaffer and infinitesolid perturbations, petrollifter, Moltensphereearth. Probably more)

I think the latter would be the major problem. A neutron "gas" would not follow the ideal gas law and tend to leak out of any container.

Kris K has been banned for violating the speculation forum rules, repeatedly reintroducing a closed topic and making several spamtrollish posts.

My bad, since I've logged most of them. It's not always easy to keep them straight, because repeat offenders are usually serial repeat offenders. edit: updated as best I could. In a reasonable fraction of instances, the sockpuppet is for the user who had just been banned.

petrollifter has been banned as a sockpuppet of a previously banned user (gaffer and infinitesolid manifestations)

The more commonly violated rules are #5 and #10 (listed in section 2). Hijacking threads is taking over the discussion on a topic different from the original post, which violates the "stay on topic" rule; this is often done in the context of discussion a crackpot idea. The latter violates two principles laid out in the rules. Not engaging in discussion, aka soapboxing, is against rule #8. This is most often violated by people who declare science to be wrong, and when confronted with evidence simply repeat their claims. I hope that logical fallacies, flaming, plagiarism and sockpuppetry violations are easily understood (as well as porn and spam, but we don't bother to log those. There would be no time for anything else.)

alpha2cen has been suspended for repeatedly hijacking threads with speculative science, and promoting pet theories in science threads.

infinitesoliduk has been banned as yet another sockpuppet of a previously banned user. Moltensphereearth, too. (infinitesolid 1, 2 and 3)

cypress has been banned for thread hijacking, many instances of logical fallacies (making honest debate well-nigh impossible) and abusing the post reporting system. (Reporting rules violations is encouraged. Using reports for non-violations as retaliation or distraction is not)

Just the Facts has been banned for repeatedly insulting just about everybody, thread hijacking and refusing to engage in actual scientific discussion on his speculative subjects.

pioneer has been banned for being a sockpuppet of a previously banned user, and for repeated thread hijacks. (sunspot)

When one sees large sections discussing the controversy of the data and methods, especially for a single source of information (not peer-reviewed, no corroboration), one might hesitate to claim that it is "general knowledge."

I'd also like evidence that the premise is actually true.

14darryl14 and ChuckNorris banned as sockpuppets (cabinintheforest), and the latter for masquerading as Chuck Norris. It would be a dark day indeed if the real Chuck Norris ever found out.

I was joking about the use of "midterm" for exams that do not take place mid-term (and take place more than once). That always annoyed me when I was TA-ing in grad school, because all of the physics professors seemed to do it.