As theorized in quantum physics?
132286
Masses with large gravitational field bend space all the time. Light traveling towards a star bends at close proximity and strengthens out when its farther away.\n\nBlack holes are said to hold immense gravitational field that not only does it bend space and time, it can also rip a hole through our 4-dimensioned universe.
460423
Did you know that according to Quantum Mechanics, sub-atomic particles are capable of being in two places at the same time? Maybe if we shrink you down to that size, you will be, too.
613555
mathematical dilemma. there is no answer to the question. Well at least none that are known. Just like the elements we know there out there but we have to figure them out first.  just like Einstein theory of fusion. its passable just not proved.
402884
I'd say yes...but then I don't know how to explain it.\n\nThe ability to explain, and therefore duplicate, is based on what we know and the tools we have for exploration.  What I think you're getting at is,  "...is it possible for something to be inexplicable even though we know everything there is to know and have all the tools we need to explore it?"  In other words, might there be phenomena in our frame of being that are simply beyond mankind's grasp to comprehend even with all the knowledge and tools mankind can muster?\n\nWho knows?  It certainly seems that way now; but a thousand years from now, if mankind survives that long, who knows where scientific inquiry will have taken us?  It wasn't that long ago when sending pictures through the air was strictly science fiction; now we have the SciFi channel on TV.\n\nI once read somewhere that someone has said, "If mankind can think of it, it will do it."  There are a lot of things mankind has thought of, but cannot do...up to this point.  Teleportation, for example...but wait, teleportation, using a phenomenon called quantum entanglement, has been done...just recently.  OK, dark matter, no one has seen dark matter...ooops, some Stanford brains just did...only a few weeks ago. [See sources.]\n\nYou get the point...perhaps that someone is right after all...if mankind can think of it, it will (ultimately) do it.
177357
Basically no. The idea behind subatomic physics is that when things get stuck together, you have to put energy into them to split them apart. (just like "real" physics). The tighter they are stuck together, they more energy it takes to split them apart. And the smaller they are, the tighter they are stuck together.\n\nQuarks are stuck together into subatomic particles so tightly that we need to build even bigger more powerful "atom smashers" to bust them loose; big "racetracks" miles across where the electrons can wind up faster and faster until they get released at the target. Costs a LOT to build. Until then, they're just a theoretical toy.\n\nAs for 'colors', that's just a name they made up to classify them by, doesn't apply to anything real. Same as the properties they call 'strangeness' or 'charm'.
262391
Yes, Richard Feynman suggested this way back when. \n\nThe original paper is available here: http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v76/i6/p749_1\n\nWithout a subscription you'll only be able to read the abstract.
115145
Yes, we are. That is what the senses are. There are no real things out there, there are just clouds of possibilities. Quantum physicists are finding out the universe is much more complicated and unbelievable than once thought. Our perceptions actually modify reality.. that means there could be a universe out there for every potential choice we make in our lives... it's a mind boggling concept, but people are realizing theres more to this world than meets the eye, so to speak.
578749
This is the whole quantum uncertainty principle - if there is no light then we do not know the colour, but as soon as we introduce light then the colour is known, but until that point there are multiple possible states the colour of the object could be in...
39508
Notwithstanding quantum mechanical effects from quantum field theory involved in photons escaping confined regions that I'm not qualified to answer in regards to, and supposing that you had *ideal* mirrors that reflected all of the incident energy of the photon and if you could seal the box (or probably a better aparatus would be a sphere) before your incident light beam escaped, then I believe the answer is yes.\n\nI'm fairly sure that this is not quite as theoretical as I've made it sound by invoking ideal mirrors and actually is practical.  I'm fairly sure that there is a research group here at my University working on storing information encoded in photons by basically trapping it between two mirrors to bounce back and forth until released for further processing.  I haven't been able to find a link to any research publications on that, but I'll update you if I locate one.\n\nI hope that helps.
167607
In Physics there is a sub-field called Quantum Physics... this field is the study of motion patterns by the smallest particles of matter.  The Quantum Physicists say that they have got a particle that is so small that even with the Super Collider they cannot SEE this particle... they only can see the energy pattern of this "particle."  They say... they... "have a dance, but no dancer."  This is getting close to Metaphysics... which some may call the spiritual realm... or maybe the "ethers."  Some of the physicists call this small unseen particle... "The God Particle."  There is a book by a physicist named Leon Lederman with the title:  "The God Particle."  Interesting reading... I have no knowledge of this Theory = Quantum Aether Dynamics or of J R RedBourne.  So I cannot comment on that part of your question.  But I like Leon Lederman's book. Go to your local library and see if it is there... it is an interesting book, and very understandable as it was written for the layman with no great foundational knowledge in Physics.  Hope this helps!
559811
You mean quantum teleportation? I can point you to some layman's sites explaining how it works. . . Keep in mind, you are only teleporting the state of the "matter" (the experiments I am aware of only move photon states, though in principle you could apply them to electrons and protons), not the energy itself. Also, entangling macroscopic quantities of matter with some stream that could teleport its state (making a copy at the other end) is currently an intractable engineering problem.
41023
Your reasoning does not necessarily follow. \n\nConsider one of the suppositions that some scientists have posited as a possible conclusion to the unknowable state of subatomic particles posited by Quantum theory: every choice may spin off a new universe. \n\nNow - mind you - I am not positing that this is what happens, but some serious people have proposed this - every choice you can make, some iteration of you does make, since thought itself is quite possibly quantum mechanical (it is passed via electrons, so the possibility cannot be precluded.) And each of these choices spins a new thread off the universe into a multiverse of possible outcomes. \n\nAs you can see, this is just one possible means by which you actually can have complete control of your destiny, and for God to still know the outcome. An infinite God would still be God of a multiverse of infinite possibility.\n\nYour choices are yours. You know you make them. You can feel yourself make them, as you make them - I don't need to prove this, anyone reading can intuit for themselves that I am telling a basic truth.\n\nThe fact that God does have some inkling of how all this will turn out does not represent any sort of interference with your free will. Nor is it a disproof of God. It is merely a reflection that an infinite wisdom can consider infinite possibilities, and find any of them to be quite unsurprising.\n\nSo no - while God is self-limiting in the sense that he does not appear to want to interfere in our doings (and the universe appears to have been explicitly designed to permit free will) - this is not an argument for God's powerlessness or non-existence. It is proof only that, if there is a God, infinite choices and possibilities are not out of reach of his infinite power.
14433
emilyrose gave a very thoughtful answer. \n\nReality on a small scale is quite a bit different than what we experience on our scale (the so-called "macroscopic scale"). I might make a few comments:\n\n1. Not only do the electrons in an atom have some wavelike properties, but the nucleus of an atom does as well. \n\n2. A "vacuum" is actually not really empty space, but a seething mass of virtual particles appearing and disappearing a very short time later (the Casimir effect is a strange force that is evidence for this mysterious force).
74740
Plenty of physicists today still believe that the elusive Theory of Everything (or Grand Unified Theory) is something that does exist, however, I don't think very many people are actually actively looking for it. The biggest problem at the moment in regards to some sort of unified theory, is that there is no rectifying quantum theory with general relativity (as which would be needed to describe black holes, for example).\n\nBut yeah, I think that it is possible, considering that all evidence suggests that we are rational beings in a rational world. I'd like to find it myself!\n\nAs for whether Einstein would have been able to prove it, I really doubt that. He spent the final years of his life trying to disprove the inherent uncertainty in the universe that quantum theory requires. From what I've been taught, most people think that his talents were wasted on this vain effort; they are happy to accept the Copenhagen interpretation, and don't much care if, upon deeper examination, it does result in fundamental order and certainty. The mathematics work, and it has been proven... there's no problem with it unless you don't like the philosophical implications.
263585
You do have a point. Of course Schrodinger's equation was a brilliant breakthrough but these theories necessarily have a mathematical foundation and sometimes that foundation is not as secure as generally perceived. Mathematics is evolving and some of the stuff coming out is very weird, paradoxes and all, and this ends up affecting the way scientists formulate their theories. Put it this way: most physcists are not expert mathematicians and they are often a step behind with respect to rigor. As far as quantum mechanics is concerned, one has to consider its real and significant successes as a useful theory but with the realization that any developing theory  will necessarily have growing pains and it will need to be adjusted, finetuned and sometimes overhauled in the light of new info. in order to be incorporated in a more general theory of which it is a special case much like classical mechanics had to adjust to both quantum mechanics and the special and general theories of relativity. I think the greatest revision to quantum mechanics and General relativity will occur when the large and the small, and the uncertain and the deterministic, are finally 'married' in a breakthrough theory of quantum gravity. The problem with general relativity is that it is deterministic field theory and it is based on the concept of a space-time 'continuum'. I think the concept of continuum upon which the formalism of general relativity is based, is counter-productive and it needsto be replaced with a quantized 'granular' space-time structure that would allow things to get unified. On a philosophical note, you are right, in a sense, concerning questionable foundational definitions since if you keep asking the question: and what precisely do you mean by that? It doesn't take that many questions before you are reduced to axioms which are based on presumptuous perceptions of the human mind: In otherwords we could be missing a lot.
519024
Something involving atomic spectra.  For example see\nhttp://www.fas.harvard.edu/~scdiroff/lds/QuantumRelativity/StreetLampSpectra/StreetLampSpectra.html
127899
Seems to me that if you can manipulate 2 particles into entanglement (let's say one in New York, one in LA), then you can also manipulate a third particle (in Chicago) to the qualities measured in the first.  Sorry mathematician, but your two/three particle wave function theory although fascinating doesn't apply