Why can't we think hard enough and rearrange our molecules to walk through walls?
367126
because we don't have enough control over the individual molecules to move them. We also have no idea where the wall molecules are.
592242
Most don't have the ability or the experience yet to think in three dimensions.\n\nAlso, if they're not strong on being able to draw Lewis structures and determine positions of lone pair electrons, they'll never get the geometry right.
465871
Got literacy?\nAnyway there are some theories as to the possiblities of intantaneous teleportation that involve massive electromagnetic fields but as of now there is no real way to teleport things.  According to quantum mechanics, though, extrordinarily small particles (electrons et al) have a tendency to "tunnel" varying distances almost instantaneously.
626818
I am working at a Research Insitute in Artificial Intelligence. We are now researching a brand new technology that may one day erradicate the sedentarism. The unification of matter principle has been used to create a volatile spherical ball a few centimeters in diameter, which can penetrate every kind of material object (think of it as a radiation coordinated though satelite). This has only been experienced on mice, but one day such an object will move with speeds of up to 3m/second on the shorest way towards you. Of course, a pain ensues uppon contact (and maybe some minor tissue damage), so this would make people more active - trying to avoid the sphere.
700021
Really a great question.\n\nNo, at the atomic level, things do not touch (normally).  What stops things from going through other things are the electro-magnetic repulsion forces coming from the electrons of the atoms.\n\nThere are exceptions, like in a collider, where we can co-mingle electrons so that atoms momentarily share them.  But those are special cases and, even here, the nucleii and such are not actually touching.  They are simply sharing, with space (reeeealy small space) in between the atomic parts.\n\nWe feel like we are touching because our senses are unable to feel the subatomic spaces; so we have no sensation of spaces that small.  So, in effect, you are right, "our atoms...just bounce off" if by that, you mean they repell each other.
652835
It is much faster and efficient to transmit information than it is to transport matter. For that reaon, a practical system of teleportation would not transport all your atoms. Instead, it would disassemble you particle by particle, creating a dataset of the pattern. It would then transmit the dataset at the speed of light to your destination, where raw materials are available to reassemble you from the pattern. The raw materials are recycled from others who have been disassembled in the process of teleportation. \n\nAfter teleportation, you will be the same person, with the same memories, knowledge, and personality. The only difference is that you won't consist of the original particles. That should not matter, because all atoms of any element are identical and indistinguishable.
10601
This is one of those wierd questions in Quantum Mechanics where there is no way to visualize the answer. Our brains, understandably, have evolved to handle falling rocks, jumping tigers, and other macroscopic objects. We have numerous hardwired responses to these things which follow classical, Newtonian Physics.\n\nOn the atomic and subatomic scales where objects behave according to the laws of Quantum Mechanics things are different. An electron can behave like a wave in this experiment, but a particle in another experiments. According the classical physics (and our macroscopic-loving brain's "common sense) nothing can be *both* a particle and a wave. \n\nSo what is an electron? A wavicle? A partiave? \n\nNope. An electron is a, well, an electron. Sometime it will behave *exactly* like a wave, other times it will behave *exactly* like a particle. Never will it behave like some intermeditate or mixed state.\n\nThe problem - to the extent there is a problem - is that we cannot visiualize this. There is no way to form a picture in our heads the same way we can form a picture of a ball flying though the air. Our brains are meant to operate on macroscopic phenomena, and subatomic phenomena just behave differently.\n\nPresumably some other alien species could have some sort of mind, or mind-like thing, for which the whole wave-particle duality thing just makes perfect sense! But presumably this aliens would be confused by what are to us the simple motions of a ball flying through the air.\n\nSo, in the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, there is no sense in which the "other forms" of an object change after a wavefunction is collapsed. That this seems to be a problem is more a function of our brains and how they have evolved.\n\n\n(As an aside, it should be said that it is possible to understand the mathematics underlying Quantum Mechanics. And to be able to use this math to make extremely accurate predictions of how electrons, atoms, etc. will behave. These predictions can be tested experimentally and Quantum Mechanics holds up extremely well. \n\nSo while QM is very wierd, there is an enormous amount of evidence that it is correct.)
449308
Depends how detailed you go, they have paired atoms where you do one thing to one and it happens to the other, if things were the same down to this level maybe they'd be joined in the same way. Just a thought.
908691
Quantum Physics suggests that our minds control our environment.  Theoretically if an individual could harness the inherent power of their mind then transcending the next dimension should be relatively simple.  \n\nSkipping ahead would mean slipping into an alternative timeline (5th dimension I believe), which would not necessarily be the same future we will experience, but a parallel existence where things may not be the same as they are today.  For instance in that timeline maybe the Nazi's won or Rome remained and that world would be shaped in that image.  \n\nGoing backwards would be much simpler than shooting forward.  As you are only transcending 1 dimension not 2.
335734
I consider humans as being 4 dimensional and existing in a 4d world...unfortunately we cannot fully interact with the 4th dimension (I guess we are temporal retards)......but that aside......\n\nYour 2d and 3d examples are correct because they are both physical dimensions.\n\nHowever, a 4d observer would not be able to touch every molecule of a 3d world which he was observing........this is because the 4th dimension is temporal rather than physical....he would still have physical boundaries.\n\nHe would be able to interact with a 3d world in the same physical way as we would, but he could do it in the past or future....which we cannot unfortunately....we are stuck in our present...moving ever forward in the temporal plane.\n\nPhysically, he would also be able to interact with his 4d world in the same way as a 3d observer interacts with their 3d world (and it would simply appear normal to him).\nTemporally, he could interact with his 4d world in the same way as he could interact with a 3d world...he could travel in time, but would remain constrained by physical barriers.\n\n5d.....well.....what is your definition of the 5th dimension ?\n\nProbably somewhat different to mine !!!
63744
B only seems impossible because you're looking at it from a small, everyday perspective.  Read a book on quantum phenomenon and you'll discover that particles literally appear out of no where everyday, and we take this as completely normal.  The Universe and Everything is far more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for.
47926
it's physically impossible.  that would require force. you cannot make any kind of force with only your mind.
468561
In terms of molecular motion, molecules of a gas have higher kinetic energy (moving energy)than molecules of a solid do.\n\nBecause molecules of a gas have higher kinetic energy, they always move fast and they don't stay solid at any particular moment you observe (that's why you can walk through gaseous environment because molecules of a gas don't stay into a solid layer to stop you). Because they are freely moving like that, it will be energetically favorable to dissolve gas into other medium.\n\nIn contrast, molecules of a solid stay connected to each other (crystal lattice,...). When you want to dissolve a solid to other medium, you have to break up the bonds between molecules of the solid. Breaking up molecular bonds is energetically unfavorable; in other words, it takes up energy to break up chemical bonds and energy is not always available to do that. In the case of molecules of gas, they're already freely moving so at some moments, they just wander off and dissolve.
577378
It's not possible physically. But, what is reality? it's whatever your mind see it as. It's more practical to take some drug and live in some hallucination, of a different reality, than to really go back physically to change the reality.\n\nWhy do u want to goto the past or future? do u want to change something in your favour? Your action would probably triggers a series of event that would again change what u tried to change, or if someone else does not like how u changed thing, they'd simply go back and change things again if time travel is at all possible. These people who does not have a time machine would eventually have one given infinite time to learn to make one and if time travelling is possible, they do indeed have infinite time. In the end, u would not be able to tell the outcome.\n\n\nThe easiest and laziest way to get a time machine is to give yourself one. Once u r done using it, travel back into time to your past and give yourself the time machine... which u got from yourself in the "past".
957093
Our thought are information and dependent on the physical reality of brain. You can not project your thoughts beyond the confines of your brain, unless they are piggy-backed on a transfer wave, such as the intelligence of radio waves is piggy-backed on carrier waves; all physical. You are confused, because instead of getting a proper education in these matters, you wish to believe some form of " alternative " explanation to reality.
1072706
You're forgetting something with your reasoning here.  It is true that in chemistry, creating bonds releases energy, but how do you get particles to create bonds between?  You have to break other bonds, which requires energy.  If catabolic pathways release energy when they break down complex molecules, the amount of energy it takes to break those bonds is less than the amount of energy released when new bonds are formed from the broken-up parts.
1052015
We can easily turn around, or turn our head, so we don't need a massive visual cortex and another two eyes, and to spend all our time processing the information from them, which mostly, would be, no threat, keep doing what you are, in front of you.  Do you want to walk or run backwards?\n\nWeird question.