Quantum mechanics or Relativity?
612551
I love both... Both really imaginative or creative I must say
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.
4816
Okay, so you know how quantum physics shows us that all points in space, all bits of matter are at any moment both a particle and a wave.  And Einstein's special theory of relativity shows us that all light is made of waves.  And these two theories combine in interesting ways, but don't completely gel.  For decades physicists have been struggling to reconcile the two theories, but they have been unable to do so effectively.  Something was always holding them back, basically because the universe seems to be holding more energy than there is space in the points of known mass.  This made scientists wonder where all the energy was.  And then they discovered, that the space in between the atoms was itself teeming with life.  And the life that lives at the bottom of all matter, inside the shell of the tiniest waves of photons, or quanta, is a strange world of simultaneously vibrating strings.  And those strings of multi-demensional vibrating pulsating energy play in a kind of metaphysical choir, creating all the intricacies of mass and energy in the universe, as if these tiny little strings were conductors conducting a vast symphony, only they were conducting that symphony with the conductors of all the other symphonies of the atoms they were orchestrating with.  And those collections of atoms and molecules and other interesting bits were actually being played by an army of conductors conducting simultaneously with an entire legion of instruments singing and strumming away.\n\nString theory is mind-bogglingly wild, because it's so advanced.  It took PBS three hours to explain it completely, and I was still lost.  Only when I completed the book about the show's research did I have a deeper grasp of it.  Basically you just need to know that these little strings that vibrate in 6, up to 10 dimensions (depending on whose theory applies to that particular "particle" - I told you, it's mind-blowing)  and how they vibrate impacts what manifests on the level of perceptible reality.\n\nWhat's so incredible about this is that science is finally catching up to philosophy.  The Middle Way, or what Huxley called the Perennial Philosophy, has always told us that the perception of life is merely the perception of imperceptible changes on a fundamental and/or spiritual nature, and the manifestation of those changes in the world that we see around us.  In many traditional cultures, those changes are manipulated by otherworldy figures, gods, angels and the like, which is outside the scope of scientists to discern, but in today's physics, the wall between the reality we see and the reality that is real is paper-thin.  Scientists are beginning to discover that everything truly is everything, and once they can prove it, life can get a whole lot more sane, because folks will have realized that what we are today is what we were twenty thousand years ago, we are one indescribable circle trailing itslef through time, perhaps even creating subtle vibrations that resonate with other vibrating universes that themselves are creating a reality in a world far, far different than this one, beyond all perceptible consciousness.  Perhaps, there may even be a heaven, in which all this is taking place and yet life is going on and on and on, without fear or violence or pain.\n\nEnjoy your continuing discovery of the details behind string theory.  It truly is a fascinating subject.
122905
Relativity says no such thing.  Where do you get taht from?
1157167
Quantum Mechanics is the Physics behind Physics, it is Philosophy with Scientifical evidence, this goes beyond Logic and reasoning, and it only goes to show that the most incomprehendible thing about reality,(really is after all) the fact that it is comprehendible!!! I have yet to see the movie but the guy who said he and his chick tried to count how many errors were there within the first 15 minuites of the movie but couldn"t cause there were too many,.. yeah well,... He"s a fool if he disregards all things just as easily as he did this, I mean he counted the errors for example with our common (estimate his knowledge of this topic to a high level by the way, I am willing to assume he knows what he is talking about and what he is talking about is Physics, you know Science science,... I love that subject too,,,, but Quantum Mechanics is a modern Science, even more so and 10 fold than the one used for our latest and most newest forms of technology! \n  Ok please do me a favor and research when this subject first made it"s debut, and more importantly Who helped develop this Topic, and I am sure you will be surprised, For now I will give you one name, and it is one that by the way is not the father of this subject, but Albert Einstein himself, was there when they were cooking this Phenonmenal study up, it was a handfull, I mean a "handfull"! of the best most respectable minds of that time and we should be proud, ........ of our era,.......it brought me peace, when thinking about the Pi equation,...... it doesn"t gibe you an explanation Quantum Mechanics, it hardly gives you an understanding, but you do or can come to terms with the fact that life is not an answer it is a question, perhaps............
42946
There are two major theories of modern physics: Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity. Both work well, with QM being applicable to atomic and smaller sizes, and GR to large (Solar size, galaxy size, etc.) things.\n\nThe major question in physics today is: how do we combine QM and GR so that they are two aspects of one larger theory. This postulated theory is usually called a Unified Theory or Theory of Everything or something like that. String theories are attempts to do this (so far all are still incomplete).\n\nThe major difference between QM and GR is that nn QM energy comes in discrete levels (all way to small for us to notice). However in GR space-time is continious. So it is not instantly clear whether space-time is continous or quantized in a unified theory.\n\nFor consistency between these space quantization would have to be on extremely small scales. This would almost certain occur (if it did) at distances called the Planck length, which is ~ 10^-33 cm. (This is about one billion trillion times smaller than an atomic nucleus.)\n\nQuantization of time would then be the interval for light to cross this distance, about 10^-43 seconds. It is because of a lack of a unified theory that physicists can't say anything about the conditions of the universe before 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang. (Of course that is still pretty good.)\n\nThe short answer is: no one knows, but the scale of quantization would have to be much, much smaller than any known elementary particle.
664927
First, can a subatomic particle appear to be in two places at once?\n\nAccording to Quantum Theory, the answer is yes, because in order to know where a particle is, we have to measure its position, but the very act of measuring its position will alter the particle's behavior. So in effect we can never be sure where it is exactly. So in this sense, we may get measurements that give results that says the particle is here and there (this is the Uncertainty Principle).\n\nOf course, this is NOT new to quantum theory. So what's new? Someone mentioned "quantum entanglement" and "quantum teleportation". These are some of the new topics in quantum theory.\n\nPS - there is no such thing as Aether quantum dynamics or\n Auto dynamics, and Bohr's quantum mechanics is alive and well. The only addition we've added to Bohr's theory is the concept of electron cloud (i.e. a probability cloud) around the nucleus of an atom rather than electron orbits.
261371
It's not that they are at two places at the same time, but there is an equal probability of finding the proton in both places. When you get to the level of quantum mechanics, due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle we rely on probability curves to get an approximation of the physical world, the funny thing is that the areas with the most probability, are those predicted by Bohr without using quantum mechanics.
376295
For those who understand mathematics, and dare to imagine beyond the usual, quantum mechanics could easily be the most beautiful branch of physics.\n\nQuantum mechanics is a fundamental branch of theoretical physics that replaces Newtonian mechanics and classical electromagnetism at the atomic and subatomic levels. It is the underlying framework of many fields of physics and chemistry, including condensed matter physics, quantum chemistry, and particle physics. Along with general relativity, it is one of the pillars of modern physics.\n\nQuantum mechanics was developed in the first part of the 20th century and was highly successful in explaining the behavior of atoms, molecules and nuclei. Developed between 1900 and 1930 and later combined with the general and special theory of relativity, it revolutionized the concepts of physics. The new concepts, which were the particle properties of radiation, the wave properties of matter, quantization of physical properties and the idea that one can no longer know exactly where a single particle such as an electron is at any one instance were necessary to explain all of the new experimental evidence that was available at the time. For example, quantum mechanics explains the behavior of semiconductors which are used to make the myriad of devices we use every day.\n\nFollowing are the important contributors to the foundation of quantum mechanics and the principles they uncovered.\n\nYear  Researcher    Quantum Mechanics Concept\n1901  Planck        Blackbody radiation\n1905  Einstein      Photoelectric effect\n1913  Bohr          Quantum theory of spectra\n1922  Compton       Scattering of photons off electrons\n1924  Pauli         Exclusion principle\n1925  de Broglie    Matter waves\n1926  Schroedinger  Wave equation\n1927  Heisenberg    Uncertainty principle\n1927  Davison and Germer  Wave properties of electrons\n1927  Born          Interpretation of the wavefunction\n\n[The answer given by the first user (theswarm666x) is foolish. Although, one gives such examples in order to explain students of quantum mechanics what is actually meant by the terms like 'tunneling', you could not and should not use quantum mechanics in such a situation. Quantum mechanics talks about the wave aspect of objects (which is significant only for very small bodies) and waves can travel through walls.]
605311
chemistry, quantum mechanics...
1063023
Don't you think that relativity dictates that those two things are the same?\nEdited my old answer after thinking-\nmy answer is:\nIt doesn't make a difference if I say I'm going 65 miles/hr or if I say everything else is and I'm going 0.  For all intents, purposes, and consequences, it's the same.  It's the same in this case, frame of reference is crucial in measurement, and so essentially, there is no difference in macro scale physics.\nGeneral theory of relativity wise, I'm still not sure about.  It seems like there might be serious consequences for this idea due to the speed of light/space relationship.  It also seems like I'm not really qualified to do those calculations, and the people who are could very well have already thought of this.  They are rather bright.\nSo my rating for viability of the idea is: (drum roll)\n23%
632020
That we've found so far, anyway. The Michael Crichton book Timeline (not the movie, dear God not the movie) talks about light particle/waves as indicative of the existence of parallel universes. It's very interesting. Not only do they exhibit particle/wave behavior but no one can observe a photon where it is, only where it was. And sometimes it seems to have disappeared entirely only to reappear in a different place. Makes me wish I was smart enough to full grasp quantum physics.
271484
yeah, you get a bit off on a deep tangent towards the end there... but I don't think Einstein asserted anything more than the idea that time, space, and matter are related and not independant.  two systems of matter travelling in wildly different velocities relative to one another also have different processions of time and different masses, from the perspective of the other.  It only applies to things moving close to the speed of light- I think it's the Schroedinger Equation that covers the inter-relation.  But there's no real analogy to it in the observable world, unless you work at a particle accelerator, so I leave it to the doctorates of physics to debate.
17379
The focus in the 21st century for the forefront of physics is understand the connection between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. No question about this. The results could be a string theory, or loop gravity, or something completely different.\n\nAlso up there I think is a better understanding of a property we all know and love: mass. There is a search for the Higgs Boson. We need to find it and study it. Or, if it can't be observed try and determine what that means.\n\nOther challengs include being able to use the EPR phenomena of quantum entanglement to produce the first prototypes of an actual encrypted signal over a reasonable distance.\n\nNanotechnology is another challengs, in how to work those little parts into ways that form mini-computers, and also in ways that allow for various medical uses.
39599
I would suggest you use wikipedia...\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
745014
This is how I uderstand it:\nwhen you teleport you need to send information of the quantum state of the object to the other end, ie less than speed of light (unless you have a wormhole that is). Then when you receive info on the quatum state you can recreate it. So I dont think it violetes Special relativity since you send info at <=c.
697642
There are two way to look at it.\nIn Relativity, gravity isn't thing itself just a bending of space. Just like a bend in the road is only a way to describe something about a road.\nIn Quantum Mechanics, gravity is actually made up of Bosons (particle carriers of force) called Gravitons. To date gravitons are purely theoretical since no one has manages to observe a graviton yet.\nWhile this may sounds weird, both are correct.