EquisDeXD

No, the word nothing implies there was no thing. There are no such "documentaries" that state we are living in reality, those pop-science shows merely state that reality doesn't function as the way we think it does, referring to the completely counter-intuitive nature of quantum mechanics.

Mathematically you can think of it as this: If you move towards light, you run into the "bumps" or sign changes in a sine wave faster, and if you move away from light, you run into the sign changes at a slower rate, though the actual measurement of light is an instant process, but it might have to do with relative kinetic energy as well.

Just read my posts and you'll see I already know that. I don't either, there's scientific evidence to support the existence of a fabric of space time, but I guess they just view time as independent from space or something? But isn't there some universal thing you can say for all units of time other than that they measure arbitrary units of time?

Um, we don't have anything to test where time stops after a certain region in space, unless there's some top secret government program you weren't suppose to just tell everyone. Based on our information, the object should at least get smeared throughout the surface of the black hole, not just stop, and how could the atoms be measured but be in both inside and outside the black hole?

I get that I need to use limits, I just don't know how I need to use them to get an exact answer and I can't seem to find anything online.

But I don't see how you get infinite accuracy out of that, I'd have to pick some finite value of delta x to get the limit of it. I've seen it done before and it was with some kind of limit where you use some kind of summation formula for whatever type of function it is, but I can't find anything on google and I don't remember how it works, I remember seeing delta x substituted somewhere in the formula but I don't get how that achieves infinite or exact accuracy.

Well you should get use to it because there's scientific evidence for it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect Why don't we assume there's always an invisible, intangible unicorn standing next to us while we're at it? Yeah it's probably coincidence. This topic should probably be moved to speculation too, as there isn't really any known way to prove or disprove the OP notion.

I'm essentially saying, what about relativity?

Well, if what your doing is extracting energy from the potentially energy that was already stored in the material itself as you found it or mined, then this could easily be a source of energy. The only other option is that the energy you are spending to create this process is equal to or less than the output energy, so you should make sure of that, that the electricity used is less than the energy your getting out of the device because otherwise the explanation is that the energy your getting is from the transformation of electricity that your putting into running the device rather than "releasing" the potential energy in an energy source.

It came from nothing, if nothing existed, then there was nothing to limit the possibility of what could exist. And besides, if we were living in a dream, how did the dreamer get created? You'd just have an infinite paradox anyway.

So the larger the mass a particle has, the smaller its radius. If individual particles can't exist without being in higher energy states in a neutron star, yet the gravity is strong enough to overcome that and shrink a neutron star, couldn't the wave functions combine thus creating a single particle with such a high mass that it's radius is unbelievably small but not infinitely small while simultaneously solving the problem of where the matter goes when there's no higher energy level for it to go to due to gravity?

Wait...so the larger the mass a particle has, the smaller its atomic radius, which makes sense in a certain way, I don't know how to explain it exactly, but if you tried applying the same amount of energy to a more massive harmonic oscillator, it wouldn't be able to go back and forth as much, which isn't accurate anyway, but that's beside the point. What I'm trying to say, is that if individual particles can't exist without being in higher energy states in a neutron star, yet the gravity is strong enough to overcome that, couldn't the wave functions combine thus creating a single particle with such a high mass that it's radius is unbelievably small?

Well, in the only report where I've seen of weak measurement, it involved passing light through some kind of calcium crystals and the guy said that just because he knew how the probability wave was altered meant all these other barriers in quantum mechanics were broken, which makes no sense, in fact quantum mechanics itself makes more sense.

I don't think you quite understand evolution. Evolution itself does not generate genetic mutation, so you are correct in that respect, but it is driven by genetic mutation. Genetic mutation is completely random, there's some chemical than a fetus absorbs and slightly alters its DNA, or part of its DNA get's changed by a gamma ray. If that genetic mutation makes the animal happen to survive the environment, then that animal will have a great chance to pass on that mutated gene that allowed it to survive the environment until the environment is no longer favorable for that gene, which then only other mutations survive that are adapted for the new environment, and the process of genes surviving because they are adapted to the environment and thus changing a species is evolution.

So I know the general approximation formula using the limit of the function with n numbers of DeltaX times the height that changes over n intervals of delta x, but what if I want to be infinitely accurate or get the exact amount of area and not just some approximation? Would I use an infinitely small deltaX? How?

I don't exactly understand this "weak" measurement thing. What's the big deal? You still can't trace the exact path an electron took, your merely just restricting a few parameters of the places it could have taken in response to it passing through whatever device made the supposed "weak" measurement. If you didn't have the weak measurement device it would have a somewhat different probability wave, and your not 100% determined the momentum and position at any given moment anyway, I don't even understand how could know the momentum and position if when you observe its position its no longer in superpoisiton and therefore could be the result of any energy level and if you know only its momentum it could be in any position, that's not even quantum physics, that's just logic.

If we had no ethics, people would be stealing form each other and killing each other so often that there wouldn't be a stable enough society for the specialization of workers that make advances. Ethics doesn't "prevent" us from doing anything except destroying modern society as we know it, and with many of the advances, there's millions of possibilities for tests. Like when tesla was working on electricity, his opponent electrocuted animals to demonstrate its harmfulness, which he didn't need to do, if you melted aluminum instantly with electricity then obviously that amount of amps would kill any living animal. As for medical advances, there's chemistry which if heavily researched we could get to the point where we understood how a specific chemical specifically effects the chemicals in body or organic chemicals and there's also computers which we could make powerful enough to model drugs in a system, but it's also not necessarily a good thing either because as more people live longer, the rate at which resources are consumed becomes greater and if not stopped it will reach a point beyond which resources are capable of being produced.

You should give a speech like that to the dinosaurs...oh wait, you can't.

Space can bend in various ways, but its often depicted as some flat plane that then somehow extends to a higher 3rd dimension in the presence of gravity, but that doesn't make sense, a black hole isn't a dip in a plane, a black hole is a black hole from every infinitesimally possible side, but how do you model that in 3 dimensions? If you use some typical cubic graph, it seems like the units between increments of space get smaller as they approach the event horizon, but isn't the fabric of space becoming infinitely warped? Or how do you even measure real "degrees" of curvature? By what angle in degrees is Earth's gravity bending space at 500 miles from the surface? And what is it bent in the direction of?

Well of course because the only way they could possibly measure probability is if all the numbers are real, you can't see "i" apples or draw a marble with a 1/i chance, but I think what should be explained more is the mechanism for which those imaginary numbers occur in nature in the first place, probably related to polar coordinates or waves derived from a unit circle on a complex plane, but how does slapping a circle on a piece of paper create particles?

So they're saying its factual when they know there's no way they can ever observe it? That seems like counter-science to me, in fact that seems like a religion. I mean I've seen that concept in many physics books, so many that I thought they must have some evidence to support it...

I'm using any particle experiment ever, you only see a particle at a particular moment, according to quantum mechanics, you CANT see the measured particle itself with momentum or with a path it takes, it would be going through multiple time coordinates otherwise which would mean there is force or energy is traveling distance and momentum, but something can't travel distance at only 1 time coordinate or one instant, in order to travel distance you must at least by your own relative clock be traveling through time. I can explain it pretty easily using simple math 2x=t, x = potion, t equals time t..........x 1.........2 2.........4 3.........6 4.........8 What was the change in position from time=3 to time=3? There wasn't a change, there was no distance traveled just at a particular instant.

so...particles have properties of existence that involves imaginary number, but we can't see those properties directly because they are imaginary numbers and we can't see their value...but we can see when...something like probability multiplies by another imaginary number to produce real numbers and thus "real" effects? I guess this makes the term "real" a lot more subjective.

I don't get it. You said yourself you think it's here by chance, but then your still confused as to how everything got here, which you said was by chance...if your asking why the universe has the specific properties it does, there's not any really scientific explanation for that, all we can really say is that they exist because they can exist, and if any other laws could exist they would and if they can't exist they wouldn't.

It does, but they seem to break the laws of thermodynamics like Stephen Hawking said, but on the other hand scientists are saying that dark energy made space expand faster than light when it first started, it's implications are still being worked on I'd imagine, but it would be cool if yet another thing was invented from a sci-fi tv show. Though, I don't think the fabric of space itself expanding would cause it to go backwards in time or anything like that, it doesn't have mass or energy and doesn't have the same properties as matter, but for things like wormholes and the fabric of space stretching to past time coordinates, it causes problems.