EquisDeXD

How so? You can believe it to different extents. That's sort of true, you can believe something more strongly than something else. No it's like saying you can believe in god without people like moon criticizing you if you have a logical justification for doing so, and you can still believe whatever anyway if you want.

Because he's only basing that knowledge off of what he particularly knows, while someone else may know of a possibility he doesn't. If he doesn't particularly know how it's possible, then he doesn't need to post. I doubt he knows enough science to have tested every single possible scenario in the universe and determine none of them can cause one.

But an electron doesn't actually "move" between quantum states either, it just appears or "correlates" to another energy state.

The other thread was originally suppose to be this thread, but turned into "if" it actually happened at a particular location. This thread isn't talking about that, it's merely asking about possibilities. The right answer isn't "nothing", it's to not post because all that means is your not aware of a possibility, which would already be understood by you not posting at all.

I'm not sure what your saying at all, if your talking about the fireball theory scientists are still working on it. You don't have the evidence to prove it's impossible, I've stated evidence for it, and no one has actually stated direct evidence against it, people merely point out that the evidence could also match that of other non-atomic scenarios. Maybe there could have been an atomic fizzle, maybe there could have been aliens, maybe there could have been tectonic movement, maybe there could have been a uranium meteor or non uranium meteor, maybe it was aliens.

Where are you pulling this word "viable" from? There's obviously evidence that it wasn't an atomic blast, I obviously don't consider it "viable", I just don't consider it improbable enough to throw it away. It's certainly a possibility aliens were involved, I'm not denying that, and if aliens are a more probable maybe that's why there's so many conspiracy cites about it, but for me personally I don't see enough evidence, it's already more likely it was a meteor, and then after that level of hypothesizing its already more likely that it was some kind of natural phenomena, based on what I know.

But if when something's not measured means it can't exist, which isn't accurate, then how did the circumstances occur for life to form before life was created? There's no scientific evidence to support that any living thing could have been alive at the moments of the creation of the universe, so... Schrodinger's cat was not meant in any way to predict what actually happens in the macroscopic realm, it was meant precisely to illustrate the problem of intuitively thinking that the rules of quantum physics apply the same to the macroscopic realm. "I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it. " -Erwin Schrodinger- But measurement and "which part physically manifests" is the same thing, observers don't determine anything, the specific point that they see is random, and the reason we see matter is because there happens to be enough probability of a point showing up within specific volumes of space.

It doesn't mean your viable, it just means it's not impossible.

No, there's smart people who have specific beliefs, even scientists, and they don't necessarily have to believe such because they are defensive, but because they feel it explains everything or fills some void in their life.

But that's exactly the point, this is a science forum, and they obviously didn't make this thread to only discuss science, so there's not much of a point debating the non-science aspect, it's just something that has to be done over time. And with your comment on atheism, that response wasn't about converting anyone to atheism, it was about open-mindedness, it's not that over time people need to never believe god exists, its just that people need to be able to look at their beliefs as merely beliefs, and accept there may be flaws in them and be open to new ideas. Well you can believe and discuss it still, though it's not best to do so on a science forum unless your investigating if it's plausible.

You don't, but it's not really that nothing produces anything, it's that nothing is unstable because it's really matter that limits other matter from existing in certain spacial coordinates, not nothingness. A lot of scientists are actually working on ways to figure it out, no really knows, it's all mostly fringe mathematics that can't be proven, there are some theories on quantized dimensional manifolds that comprise the fabric of space as well as borrowed energy and time symmetry.

I don't know about 1400 years old and I especially doubt plate tectonics (though metaphorically I could see string theory in a very very loose way because string theory states that all matter and energy is made out of the same single thing, which was a type of philosophy predates string theory, and that philosophy is probably where the notion that only the number "1" is an important number came from), but if you do look back at history Muslim or general Middle Easter culture actually did contribute quite a bit to science math, there were people like Ridwan, Abd El Latif El Baghdadi, Al Jawhari, and many many more who I can't remember the names of, over 1000 years ago, though not quite 1400, the Middle Eastern culture resembled Greek culture in it's prime with large trade routes through major cities and universities that people from all around the world attended. I don't think I agree with excel on most of his/her other points especially considering I'm atheist, but Middle Eastern culture didn't have anything against mathematics or science like Christianity and Western European culture did.

This isn't the right way to go about this, religion isn't about how smart you are, it's about how connected you are with a particular idea, and the more of your life you've spent around it, the more likely you are connected to it, and thus the harder it is to counter it. Have you ever heard of the Boiling Frog experiment? I wouldn't call it ethical, but in it, they boiled water and threw a frog in, and it jumped out right away. But, when the frog was placed in lukewarm water and the water was heated gradually to the point it was boiling, the frog didn't notice and stayed until it died. It seems strange to relate, but it's just meant to show that things are accepted or unnoticed if they are gradual, so if you really want to convince someone their belief in god is wrong, your going to need to spend a lot more time on it than you think, or probably want to. The best way for this progress to be made isn't to always target specific situations, but rather to create an open minded society over time.

So if quantum mechanics only represents our limited knowledge, and does not represent reality, then how do know there is no realism? Because we certainly don't have enough knowledge to determine that it doesn't exist in quantum mechanics, and furthermore if it only represents knowledge, why aren't you basing only knowledge off of it instead of assuming the state of reality? But there's scientific evidence, or actual proof that there was the existence of physicality or physical matter before any life could have been around to measure it. But if quantum mechanics shows us anything, it's that no one determines anything, it's completely random, literally, there's no hidden variables that detirmine any of the results, not even Einstein could find them.

I know there's certain gauge bosons that don't have an infinite range, and have a finite range due to their mass and that their mass is somehow proportional to how long they exist for, but how does having mass cause this relationship? Is it because there's a square root in the equation and after a certain point the value becomes imaginary? Or is it something to do with mass only being able to borrow a specific amount of energy and going past a certain range requires a greater amount of energy to get to that potential? But where's the mechanism for this potential field when virtual photons have no charge? Or just what is it? What? The only reason anyone ever posts here in "speculation" is because they know its a speculation and know that it could easily be wrong, and if they didn't think it was wrong they would post it in something like theoretical physics or whatever respective subject it is and those people are usually religious fanatics who get banned, I don't think I've made a single post in the speculation section where I didn't doubt by at least 30% that I was right. I notice that a lot of times certain staff/experts members seem to get "fed up" with longer topics, but it doesn't seem most people think they are super geniuses to me, and you would get mad a lot less often if you didn't assume everyone thought they were.

Same answer as the one I posted in the other one?

In quantum physics you have to be careful about classical analogies. Just because there is a mathematical property called "spin" doesn't mean quantum particles are actually spinning, it just refers to how the wave mechanics propagates, either clockwise or counterclockwise. In a stationary atom, you don't know the particle is actually "moving", all you can do is have an idea of it's momentum, or its position, and if you exactly measure it's position, then you don't know it's momentum. Particles like electrons don't physically move or "accelerate" around the nucleus through any physical motion, it would have to radiate its energy away to do so. Your use of what seems to be the uncertainty principal seems to be fine, but there's not many classical aspects you can put into the particle realm. In quantum mechanics, the electron isn't "moving" around the nucleus, it just "is" around the nucleus, which is where quantum field theory comes in.

But isn't that essentially what teleportation is?

I didn't even read your post, I'm just going to say "stick to the other thread". You don't have enough evidence to say its impossible, I don't have enough evidence to say there's a good chance. I have definitely presented at least some evidence, but it doesn't seem to be enough, so I'm leaving it at that.

I don't think your understanding that it's not nothing that creates something, it things that create themselves, which is why nothing could have theoretically existed. Before the existence of the universe there was no time or space, no dimensions, so the void could not occupy physical distance, making it infinitely small just like the predicted size of the of the universe before the big bang, assuming we can retrace the red-shift that far back in time.

At least, in this solar system we have evidence for that, but what if a meteor came from a different star? So your telling ME what I think when I just told you that's not what I think? And your a scientist? I said specifically that I'm not interested in the other ones because I already know what they are and their faults. I'll give you the conspiracy sites, but I don't know how you can determine any other site was invalid. At any rate, I said it's best to not keep posting due to the lack of evidence for either argument.

I've seen a lot of people try to stump the clever bot or prove its a bot or a person, but a lot of people surprising can't do it, but I guess by chance on my first try I managed to do it, the conversation was Me: Hello? bot: How was your day today? me: first I have a question. bot: what is the question? me: are you conscious? bot: yes. are you? me: how do you know? bot: to know is to exist me: how so? bot: cook. me: that doesn't answer the question bot: yes. me: that doesn't answer the question. I didn't think it would be that easy. bot: whatever - how was your day? If you have a way to do it, go ahead, it's just kind of important (but not really) if it has predictable faults because some people believe its real people responding. Although, there was some famous computer scientist who postulated that if a computer can trick a human into thinking the it was conscious, then the computer was suppose to be conscious. Also, I asked it "If x+1=x, what is x?", and then in never responded, it just said "still thinking" and "thinking more" for about 2 minutes, then to try and change the subject by giving an obviously wrong answer it said "2?"

The problem with meritocracy is that it always has the bias of whoever creates it, there are always different ways to be smart or strong or survive. Mathematically, the more people who can contribute to defining its parameters can increase its accuracy, but it will never actually reach 100% accuracy.

Technically, isn't matter teleporting all the time, based on our measurements? We measure a particle, and then all of a sudden we measure a particle at another point without seeing it pass through the intervening space, and then particles instantaneously change quantum states as well...