1. What is meant by the statement that information cannot travel faster than light?

  2. If I write down something on a paper, isn't there according to QM a non-zero probability that an identical paper can spontaneously fluctuate into existence a lightyear away?

  3. Can't a person successfully guess every character that I write, every time?

  4. Is this why QM and GR are incompatible?

  5. If not, which principle or axiom of QM must be modified to be compatible with GR?

  6. Is there any difference between ordinary particle travel and particles fluctuating in and out of existence along what looks like the world-line of a particle?

  7. Other than different probabilities?

  8. Can a Ferrari spontaneously fluctuate into existence according to QM?

  9. What happens then to Energy conservation?

  • 7
    $\begingroup$ You've got a lot of questions there... could you edit this post to trim it down to one question, or just a couple of very closely related ones? $\endgroup$
    – David Z
    Nov 16, 2012 at 1:48
  • $\begingroup$ For the GR vs. QM issue, see e.g. this and this Phys.SE post. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    Nov 16, 2012 at 21:32

1 Answer 1


1) google it (this forum requires you to first do some research of your own on your questions)

2) no, that would violate Conservation of Mass (QM says virtual particles pop in and out of existence, which are not real particles)

3) yes, so what?

4) no

5) this should be your main question, I can elaborate on it later.

6) yes, because the "particles" fluctuating in and out of existence are not real (see (2))

7) see (2)

8) see (2)

9) it is preserved (for actual particles)

  • $\begingroup$ actually mass is not conserved. It is conservation of energy that would be violated . $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Nov 16, 2012 at 20:42
  • $\begingroup$ mass is energy... $\endgroup$ Nov 16, 2012 at 21:50
  • $\begingroup$ For physicists mass has a definite meaning, given by the four vector measure. Mass has units of energy but it is not a conserved quantity . No physicist talks of conservation of mass. If the energy existed then the hypothetical doubling would not violate anything. $\endgroup$
    – anna v
    Nov 17, 2012 at 5:30

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.