If we know that the virtual photon emitted in an electron scattering Feynman diagram violates the energy and momentum conservation laws (though temporarily), why do we accept it as a feasible diagram representing another perspective of reality?
I (as a middle-school student) was wondering how virtual particles even conserve energy of the entire system? I don't mean just the particle's energy, but conservation with respect to the surroundings?  Let me explain more, Einstein proved that $E = mc^2$ and equivalently, we can say $m = \frac{E}{c^2}$ . We however know mass causes curvature in space-time (gravity well). Now that statement being completely valid we can use Quantum Fluctuation, implying energy and time can be related by the relation:  $\Delta{E}\Delta{t}\approx\frac{\hbar}{2}$ and by that simple relation we can make the following points:   As the energy increases, the time allowed to be "borrowed" decreases, before it gives it back to the universe. As time increases, the energy allowed to be "borrowed" decreases.    These are completely satisfactory points I've made, I believe.  Now, I have read that the vacuum is filled with constantly bubbling virtual particles that get created from the energy "borrowed" by the above relation and is destroyed again, which satisfies the energy conservation laws.   This seems to imply that  in the short time the virtual particle exists, they must have a very small mass which is: $m_{1} = \frac{\Delta{E}}{c^2}$ and using basic classical mechanics rather than GR (for sake of simplicity) we calculate that the gravitational force mediated by this short-lived virtual particle;  $F_{g}= G\frac{m_1 * m_x}{r^2}$   where $m_x$ is an particle\mass in question. Nevertheless since we know the force set upon an object moves the object in a direction, we can say it would increase its kinetic energy by this factor: $F_g = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$ which is equal to $G\frac{m_1 * m_x}{r^2} = \frac{1}{2}mv^2$.  Surely, this implies that every time quantum fluctuations happen, energy of real-particles\masses increases and therefore violates energy conservation, but what prevents this violation from taking place?  If virtual particles are not really present and interact with objects like I thought, how can Hawking radiation (currently a large concept in black hole physics) then be accepted in physics community?
Project point onto line in Latitude/Longitude Given line AB made from two Latitude/Longitude co-ordinates, and point C, how can I calculate the position of D, which is C projected onto D.  Diagram: This is from problem $8$, Chapter II of Rudin's Real and Complex Analysis.  The problem asks for a Borel set $M$ on $R$, such that for any interval $I$, $M \cap I$ has measure greater than $0$ and less than $m(I)$.  I was thinking of taking the Cantor approach: taking $R$ to be the union of $[a,b]$ with $a$ and $b$ rationals, and for each $[a,b]$ we construct Cantor sets inside it. During theconstruction of each Cantor set, in order to have positive measure on it, we need to take off smaller and smaller intervals from it, namely the proportion goes to $0$. As a result, these Cantor sets are extremely "dense" on their ends. If for an interval $I$ it intersects with the Cantor set on $[a,b]$ while $b-a&gt;&gt;m(I)$, we shall expect the measure of intersection to be rather close to $m(I)$ and then we lose control on these cases.  Is there any way to fix this or shall I consider other approaches?  Thank you If $Y$ is connected, why is $A\cup Y$ connected in this case? Do we know why there is a speed limit in our universe? This question is about why we have a universal speed limit (the speed of light in vacuum). Is there a more fundamental law that tells us why this is? I'm not asking why the speed limit is equal to $c$ and not something else, but why there is a limit at all. EDIT: Answers like &quot;if it was not..&quot; and answers explaining the consequences of having or not having a speed limit are not--in my opinion-- giving an answer to whether there is a more fundamental way to derive it from a law to explain this limit. When were the 'and' and 'or' alternative tokens introduced in C++? I've just read this  from Reddit.  They mention and and or being "Alternative Tokens" to &amp;&amp; and ||  I was really unaware of these until now. Of course, everybody knows about the , but and and or? Since when? Is this a recent addition to the standard?  I've just checked it with Visual C++ 2008 and it doesn't seem to recognize these as anything other than a syntax error. What's going on? Why isn't Harry Potter punished for using magic outside of Hogwarts in Prisoner of Azkaban? Uncountable sets of Hausdorff dimension zero Let $A \subset \mathbb{R}$ be a countable set.  It is easy to see that $A$ has Hausdorff dimension $\dim_H(A) = 0$.  Do there exist uncountable sets $A \subset \mathbb{R}$ with $\dim_H(A) = 0$? Awesome WM menu missing Firefox After sudo apt-get install awesome awesome-extra and logging into it (with no previous configuration that I know of), there's no menu entry for Firefox. All my other stuff is there - Mutt, Meld, jEdit, BOINC, etc., only Firefox is missing. I have no ~/.config/awesome/ directory, so there should be no override in place. Thought Experiment - Poking a stick across a Black Hole's Event Horizon Find whether the integral converges or diverges. $$\int_{0}^{1}\frac{\log(x)}{1-x^2}dx$$  I simplified it to $$\int_{0}^{1}\frac{\log(x)}{(1-x)(1+x)}dx$$  Here I have $2$ "bad" bounds (both $0$ and $1$).  I think, to prove such integral converges, I should find something that is equivalent to or less than $\log(x)$ so I can exchange them, maybe $\sqrt{x}$, so it may cancel out the fraction, and I can compare it to $$\int_{0}^{1}\frac{dx}{x^p}$$  Also I had an idea to substitute $x$ with $u+1$ so I can use $\log(1+u) \sim  u$ when $u \rightarrow 0$. I'm allowed(not familiar with anything else) to use direct comparision test, limit comparision test, Cauchy test and Abel-Dirichlet's test.   Any hints are much appreciated, I just want to get the big picture.   Thank you. I'm new to Ubuntu. I tried installing it with Windows 8.1, but failed I lost all my files.  I have successfully formatted my PC and installed Ubuntu, but how do I install codecs to play audio and videos files ? URL Rewriting of a query string in php Can a multi-core processor run multiple processes at the same time? I understand that a multi-core processor can run multiple threads of the same process at the same time using its different cores. Can it also run multiple processes at the same time(each core running a different process)? Review option on mobile phone not available? Touch enabled monitors and Android How to write a while loop with the C preprocessor? If Steve Rogers wasn't so weak, could Cap be even stronger? What is the relationship between symmetry and degeneracy in quantum mechanics? Programmatically obtaining Big-O efficiency of code I wonder whether there is any automatic way of determining (at least roughly) the Big-O time complexity of a given function?  If I graphed an O(n) function vs. an O(n lg n) function I think I would be able to visually ascertain which is which; I'm thinking there must be some heuristic solution which enables this to be done automatically.  Any ideas?  Edit: I am happy to find a semi-automated solution, just wondering whether there is some way of avoiding doing a fully manual analysis. Note: the eventual outcome of this discussion involved dropping this particular off-topic reason, along with other changes. See:  &nbsp; &mdash;Shog     I was using the reason "demonstrate a minimal understanding" myself quite frequently, but the more I review, the more I have doubts about it and I think this reason can either be dropped entirely or at least rephrased, so I started to use "problems with code you've written must describe the specific problem" instead:     Questions asking for code must demonstrate a minimal understanding of the problem being solved.   So the poster has posted some description, maybe even a snippet of code and in his mind that already proves that he has that minimal understanding required. After all he described the problem and what he tried to solve. So telling him that he lacks that understanding is rather rude, and from the posters point of view doesn't even apply. What both version of the reason not emphasize is that a description of a problem is not various versions of     it doesn't work   but that we rather mean really specific details (see below). I can often see in the reopen review queue that the "improved" version just includes a more verbatim description, while what usually would be expected is some specific error message, a trace or a log, or whatever applies.  Then it continues with:     Include attempted solutions, why they didn't work, and the expected results. See also: Stack Overflow question checklist   comparing it to:     problems with code you've written must describe the specific problem — and include valid code to reproduce it — in the question itself. See SSCCE.org for guidance.   Which says essentially the same, only in more detail.   So the "minimum understanding" reason is IMO a more rude version of the reason telling the user that an SSCCE is missing.  The intent of giving this reason is to tell the user that he needs to give exact details to be able to help him, so IMO a checklist would be much better. Something like:     Your question was closed because it may not provide enough details. Things you can do to improve your question to get an answer include:         Format the code in a way that makes it readable and easily understandable.   Provide the smallest working sample of code demonstrating the problem (link to SSCCE)   Include your input and output.   If applicable provide logs (i.e. Android debugging log, stack trace, etc.).   If applicable provide the exact error messages (compiler, etc.).      And something like this should be best included already in the banner that appears when a question is closed instead of being hidden in some pages you often enough have to actively looking for.  It might be helpful to adjust this, based on the tags or close reason, as I realize that I'm more focused on the programming area, and the above list may not apply to other areas of SO.  Update  Another thing I forgot to mention (but wanted to) is this:     Questions asking for code   Is IMO essentially an invitation of the type of questions     I have a problem, can you provide the solution? (with an optional please)   while     Questions concerning problems with code you've written   puts at least some emphasis on the fact that the poster has to put some effort himself in trying to solve the problem by providing the code which he used to attempt the solution.