The 11 Greatest Unanswered Questions of Physics 55
Adn writes: "Discover magzine has a cover story on the "..11 Greatest Unanswered Questions of Physics" and why answering these might lead to a new age of science.... the full article can be found at The National Academy Site.
Almost brings to mind Hilbert's 11 questions on Mathematics which if solved were supposed to usher in a new era of logic and formalism."
They all have the same answer- (Score:3, Funny)
Physics (Score:1)
I'd say yes (Score:1)
Are you interested in studying why things happen? Do you like math (especially calculus)? Are you satisfied with somebody telling you something or do you want solid proof? Physics can be great. For me, it's the best thing ever, but a surprising amount of people find it boring. If you have an open mind and want to question reality then physics is wonderful -- but remember, it's more than a class.
Re:Physics (Score:1)
Re:Physics (Score:1)
12th great question (Score:1)
The questions (Score:5, Informative)
What is the dark matter?
What are the masses of the neutrinos, and how have they shaped the evolution of the universe?
Are there additional spacetime dimensions?
What is the nature of dark energy?
Are protons unstable?
How did the universe begin?
Did Einstein have the last word on gravity?
How do cosmic accelerators work and what are they accelerating?
Are there new states of matter at exceedingly high density and temperature?
Is a new theory of matter and light needed at the highest energies?
How were the elements from iron to uranium made?
The PDF gives a detailed explanation for each of these if you're interested: http://www.nationalacademies.org/bpa/reports/cpu/q 2c-public_release_version.pdf
Re:The questions (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.nationalacademies.org/bpa/reports/cp
pol
Re:The questions (Score:2)
Maybe I got lost.
-
I'm no scientist, but *these* are the biggies? (Score:4, Funny)
Also known as 'mildew', it is the dark substance that forms most notably in grout. It can be countered using so-called "white matter", also known as chlorine bleach.
2) What are the masses of the neutrinos, and how have they shaped the evolution of the
universe?
Evolution is a lie put forth by Satan, so "evidence" like neutrinos are Satanic instruments to delude human thinking.
3) Are there additional spacetime dimensions?
Heaven and Hell can be considered seperate dimensions. However, it is widely believed that Heaven exists in the Up dimension and Hell in the Straight Down dimension.
4) What is the nature of the dark energy?
I would not ask such things, if I were you!
5) Are protons unstable?
About as unstable as the morons running this place.
6) How did the universe begin?
This has got to be the easiest test in Topeka.
Gen 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth.
7) Did Einstein have the last word on gravity?
Gravity sucks. Obviously, I just had the last word on gravity. heh heh heh
8) How do cosmic accelerators work and what are they accelerating?
Don't buy cosmic accelerators. They claim to accelerate cosmics, but I didn't notice any improvement in either acceleration or fuel economy in my 64 Mustang.
9) Are there new states of matter at exceedingly high density and temperature?
Yes, I previously mentioned the "moron". There are also the "stickon" and "burnton". The last one can be avoided by using a lower density state of matter, the "teflon".
10) Is a new theory of matter and light needed at the highest energies?
Yes. At very high energies, I notice that matter and light cease being 'solid'. I call the new state of matter/light as "blur".
11) How were the elements from iron to uranium made?
Uranium was pulled out of Uranus. huh huh huh...
Re:I'm no scientist, but *these* are the biggies? (Score:1, Interesting)
6) How did the universe begin?
This has got to be the easiest test in Topeka.
ROFL!!
Ya know, Personally, i've always liked the J authors work better than P. J made god seem so much more powerful.
Gen 1:1(a) ("P" Author). Probably came after Gen 2:4(b) ("J" Author)to correct any "Mistakes" or ambiguity in the other text for the priesthood.
What's your opinion on the matter?
and in reference to nr 9, you forgot the "cakedon". Not to mention the "wankon", antiparticle to the.. well, youknow.
Re:I'm no scientist, but *these* are the biggies? (Score:1)
Re:I'm no scientist, but *these* are the biggies? (Score:1)
Got science questions ? (Score:2, Funny)
(note: these are links to funny science theories. Don't take it seriously. And don't stop ingesting DMHO.)
so-called "light sources" are really dark suckers, that "light" is nothing more than the absence of darkness, and that it is darkness, not light, which is the fundamental radiative transport mechanism of the universe. [netcom.com]
This page is funny, specially when you know DHMO is water. [dhmo.org]
hilbert's 10 questions (Score:4, Informative)
Re:hilbert's 10 questions (Score:1)
Re:hilbert's 10 questions (Score:2, Informative)
Here's a summary of the 11 questions (Score:4, Funny)
2. Transmutation of coat hangars into paper clips.
3. Relative attractiveness of homely aging baby-boomer rock stars and model/actress wives compared to average Joe and Jane Twelvepack.
4. How do they cut the potatoes to get the Pringles chips all the same size and shape?
5. Why don't psychics clean up on the lotteries?
6. The question of the conundrum of having both tea and no tea.
7. Belly button lint accumulation and its relation to dark matter distribution in the universe.
8. Televisual weight gain and Relativity... the camera _really does_ put on 10 pounds.
9. How _did_ they get the hot side to stay hot and cool side to stay cool? And why was seaweed involved?
10. Dick Clark and the Mystery of Non-necrotic Mummification.
11. What's that funny 1x4x9 black thing orbiting Jupiter?
Re:Number 4: (Score:2)
Dark Matter Solved! (Score:1)
The unaccounted-for gravity is due to all those "Try AOL Free!" disks sent out.
Here's another question (Score:1)
Re:Here's another question (Score:1)
don't worry if you don't understand, you wont remember this comment anyway.
Re:Here's one answer. (Score:1)
I enjoyed Douglas Adams when I was young, but really this "42" thing was totally beaten to death a long time ago.
Get a new joke or something, please. You might even want to consider creating your own.
-Kevin
Disappointing (Score:5, Interesting)
The questions seem directed more at justifying big equipment expenditures than at taking on analyses of the numerous physical anomalies we already know about. Great advancements in the last twelve decades -- electromagnetics, quantum mechanics, the relativities -- arose from hard thought about phenomena that were already well-known, but contradicted received wisdom. They generally have not come from further measurements of already understood phenomena but involving bigger numbers.
I'd much rather see a list of questions based on well-known phenomena that contradict fashionable theories, with the goal of replacing the latter with something less arbitrary.
Re:Disappointing (Score:2)
I'd much rather see a list of questions based on well-known phenomena that contradict fashionable theories, with the goal of replacing the latter with something less arbitrary.
Wouldn't that require that the "fashionable theories" be "arbitrary" and contradict "well-known phenomena"? I'm a practicing theoretical physicist, and I'm not aware that there are any such things. Perhaps you can point to something I'm missing?
some real questions that may give you a nobel (Score:3, Insightful)
2) explaining turbulence at all scales
3) developing something more advanced than DFT
in order to solve the quantum N body problem
accurately for large systems : then, "compute"
drugs and understand life
4) make quantum computers that work, on a
desktop, with plenty of qubits
Re:some real questions that may give you a nobel (Score:1)
Re:some real questions that may give you a nobel (Score:1)
the techniques you point out converge
to the exact result, the problem being
as you say, CPU time. DFT is in principle
exact, wrong as no exact functional is known,
but way faster than traditional quantum
chemistry methods as CI, CC, etc. Since
Kohn got a prize for DFT, I think that
finding something similar that would multiply
speed once again by tens or hundreds would come
useful. Brute force, waiting for faster computers,
is not the only way to go and certainly not
a way to leave a name to history.
That's called hijacking the agenda (Score:4, Insightful)
If I was a politician with half a clue (yeah I know that's oxymoronic) and was presented that list as a guide to what the astronomy and physics (read space science) communities want to invest many billions on in the coming decade(s) they would be sent packing.
During the past decade there has been enormous progress on a much wider range of problems than just the far ends of cosmology and particle physics that are the focus of those eleven questions ... much in areas that are a lot closer to home and in those areas progress has been much more rapid and, IMHO, much more interesting.
As planetary creatures, the progress in our knowledge of planetary bodies both in our solar system and beyond has undergone more fundamental revision than either quantum mechanics or relativity has in several decades.
What we really need is research that focuses on how quickly we might grow our endeavours in the planetary arena ... issues from orbital mechanics to mineralisation in non-terretrial environments which are going to constrain our abilities to further explore (often robotically) and eventually exploit other parts of the solar system.
If we really want to blue sky, we need look no further than starting serious research into how we might eventually be able to send probes towards nearby stars in the kind of practical timeframes that will require acceleration to a useful fraction of the speed of light ... but even that is sure to need serious industrialisation outside earth's gravity well.
Meanwhile we will at least be able to get a much better picture of other solar systems through new generations of instruments ... especially space-based instruments.
Yeah I know most of these big picture types are caught up in the dream of finally answering the big "Why?" but the history of science suggests to me that there is no likelihood such an answer will be found any time soon, so it is better to focus on learning what we can about the details so we may better answer "What should I do?"
Re:That's called hijacking the agenda (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah I know most of these big picture types are caught up in the dream of finally answering the big "Why?"
This is a very shortsighted view on science. We need both applied science and "pure research". Pure research and asking "why?" are what open up new areas of applied science.
When Newton came up with his theory of gravity and the laws of motion, he wasn't asking "What should I do?". He was asking "Why?". The same goes for Mendel and inheritance, Darwin and evolution, Einstein and relativity, Curie and radiation, Maxwell and elecromagnetism, and on and on.
Had scientists dedicated themselves, as you suggest, to "mineralisation" and "serious industrialisation" then we would currently have much better technology for mining the resources to build better horse drawn carriges.
Some of these "blue sky" theories state that the Earth is awash in a sea of almost undetectable dark matter particles (see Neutralinos and Axions in the report). What would be the benefit of such a discovery? I have no clue. Applied science could then go to work on this new form of matter. Maybe an energy source. Maybe a better means of space travel. More likely something neither of us could even imagine.
-
Eleven out of eleven is the problem (Score:1)
Newton, Darwin and the others developed their great theories for things a lot closer to human scale and, while some may have felt they were reading the mind of God, they were also clearly focused on the problem at hand. (I say this as an admirer of the interdisciplinary efforts at the likes of Santa Fe Institute [santafe.edu], as much more a generalist than a specialist.)
All I ask is a bit of balance so that enough weight is given to research at interplanetary and interstellar scales that we might give ourselves a chance to find their equivalents of plate tectonics, to my mind the most elegant piece of science since Darwin.
My own physics questions ... (Score:1)
Lame questions. (Score:2)
About these:
1) Why do pendulums swing funny durring an eclipse?
2) Why are space probes slowing down?
Answer those two and you'll find out how to answer the others.
The more I talk to particle physicists, the more I'm convinced they know as much about reality as an alchemists.