List of unsolved problems in physics

[sjastro]

Interesting stuff.

Regards
Steven

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ems_in_physics

[CraigS]

Goodness me !!

Now there's an interesting list ! Very comprehensive !

Someone's certainly been working hard on it.

Very cool … a handy reference to have when pondering possibilities or speculating about some aspect of nature. Sometimes its difficult to find out whether or not science views some issue as a problem or not, and also sometimes its hard to find out whether or not anyone else is pondering the same problems. This list helps tremendously in that regard.

I notice there are a few topics which some folk would argue aren't 'unsolved' any more (eg: the Pioneer Anomaly, Dark Matter's role in galaxy rotation etc).

Methinks choosing a criteria for what is 'unsolved' must be a very tricky topic in itself. I'm surprised there's not more debate on the 'Discussion' page!

Thanks Steven … will ponder some of the topics in more detail shortly … I reckon Alex would love to tackle solving some of them.

Whaddya reckon, Alex ?

Cheers

[Robh (Rob)]

Hi Steven,

A great synopsis. I read through all the problems with some fascination, realising the mammoth task at hand and just how little I thought I knew.

It strikes me that as newer and more accurate data is collected, more questions arise and increasingly more hypotheses are being devised. And it is highly likely that we have not yet gathered a minimal set of observational data that truly reflects all the important aspects or properties of the universe.

It will take some great minds to weave all the correct hypotheses from relevant data into an accurate picture of the universe.

Regards, Rob

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Robh

And it is highly likely that we have not yet gathered a minimal set of observational data that truly reflects all the important aspects or properties of the universe.

Hmm … another one of those sampling problems there eh, Rob ?

Cheers

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hmm … another one of those sampling problems there eh, Rob ?

Cheers

Craig,

It strikes me that the problem isn't just one of interpreting accurate data correctly but it's also of having the relevant data there in the first place.
For example, if the velocity data for light did not exist (e.g. no Michelson-Morley experiment), relativity might not have been deduced.
If future data shows neutrinos can travel faster than light then this will have other ramifications.

Narrow data subsets lead to narrow conclusions. They can even lead to conflicting deductions. We have one subset of data saying the expansion of the universe is accelerating, another subset saying it is an illusion. The question becomes when and if we will ever have a minimal data set that can tie up all branches of physics. It is likely that we do not have the technology yet to get a minimal data set.

Regards, Rob

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Robh

Narrow data subsets lead to narrow conclusions.

Hmm … I think we need to look carefully at who it is that's drawing conclusions. Good astro-scientists don't often draw conclusions, I find. The media leads us to think that they have, but rarely are the scientists coming to specific conclusions, themselves. As you said previously, good science leads to further questions … rarely conclusions, though.

I also think we all get drawn in by the scientific speak also. They might run with some idea/theory and make it sound like 'gospel truth' but I've come to the conclusion that that's not actually where they're coming from. What I find they really mean is that:
"If we take this data and the conclusion we've come to as being valid, then we should logically investigate the next steps 'x,y and z …" (the unspoken part is "does everyone agree with that … ?? .. 'yes?' … then we'll go ahead and schedule the next project and spend the funding to do just that .. thank you all very much for agreeing with us").

This is where I prefer to use the term 'ontological truth'. They seem to live perpetually in the world of pure research, bounded by these philosophical 'ontological truths', and I really think we need to become much more aware of the distinction between that world, and our own world (ie: the more practical amateur's physical world).

There's a big difference between the two and I'm beginning to see the goals of each world are very much different. Amateurs are always seeking 'The Truth', (and we conveniently forget that we're unlikely to ever know what it is, nor are we ever likely to know it, even if it reared up, and bit us), whereas scientists already know there isn't a 'Truth', so why go over all that ground again ?.. let's just get on with the next phase.

Do you think I'm misinterpreting all this ? (I'm interested in your opinions here .. just bouncing ideas around …).

Originally Posted by Robh

They can even lead to conflicting deductions. We have one subset of data saying the expansion of the universe is accelerating, another subset saying it is an illusion.

I don't think its the data that leads to conflicting deductions, or illusion inferences. The interpretation surely is the culprit here. I really think we need to read carefully what is being said and what isn't. The media reporting is what I find to be the most annoying and misleading.
Having said this though, its kinda fun to follow the media lead (and speculate on where they are attempting to take us) .. but personally, I rarely take such leads to heart. (I hope I haven't necessarily given that perception in my posts ..??.. my footer is kind of a reminder for myself in this regard .. and others can call me on it!).

Originally Posted by Robh

The question becomes when and if we will ever have a minimal data set that can tie up all branches of physics. It is likely that we do not have the technology yet to get a minimal data set.

I don't think that'll ever happen though, will it ?
That's where the scientific method really shines. Laws are supported by direct evidence and we run with 'em for as long as no evidence contradicts them. Theories are Ok to run with until they are falsified, (although I'm yet to find one which has been formally falsified, eh ?? )

This would seem to be the way of avoiding the argument that we'll never have sufficient data or technology to find 'The Truth' (which we'll never really know).

Cheers

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Hmm … I think we need to look carefully at who it is that's drawing conclusions. Good astro-scientists don't often draw conclusions, I find. The media leads us to think that they have, but rarely are the scientists coming to specific conclusions, themselves. As you said previously, good science leads to further questions … rarely conclusions, though.

Craig,

Maybe, we're giving the word "conclusion" a different connotation.
I think researchers form conclusions all the time. The hypotheses based on the data are in themselves a declaration of what the researcher thinks is happening.
The word "conclusion" here does not imply finality. If I conclude the universe is expanding from the evidence given, it doesn't mean further evidence can't lead to another conclusion.

I think it is possible for data alone to lead to incorrect conclusions or indeed conflicting deductions. Evidence (data) until recently, shows the universe at large to be homogeneous and isotropic.
However new evidence, some of which is based on improvements in measurement, might indicate that the observable universe has a preferred axis or that objects (galaxies) have a preferred flow.
The difference is not solely an interpretation of data but based on a change in the data itself.

There is an assumption by me that a minimal data set exists. It would be a composite of several data subsets obtained from many different fields of study. It would, in theory, be representative enough and accurate enough to give a true impression of the way the universe operates. The hypotheses formed from this data set would have a better chance of begin consistent with each other. At some point in the future, a minimal data set would simply happen. How to recognise we have it is another problem.

Of course, this all depends on how discoverable the universe is. If there is a finite number of discoverable basic constants and behaviours (laws), we might have a chance of grounding the universe theoretically.
If however, the universe is morphing these "constants" over time we may be chasing theoretical shadows.

Just my thoughts,
Rob

[renormalised (Carl)]

And the greatest unsolved scientific mystery of all....where do all the odd socks in a washing machine go

Now, I know that is one mystery they'll probably never have enough data to figure out


Draw your own conclusions

[avandonk]

Originally Posted by renormalised

And the greatest unsolved scientific mystery of all....where do all the odd socks in a washing machine go

Now, I know that is one mystery they'll probably never have enough data to figure out


Draw your own conclusions

They make up all the dark matter! Countless societies losing socks from their varied 'feet'.

[brian nordstrom (As avatar)]

I have printed off this and will photo copy a few copies , then drop a couple at work ,2 in the smoko room and 1 in the offices , Should get them buzzing .. .
I'll have a fun friday , and probably most of next week.
thanks for the link , Steven .

Gonna enjoy reading this tonight.
cool .
Brian.

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Goodness me !!

Now there's an interesting list ! Very comprehensive !

Someone's certainly been working hard on it.

Very cool … a handy reference to have when pondering possibilities or speculating about some aspect of nature. Sometimes its difficult to find out whether or not science views some issue as a problem or not, and also sometimes its hard to find out whether or not anyone else is pondering the same problems. This list helps tremendously in that regard.

I notice there are a few topics which some folk would argue aren't 'unsolved' any more (eg: the Pioneer Anomaly, Dark Matter's role in galaxy rotation etc).

Methinks choosing a criteria for what is 'unsolved' must be a very tricky topic in itself. I'm surprised there's not more debate on the 'Discussion' page!

Thanks Steven … will ponder some of the topics in more detail shortly … I reckon Alex would love to tackle solving some of them.

Whaddya reckon, Alex ?

Cheers

hi Craig.

I have read of these problems sometime ago and suggest the recognition of an aether will be of help or rather many problems will go away if approached from a "quantum" perspective putting to one side ideas we at present hold as infalible.

If I thought it would help I could answer everything as I am sure you must know but who will want to accept my views given they are so ahead of their time however more work needs to be done on the structure and the components of "nothing" for it is into this "nothing" that we must fit all that we describe as "something"...to simplify nothing is a mistake as was the effort to proceed on an assumption the aether was eliminated via one single observation... even in a theoretical vacuum there is so much stuff even string theory can only describe such with inadequate simplicity.

The wonderful thing is such a list has been constructed which may offer a reminder that not all questions have been answered and that Governments can employ many great minds in active duty to refine our accumulated knowledge.

Thanks for thinking of me. Still running on three cylinders as is the car

alex