Five problems in physics without the definite article
access
Paul FendleyIn physics, understanding requires both experiments and a quantitative theoretical description. Neil Fendley

In a 2006 book that garnered much press for its silly attacks on string theory, author and physicist Lee Smolin provides a list of “The Five Great Problems in Theoretical Physics.” There are many offensive things about this list, starting with the use of the definite article in the title, which implies that people not working on these problems (the majority of theoretical physicists) are working on less-than-great problems. But to me the most offensive thing is that only one of the five problems, I believe, could eventually be resolved by experiment.

Most physicists don’t consider a phenomenon to be understood until there are both repeatable experiments displaying it and a quantitative theoretical description. The only physics problems without both aspects are those unrelated to experiment. We have a name for such problems: mathematics.

The book’s list, however, did inspire me to come up with my own list. Here are my “Five Great Problems in Theoretical Physics,” without the definite article:

1. Explain the dark matter and energy in the universe

This problem is the one of Smolin’s five that stands a shot at being resolved in my lifetime. It’s actually two related problems. Astronomers have observed that the gravity we theoretically understand does not describe how galaxies rotate — unless there’s a lot of matter out there that we don’t see. This is known as dark matter. Similarly, at staggeringly long-distance scales, astronomers observe that light is overall not bent, even though gravity does indeed bend light. The only way this is consistent with Newton and Einstein is for the universe to possess a precise energy density. Dark energy is our name for this extra energy. For both dark matter and energy, we need to figure out what this stuff is or we need to figure out how to extend the work of Newton and Einstein.

2. Explain high-temperature super-conductivity

Even ignoring possible real-world applications, superconductivity is one of the coolest (literally and figuratively) phenomena in quantum physics. It’s hard not to be impressed with experiments that let current flow for years without a battery. We understand theoretically what characterizes a superconductor: Electrons of opposite momentum form an unusual quantum state of zero energy called a Cooper pair. But this long happened only at excruciatingly low temperatures, hard to achieve outside a lab. Thus the physics version of mass hysteria occurred in the late 1980s when materials that superconduct at high temperatures were found. “High” here is still pretty cold but is above the temperature of liquid nitrogen, which means it’s easy to get that cold. For the high-temperature superconductors, we theorists are embarrassed to admit that after more than 20 years, we still aren’t sure how these Cooper pairs form.

3. Explain the “Higgs” phenomenon in the standard model

Billions (in any currency unit) have been spent to build the Large Hadron Collider, a gigantic accelerator in Switzerland and France. Explanations for why usually start with “we’re trying to understand what gives particles mass.” According to the successful standard model describing quantum physics at the shortest observable distances, at even shorter distances (or higher energies) there’s a symmetry that requires particles to be effectively massless. Since we know particles do have mass, something must break this symmetry. The simplest candidate is a particle called the Higgs boson, which may or may not exist. The LHC is built to go to short enough distances to find it, or find whatever else breaks this symmetry. Theorists are hoping for the latter — it would be much more interesting.

4. Figure out how to make a quantum computer

There are many simple-to-state problems unsolvable by even the fastest computers. For example, encryption on the Web relies on computers’ inability to factor very large numbers into prime numbers. A radical proposal to solve this and other computationally intractable problems is to build a quantum computer, where each bit obeys the laws of quantum mechanics. A quantum bit is very hard to build and manipulate, so current quantum computers have only a handful of bits. Building a suitable quantum computer sounds like an experimental problem. But we’re currently so far from our goals that brilliant new ideas from theorists and experimentalists will be required to further advance this field.

5. Say nice things about your own work without slamming others

Your list will probably be different from mine. Diverse priorities in any science are a strength — the study of one problem often helps solve another. The theory of the Higgs phenomenon, for instance, was first understood in a completely different context: superconductivity.

Paul Fendley is a theoretical physicist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville.


Comments 11
  • Let me help you out by getting rid of some of the biggest myths in science. 1 time doesn't exist, it is man made, no where in factual science does it exist. 2. Black holes are not really black holes they are dead stars and nothing travels through them. And 3. "The Law of Everything" is really simple; Space, matter, and energy x 3D = The Law of Everything. AmericanSDL.com
    Jeff Slough Jeff Slough
    Jul. 2, 2009 at 7:18pm
  • I am reminded of Vitaly L Ginzburg's mid-1970s list of "Key Problems in Physics & Astrophysics". It remained (with a few embellishments in details) essentially same by mid-1980s. I don't know if there was a later version. It will be interesting to judge the status of that list as of now.

    Before excluding certain aspects of our knowledge from the ken of what is currently considered physics, we physicists need to be open-minded about the nature and structure of time, connections between physics and mathematics, and the status of philosophy of science and its relation to foundations of mathematics, and further on, even the relation between science and spirituality.
    Dilip Banhatti Dilip Banhatti
    Jul. 3, 2009 at 8:43am
  • Even more than Ginzburg's list, this list reminds me of David Hilbert's list of 23 unsolved problems, presented at the International Congress of Mathematicians in Paris in 1900. Many remain unsolved to this day.
    Saul Stokar Saul Stokar
    Jul. 5, 2009 at 4:08am
  • I think #5 is the best. I know many physicists who have important problems within their own fields that are not regarded as publically important because they are not astrophysicists or particle physicists. Yet the problems are there, their solution will prove fruitful, and the experiments need to be done.
    Merry Maisel Merry Maisel
    Jul. 5, 2009 at 9:18pm
  • "A radical proposal to solve this and other computationally intractable problems is to build a quantum computer,"

    I think computer scientist Scott Aaronson would be all over anyone making such a claim. As I understand it, QCs can _sometimes_ speed up problems with a square root factor.

    Wikipedia seems to agree: "There is a common misconception that quantum computers can solve NP-complete problems in polynomial time. That is not known to be true, and is generally suspected to be false. [...] Although quantum computers may be faster than classical computers, those described above can't solve any problems that classical computers can't solve, given enough time and memory"

    So presumably QC can solve some practically intractable problems, but not computationally intractable ones.
    Torbjörn Larsson, OM Torbjörn Larsson, OM
    Jul. 6, 2009 at 12:37am
  • Dark Matter-Energy And “Higgs”?
    Energy-Mass Superposition
    The Fractal Oneness Of The Universe


    The universe is the archetype of quantum within classical physics, which is the fractal oneness of the universe.

    Astronomically there are two physics, a classical physics behaviour of and between galactic clusters, and a quantum physics behaviour WITHIN the galactic clusters.

    The onset of big-bang's inflation, the cataclysmic resolution of the Original Superposition, started gravity, with formation - by dispersion - of galactic clusters that behave as classical Newtonian bodies and continuously reconvert their original pre-inflation masses back to energy, thus fueling the galactic clusters expansion, and with endless quantum-within-classical intertwined evolutions WITHIN the clusters in attempts to delay-resist this reconversion.


    Dov Henis
    (Comments from 22nd century)
    http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1
    On Energy, Mass, Gravity, Galaxies Clusters, AND Life
    A Commonsensible Recapitulation
    http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/184.page#2125
    Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
    http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=14988&st=480&#entry412704
    http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/140/122.page#2321
    Dov Henis Dov Henis
    Jul. 6, 2009 at 1:25am
  • My opinion.

    5. Say nice things about your own work without slamming others.
    !!!
    1. Explain the dark matter and energy in the universe.

    The masses in the Universe are very few.
    The distances between stars are very far.
    About 99% of the matter in the Universe is unseen.
    Nobody knows what it is.
    But God using his > 99% Hidden mass of the Universe
    take control over the < 1% Visible mass of the Universe.
    He is a smart physicist and mathematician .
    He smiles and laughs when others say:
    ‘ The formulas are cleverer than men’.
    ========== . .
    #
    In my opinion if God exists, He/She/It would necessarily
    to work in an Absolute Reference Frame and had set of
    physical and mathematical laws to create everything
    in the Universe.
    If we find and understand this Absolute God’s House then
    is possible step by step to find and understand God’s Physics
    Laws, which Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Maxwell, Planck,
    Einstein and many others scientists discovered.
    #
    If you don’t like the terminology like ‘ God existing’ then
    I can change my sentence.
    I will say:
    If we find and understand an Absolute Reference Frame in the
    Universe/ Nature then is possible step by step to find and understand
    the sense of all Physics Laws, which Copernicus, Kepler, Newton,
    Maxwell, Planck, Einstein and many others scientists discovered.
    Then we can understand the Physics without paradoxes.
    #
    So, in my opinion at first we must answer on two questions:
    What was before: big bang or vacuum ?
    2.
    Does Gravitation Field exist in Vacuum or vice versa?
    ============= . .
    Best wishes.
    Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.

    http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Display&id=1372
    ===================== . .
    israel socratus israel socratus
    Jul. 7, 2009 at 8:44am
  • My opinion.

    Matter and ‘dark matter.’
    Fact and Speculation.
    =========.
    1.
    Fact.
    The detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
    (the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
    p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot ‘close’ the Universe and therefore
    our Universe as whole is ‘open’, endless.
    But what to do with the infinite Universe the physicists don't know.
    The concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
    to a scientists. They do not understand how they could
    draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
    A notions of ‘more, less, equally, similar’ could not
    be conformed to a word infinity or eternity.
    The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
    has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
    Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
    infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
    and cannot be considered in real processes.
    Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
    (on a level of censor of the law):
    « If we want that the theory would be correct,
    the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
    Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
    all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.
    Therefore they invented an abstract ‘dark matter and dark energy’.
    They say: ‘ 90% or more of the matter in the Universe is unseen.’
    And nobody knows what it is.
    2.
    Speculation.
    Unknown ‘dark matter ‘ it is matter which makes up the difference
    between observed mass of a galaxies and calculated mass……
    which….will …’close ‘ ….the Universe, as …….
    as……the astrophysicists want.
    ========================== . .
    #.
    The Dark Matter is another official dogma of our astronomy.
    / V. H. Vergon. /
    #
    Dark Energy may be Vacuum
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-01/uoc-dem011607.php
    ==============..
    israel socratus israel socratus
    Jul. 7, 2009 at 8:51am
  • Dark matter http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2009/05/four-approaches-to-dark-matter.html
    HT superconductivity http://aetherwavetheory.blogspot.com/2008/11/awt-and-quest-for-ht-superconductivity.html
    Higgs model in Standard Model is a bit problem, as the reality understanding may become easier, then the understanding of human models of it.

    Is Higgs model an analogy of vorticity dispersion in Aether field, or just a vacuum analogy of Higgs effect in metal lattice?

    http://room538ccpp.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/horava-lifshitz-gravity/
    Zephir Zephir
    Jul. 9, 2009 at 7:11pm
  • I am familiar with Lee Smolin's 2006 book (The Trouble with Physics) and his five questions. He presented a critical review of string theory and quantum gravity. It seemed the main thrust of his book was that he felt that attempts to unify relativity and quantum mechanics through these theories had stalled. The five questions were not general questions for all of theoretical physics. They were questions he felt needed to be addressed to further the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics, from the perspective of ... string theory and quantum gravity. While I don't always agree with his view, the book is well written for the lay reader. And yes it is not hard to tell where his interest lies, but then I don't find it hard to see the personal bais' in any of the popular literature. I can't see how anyone not working on string theory or quantum gravity could be offended by the view he puts forward. I'd recommend the book to interested parties not directly working on string theory or quantum gravity.

    Roy Pryor
    Roy Pryor Roy Pryor
    Jul. 11, 2009 at 10:30pm
  • #2-Membrane and Dark Matter Theories as I see it.
    I guess I'll start by saying that some nomenclature may be slightly differant then the brains that thought up the brane theory. The way I see the brane theories, parellel univeres also cancells out any dark matter problem. A matter of fact the dark matter solution seems to be quite a silly solution for why the universe is still expanding, and accellerating at that.
     OK, here I go. When I heard of the brane theory my mind went BAM that's it! I thought of two giant "branes" (masses) with slightly differant properties and both having enourmous gravitational pull, colliding and causing our universe and other "parellel universes" to form. But I don't understand why the branes are being called the "parellel universes". The branes create the infinate number of parellel universes. Everytime a brane touches or comes close enough to another brane... BAM! there's another universe created. I also see a mulitude of branes (All this I've stated so far was pretty much theorized by other theorists. NOT ME!) all of which are floating in a sea of parellel universes. Or the other way around. I also see some of these universes possilby being swallowed up as the branes closes in on that universe. This particular universe would expand toward that brane at a ridiculous speed until all it's matter has been absorbed back into that brane. It doesn't nesseceraly have to be this same brane that created it. Now if two branes approache eachother (even though they would tend to repulse each other) and encounters a universe between them, the universe might be compressed or squeezed out of the way. Scarry to think about but this could be the fate of our universe if and when we notice our universe starting to collapse. If you can follow this, great! I see every brane and universe they create all have slightly differant properties weather it be charge or polarity or dimension etc. to them. Of course there are exceptions and these are the universes and branes that can cause kaos. Where two or more can merge into one or can sandwich another causing it to split in to etc etc.  I can also imagine some universes not encountering anything and expands to be giants and for such a vast period of time that all the stars in all the galaxies burn out. But still its matter trying to reach  and be absorbed back to the closest brane. Some universes may expand though other universes next to them too. It would be interesting to see if we could find a galaxy from an adjacent universe relatively close to one of our galaxies in our universe that is actually traveling in opposite directions from the galaxy from our own universe. 
     So this brings me to the "dark matter" topic. As I see it, as the branes separate (ripple) after each creation of a universe (the big bangs), taking into account action reaction principle, then I think it would only be natural for all the matter in each universe to "fall back" to the closest brane to it. Thinking that the branes have the ultimate gravitational pull do to thier masses, the universes would also appear to accelerate the further they expand from thier creation point towards the brane. There isn't any need to try to discover "dark matter" because ther isn't any.
     Also, this is the reason we think gravity as being a 'weak force' in nature.
     this theory of mine (i think) could be proven if we could some how find a way to measure minute differances in speed and direction of the furthest galaxies. IF our universe is offset from the center of the two branes (or more) that created "us" ( due to one brane moving or rippling faster then the other) then one side of our univrse will be expanding faster then the other. Of course there could be a multitude of branes surrounding us so our universe could have an almost even expansion rate. But IF it could be measured and we could figure out how many branes suround our universe. WOW!
     This is my theory as I see it. I've watched alot of shows on tv and permutated everyone elses theory. If I stepped on other peoples toes please let me know. I will not take credit for someone elses theories and I apoligies for the toes I may have steped on.
     David C. Stout
    Deputydaves@gmail.com
    Dave Stout Dave Stout
    Oct. 8, 2009 at 3:57pm
Post a comment

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement