- :: Atom & Cosmos
- :: Body & Brain
- :: Earth
- :: Environment
- :: Genes & Cells
- :: Humans
- :: Life
- :: Matter & Energy
- :: Molecules
- :: Science & Society
- :: Other Topics
- :: Science News For Kids
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.


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.
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.
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)
[Link was removed]
On Energy, Mass, Gravity, Galaxies Clusters, AND Life
A Commonsensible Recapitulation
[Link was removed] #2125
Updated Life's Manifest May 2009
[Link was removed] #entry412704
[Link was removed] #2321
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.
[Link was removed]
===================== . .
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
[Link was removed]
==============..
HT superconductivity [Link was removed]
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?
[Link was removed]
Roy Pryor
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
We should NOT be looking for why or how particles have 'mass' - they sorta don't, (They are entirely EMR) we should be looking for what gives them the property of 'solidity' as that is what is affected by the outside of that atom world that gives it the appearance of solidity that is thereby affected (by Gravity) as to appear as 'Mass'
'We' are asking the wrong question - ergo: looking for the wrong thing in the right place.
Mr. Robin Parsons
A new posit?
All emitted Light travelling the Universe is intimately connected (Quantum entanglement is along the lines of a 'useful misnomer' in this case) to it's sources gravitational effects, ergo all light traveling the universe is subjected to gravitational red-shifting BY the Emitting Source.
Now all Galaxies seen to be distant (13 B Ly + ) are heavily red-shifted. This is currently believed to be as a result of the galaxies motion, but the reality is that it is indicative of the gravitational changes occurring at the emissions source.
To Explain that statement, currently optical observation tells us that those distant galaxies are spherical in shape, the late nascent stage of a galaxy, but since those galaxies experience time in the same manner we do we can readily KNOW that they are not of that appearance Today in this time that we are experiencing here - in THEIR space their so we can easily surmise that their current status - shape - is probably much closer to what out own galaxy presently is, Ergo we can surmise that they too are growing black holes at there centers and that their gravitational pull is increasing as the masses amass....so we could very simply note that the current status of distal galaxies gravitational strength is somewhat larger than the effect that would be if the galaxies were still of their spherical nature, and that increasing gravitational pull has effects upon all of the emitted light that originates or originated from the emitter(s) or source of the light, hence we can see that the large degree of red-shifting is due to the increasing gravitational pull - from the source - that causes greater and greater red-shifting to arise.
Hence we can conclude that the universe is NOT expanding, but that the greater degree of red-shifting that we see is actually proof that the gravitational pull of Distant galaxies is actually INCREASING.
Red-shifting is not an ironclad - or absolute - proof solely of motion, it is a proof of the universe's gravitational bodies effects upon their OWN light and how that effect continues over distance, and the effect accelerates as galaxies age.
All light is coupled to it's source and intimately connected to the sources gravity, regardless of distance, the only regard is the light striking or hitting something as that ends it with an exceedingly slight gravitational tug delivered at the time (exceedingly Slightly after) of the photon's impact.
The universe is not expanding nor increasing in it's expansion, least-ways red-shifting is NOT a conclusive proof of that posit, as the potential that the greater red-shifting is due to the emitter or source gravity, is much more conducive to current observation.
Mr. Robin Parsons
IF we Assume that that galaxy is also as developed as is ours, and we assume that there is there a planet in a solar system (not unlike ours) with a life form that participates in this in the same manner as we do, Ergo as Observer, when they look towards the Edge fo the Known Universe - from there - they see us at the edge of their Universe, and they see 'us' (our space) as the Nascent light of the Spherical Galaxy that the Milky way once was.....But if we turn 180 and look in the same direction that they look in to see 'Us' - we see approximately one half more of a Universe than they do.....
IF that is true for us (We see half more than they can) than it is - should be - also 'true' for them.....
Begs the Question How big is the Universe - Now? and how far away is the CMB's Face or surface.....how can we tell?
Now galactic rotation.
If we observe a spherical galaxy we must note that it is - Gravitationally - acting as ONE thing.
What does that mean? It means that this whole sphere of seemingly separated matter all acts in the same manner as any solid gravitational body would inasmuch as 'it' (All of the Mass) all acts as "Attraction Towards a common center" as that is the signature of gravity and that center being the center of that galaxy.
Things that would slow down or speed up galactic rotation are external influences, other galaxies, or the internal ones, the Black hole at the center.
But wait, back up, that spherical galaxy spins on it's own axis and all of the parts solar masses (et al) that make up that galaxy all contribute to the energy in the center and to helping to keep all of the mass 'sticking together' or acting as one.
Since the entirety is free floating in vacuous space there is no afforded resistance to the motion and the amount of energy needed to keep the entirety in rotation is near zero....
Try to remember that the galaxies were/are generated or Born rotating, and they have never stopped nor do any of the objects within them necessarily have enough energy to escape them, readily or easily as, any peripheral stellar bodies have their own gravitational fields that would keep them attracting themselves back towards the much larger overall gravitational field that the entirety of the galaxy generates.
Now in the current stage of development that we can see our own galaxy in, we can be self deceived in a manner for thinking that tremendous amounts of energy are needed to make it move when we should be realizing that it's history is motion and that it has always turned the 'space' that it occupies (The empty space between all of the stellar bodies) with it, hence the amount of energy that is required to maintain it's motion is minimal - if not zero - as all of it acts as an 'interconnected' (by Gravity or gravitational field activity) body of mass such that, even the requisites of normal 'orbital velocities' as to achieve synchronous orbits (why the space shuttle or station maintains it's orbit) is changed due to the nature of gravitational interactivities.
To try to measure how much energy it takes to make a Stellar body at the edge of the Galaxy follow along with the rotation of the galaxy requires that it is taken into account just how much of that stellar bodies Gravitational Field effect keeps it 'Sticking' to the rotating space around it as that is what a later stage galaxy, like ours does, the black hole at the center of it attempts to speed up it’ rotation by increasing the rotation of the space that the masses occupy....
And yes, those stellar masses, given the correct occurrences at their time of birth can resultantly get projected on trajectories that make it appear as if it is all very random, but none, very little of it, leaves the space that is the galaxies internal space such that, no matter what it's birth trajectory is it is still acting as a gravitational body and still contributes to the 'attraction to a common center' that is the overall galactic gravitational activity.
If we were to make a 'wheel' in space - solid stone - the size of a or this galaxy, (~ 90,000 ly Dia) - we could shine a light upon on edge of the wheel - along the tangent to the edge face - we will get that wheel turning simply with the force that the flashlight's Light exerts as - we am rotating an inertial mass - only upon it's own axis - in a frictionless space - Ergo it takes exceedingly little energy to do that, and if that energy is applied over time, say ten billion years, that wheel would be up to quite the spin rate by now.
The energy that the Black hole at the center exerts - gravitationally - turns the space that the stars occupy, the stars themselves keep themselves relatively speaking in their own places....it is all very nicely Balanced little or no need of any matter over and above what should or presently is observable or observed.
It is a misunderstanding of galactic gravity and motion that is leading to a wrong-full application of mathematical formula that does not account for the varied applications of gravitational energy - objects - product.
It has been quite nice for me to experience a science page wherein the Author has approached the conversation in a seemingly collegiate mannerism that affords the opportunity for proper scientific discourse absent of the types of behaviors seen in the numerous Science forums that this author has perused, sparing perhaps the Physicsmathforums.com wherein ~ 95% of the time (I) was there (I) enjoyed it...and they even noted me for my sense of humor which was nice....so it is appreciated that there are still people who are willing to discuss/present science without the need of character attack or belittlements.
In my Opinion this presenting Author's presentation of these five questions is most accommodating to science and respectful of it's greater purpose...education.
Now - IF - this constitutes 'four out of five'...well there are only four aces in a deck so - IF - I were to pull out another one, you would accuse me of cheating - so........"Stand"......
Mr. Robin Parsons
O.K. O.K.
Four - "Cooper pairs"....
AHA!
It's the Nucleus!!
Well, O.K. - O.K. ....more specifically - it is the spatial arrangement of the nucleic particles (Neutrons and Protons) relative to each other, their energetic interactivities, and the environment of the atom(s)/molecule(s) and therefore the further energies at work that conspire (Work Together) to generate a particular kind of "temperature - (Energy) - environment"....
Oops!
This is a dilemma for the reader(s)/audience as there is no one on the planet who could prove to you that this is not simply a "Guess" ......except 'me'......nor show you the arrangements....sorta as, 'they' (Science) have shown me some of them....pictures of atoms and surfaces etc. etc. but not specific enough for what needs be shown as for that statement to make "Perfect sense" to anyone who doesn't know the rest of it....
Humm four then?? but only if (I) give it to myself....not really acceptable - to me....
So, IF '4 out of five' THEN there are only Kings left over to play, me? play the 'King of Hearts' (As a playing card)
Why? after all isn't he renowned as the 'Suicide King'?
Humm, look closely at that 2 D picture, can you prove to me that the sword that appears as 'in his head' isn't really simply held BEHIND his head??
After all, He is a King, 'Righteous' as from God's appointment, so if you speak yet another word he dislikes, see that Wild look in his eyes?? perhaps you will be the "proof" that he WAS holding it Behind his head, just that - you lost your's to prove it!
The 'Suicide' King part?
He is the King of Hearts, he possesses 'Courage' as afforded to him by God.
Ergo His 'Heart' the Insides of Him, is a precious treasure that is his guardianship as per his appointment by God to be King....and he understands his Charge or responsibility.
Should the Other three Kings Conspire as to overcome the King of Hearts and try to control his power, then He is Exempted by God and his Death - at his own hand - is then ~ an act of Valor!
Me? (I)'m like all of you - human, and that is a little story about a playing card. but four aces and a king sounds a bit like a winning hand to me.....now, is there a 'witness' (non Secular?) in the house?
(Anyone notice these postings??)
BTW 2012 or what some would like you to believe about 2012 ~ a pole reversal, that requires a particular configuration, and we are not that way configured so, please - don't let your imagination frighten you.....after all 2013 follows.....
A Quantum Entangled computer system or physical architecture.....
Humm, Know much about how computers really work?
Know how, or what, a 'do loop' in computer programming - works/does?
Basically there is not - today - existent/existing ~ a computer that can 'lie' to you, other than the lies that are inputed/outputed (From 'old school' - GIGO or GarbageIn GarbageOut) into that computer by a/the human operator or programmer as the architecture of the machine does not allow for it to exit the tracks it must follow by the programmed instructions and physical restraints, 'tracks' and 'switches'.
What a 'Quantum Entangled Computational System' or architecture would create is, a computer that could lie to you, would lie to you, and the machine itself would have no inner reference to what truth actually is, (no inner feeling towards "common sense" that 'common sense' being the sensation of existence that is coupled to the knowledge of existence that is essentially a link to the greater common inner truth and living experience of that truth, {Harmonic resonance} as proved in/by the intellectual actions/re-actions of people to the Sharpe/Purset writing) such that, 'it' wouldn't be able to recognize even 'it's' own lies, making it far more deceptive than any human being on the planet as, it could, and would, outrun (Logic and Reason masked by MATH) any and or all of us on the basis of the mathematics it, and only 'it' can do...
Hence you can now perhaps see why although (I) would believe it to be possible - to make something electronic that could/would function along the lines of what is being sought out as to function as what is being called a 'quantum computer' - BUT - since it truly represents the 'Fifth Ace' in a deck of fifty two cards, (I) would rather abstain in participating in the creation of something along those lines - as anything other than an experiment? No - not even as an experiment. No need to prod nor introduce more obvious potential danger(s).
Do you really believe we need to construct a 'machine' to tell us (Or that can tell us) - even better lies - than we seem to be able to tell ourselves?
No thanks, even if it would be good for 'encryption' services....maybe, maybe not too.
Oh yes, in our collective society the "King of Hearts" is usually renowned as a 'Romancer of Women' ....obviously - not me - so........
Four Aces and a King?
Is that good enough? (Works for me. least-ways ....it should!)
You?
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed] [Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
[Link was removed]
Please login or register to participate.