Physics problems. Unsolved problems of science

Actual problems- means important for this time. Once upon a time, the relevance of the problems of physics was quite different. Questions such as “why it gets dark at night”, “why the wind blows” or “why the water is wet” were solved. Let's see what scientists are racking their brains over these days.

Although we can explain more fully and in more detail the world more and more questions over time. Scientists direct their thoughts and devices into the depths of the Universe and the jungle of atoms, finding there such things that still defy explanation.

Unsolved problems in physics

Some of the topical and unresolved issues of modern physics are purely theoretical. Some problems of theoretical physics simply cannot be verified experimentally. Another part is questions related to experiments.

For example, the experiment does not agree with the previously developed theory. There are also applied tasks. Example: ecological problems physics associated with the search for new sources of energy. Finally, the fourth group is purely philosophical problems. modern science looking for an answer to "the main question of the meaning of life, the universe and all that."

Dark energy and the future of the universe

According to today's ideas, the Universe is expanding. Moreover, according to the analysis of relic radiation and supernova radiation, it expands with acceleration. The expansion is driven by dark energy. dark energy is an indefinite form of energy that was introduced into the model of the universe to explain the accelerated expansion. Dark energy does not interact with matter in ways known to us, and its nature is big mystery. There are two ideas about dark energy:

• According to the first one, it fills the Universe evenly, that is, it is a cosmological constant and has a constant energy density.
• According to the second, the dynamic density of dark energy varies in space and time.

Depending on which of the ideas about dark energy is correct, one can assume further fate Universe. If the density of dark energy grows, then we are waiting for big gap in which all matter falls apart.

Another option - Big squeeze, when the gravitational forces win, the expansion will stop and be replaced by contraction. In such a scenario, everything that was in the Universe first collapses into separate black holes, and then collapses into one common singularity.

Many unanswered questions are related to black holes and their radiation. Read a separate one about these mysterious objects.

Matter and antimatter

Everything we see around us matter, consisting of particles. antimatter is a substance composed of antiparticles. An antiparticle is the counterpart of a particle. The only difference between a particle and an antiparticle is the charge. For example, the charge of an electron is negative, while its counterpart from the world of antiparticles, the positron, has the same positive charge. You can get antiparticles in particle accelerators, but no one has met them in nature.

When interacting (collising), matter and antimatter annihilate, resulting in the formation of photons. Why it is matter that prevails in the Universe is a big question of modern physics. It is assumed that this asymmetry arose in the first fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

After all, if matter and antimatter were equal, all particles would annihilate, leaving only photons as a result. There are suggestions that distant and completely unexplored regions of the Universe are filled with antimatter. But whether this is so remains to be seen, having done a lot of brain work.

By the way! For our readers there is now a 10% discount on

Theory of everything

Is there a theory that can explain absolutely everything physical phenomena at the elementary level? Maybe there is. Another question is whether we can think of it. Theory of everything, or the Grand Unified Theory is a theory that explains the values ​​of all known physical constants and unifies 5 fundamental interactions:

• strong interaction;
• weak interaction;
• electromagnetic interaction;
• gravitational interaction;
• Higgs field.

By the way, you can read about what it is and why it is so important in our blog.

Among the many proposed theories, not one has passed experimental verification. One of the most promising directions in this matter is the unification of quantum mechanics and general theory relativity in theory of quantum gravity. However, these theories have different fields of application, and so far all attempts to combine them lead to a divergence that cannot be removed.

How many dimensions are there?

We are accustomed to the three-dimensional world. We can move forward and backward, up and down in the three dimensions we know, feeling comfortable. However, there is M-theory, according to which there is already 11 measurements, only 3 of which are available to us.

It's hard enough, if not impossible, to imagine. True, for such cases there is a mathematical apparatus that helps to cope with the problem. In order not to blow our minds and you, we will not give mathematical calculations from M-theory. Here is a quote from the physicist Stephen Hawking:

We are just advanced apes on a small planet with an unremarkable star. But we have a chance to comprehend the Universe. This is what makes us special.

What to say about deep space, when we know far from everything about our home. For example, there is still no clear explanation for the origin and periodic inversion of its poles.

There are many mysteries and puzzles. There are similar unsolved problems in chemistry, astronomy, biology, mathematics, and philosophy. Solving one mystery, we get two in return. This is the joy of knowing. Recall that with any task, no matter how difficult it is, they will help you cope. The problems of teaching physics, like any other science, are much easier to solve than fundamental scientific questions.

• Translation

Our Standard Model of elementary particles and interactions has recently become as complete as one could ever wish for. Every single elementary particle - in all their possible types- created in the laboratory, measured, and determined the properties for everyone. The longest-held up quark, antiquark, tau neutrino and antineutrino, and finally the Higgs boson, fell victim to our capabilities.

And the last one, the Higgs boson, also solved the old problem of physics: finally, we can demonstrate where elementary particles get their mass from!

It's all cool, but science doesn't end when you finish solving this puzzle. On the contrary, she raises important questions, and one of them is "what's next?". As for the Standard Model, we can say that we don't know everything yet. And for most physicists, one of the questions is especially important - to describe it, let's first consider next property standard model.

On the one hand, the weak, electromagnetic, and strong interactions can be very important, depending on their energies and the distances over which the interaction occurs. But gravity is not like that.

We can take any two elementary particles - any mass and subject to any interactions - and find that gravity is 40 orders of magnitude weaker than any other force in the universe. This means that the force of gravity is 10 40 times weaker than three the remaining forces. For example, although they are not fundamental, but if you take two protons and spread them a meter apart, the electromagnetic repulsion between them will be 10 40 times stronger than the gravitational attraction. Or, in other words, we need to increase the force of gravity by 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times to equal it with any other force.

In this case, you cannot simply increase the mass of a proton by 1020 times, so that gravity pulls them together, overcoming the electromagnetic force.

Instead, in order for reactions like the one illustrated above to occur spontaneously when protons overcome their electromagnetic repulsion, you need to bring 1056 protons together. Only by coming together and succumbing to the force of gravity can they overcome electromagnetism. It turns out that 10 56 protons will just make up the minimum possible mass of a star.

This is a description of how the universe works - but why it is so, we do not know. Why is gravity so much weaker than the other forces? Why is "gravitational charge" (i.e. mass) so much weaker than electric or color, or even weak?

This is the problem of hierarchy, and it is, for many reasons, the greatest unsolved problem in physics. We do not know the answer, but we cannot say that we are completely ignorant. Theoretically, we have some good ideas about finding a solution, and a tool for finding evidence for their correctness.

So far, the Large Hadron Collider – the highest-energy collider ever – has been reaching unprecedented levels of energy in the lab, collecting tons of data, and recreating what happens at impact points. This includes the creation of new, hitherto unseen particles (such as the Higgs boson), and the appearance of old, well-known Standard Model particles (quarks, leptons, gauge bosons). It is also able, if they exist, to produce any other particles that are not included in the Standard Model.

There are four possible ways known to me - that is, four good ideas– solution of the problem of hierarchy. Good news is that if nature has chosen one of them, then the LHC will find it! (And if not, the search will continue).

Apart from the Higgs boson, found a few years ago, no new fundamental particles have been found at the LHC. (Moreover, no intriguing new particle candidates are observed at all.) And yet, the found particle fully corresponded to the description of the Standard Model; no statistically significant hints of new physics were seen. Not for composite Higgs bosons, not for multiple Higgs particles, not for non-standard decays, nothing like that.

But now we've started getting data from even higher energies, twice the previous ones, up to 13-14 TeV, to find something else. And what are the possible and reasonable solutions to the problem of hierarchy in this vein?

1) Supersymmetry, or SUSY. Supersymmetry is a special symmetry that can make normal masses any particles large enough for gravity to be comparable to other influences cancel each other out with a great degree of accuracy. This symmetry also assumes that every particle in the Standard Model has a superparticle partner, and that there are five Higgs particles and five of their superpartners. If such a symmetry exists, it must be broken, or superpartners would have the same masses as ordinary particles and would have been found long ago.

If SUSY exists on a scale suitable for solving the hierarchy problem, then the LHC, having reached energies of 14 TeV, should find at least one superpartner, as well as a second Higgs particle. Otherwise, the existence of very heavy superpartners would in itself lead to another hierarchy problem that would not have a good solution. (Interestingly, the absence of SUSY particles at all energies will disprove string theory, since supersymmetry is necessary condition for string theories containing the standard model of elementary particles).

Here is the first possible solution to the hierarchy problem, which at the moment has no evidence.

It is possible to create tiny super-cooled brackets filled with piezoelectric crystals (which generate electricity when deformed), with distances between them. This technology allows us to impose limits of 5-10 microns on "large" measurements. In other words, gravity works according to the predictions of general relativity on scales much smaller than a millimeter. So if there are large extra dimensions, they are at energy levels that the LHC cannot reach, and more importantly, do not solve the hierarchy problem.

Of course, a completely different solution can be found for the hierarchy problem, which cannot be found on modern colliders, or there is no solution to it at all; it just might be a property of nature without any explanation for it. But science won't advance without trying, and that's what these ideas and quests are trying to do: push our knowledge of the universe forward. And, as always, with the beginning of the second run of the LHC, I look forward to what may appear there, in addition to the already discovered Higgs boson!

Tags:

• gravity
• fundamental interactions
• tank

Below is a list unsolved problems of modern physics. Some of these problems are theoretical. This means that existing theories are unable to explain certain observed phenomena or experimental results. Other problems are experimental, which means that there are difficulties in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or to study a phenomenon in more detail. The following problems are either fundamental theoretical problems or theoretical ideas for which there is no experimental evidence. Some of these issues are closely related. For example, extra dimensions or supersymmetry can solve the hierarchy problem. It is believed that a complete theory of quantum gravity is capable of answering most of these questions (except for the problem of the island of stability).

• 1. quantum gravity. Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be combined into a single self-consistent theory (perhaps this is quantum field theory)? Is spacetime continuous or is it discrete? Will a self-consistent theory use a hypothetical graviton, or will it be entirely a product of the discrete structure of space-time (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity for very small or very large scales, or in other extreme circumstances, that follow from the theory of quantum gravity?
• 2. Black holes, disappearance of information in a black hole, Hawking radiation. Do black holes produce thermal radiation, as the theory predicts? Does this radiation contain information about their internal structure, as suggested by the gravity-gauge invariance duality, or does it not, as follows from Hawking's original calculation? If not, and black holes can continuously evaporate, then what happens to the information stored in them (quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information)? Or will the radiation stop at some point when there is little left of the black hole? Is there any other way to explore their internal structure, if such a structure exists at all? Does the law of conservation of baryon charge hold inside a black hole? The proof of the principle of cosmic censorship is unknown, as well as the exact formulation of the conditions under which it is fulfilled. There is no complete and complete theory of the magnetosphere of black holes. The exact formula for calculating the number of different states of a system is unknown, the collapse of which leads to the emergence of a black hole with a given mass, angular momentum and charge. The proof in the general case of the "no-hair theorem" for a black hole is unknown.
• 3. Dimension of space-time. Are there additional dimensions of space-time in nature, in addition to the four known to us? If yes, what is their number? Is the dimension "3+1" (or higher) an a priori property of the universe, or is it the result of other physical processes, as suggested, for example, by the theory of causal dynamic triangulation? Can we experimentally "observe" higher spatial dimensions? Is the holographic principle correct, according to which the physics of our "3 + 1" -dimensional space-time is equivalent to the physics on a hypersurface with a dimension of "2 + 1"?
• 4. inflation model Universe. Is the cosmic inflation theory correct, and if so, what are the details of this stage? What is the hypothetical inflaton field responsible for rising inflation? If inflation occurred at one point, is this the beginning of a self-sustaining process due to the inflation of quantum mechanical oscillations, which will continue in a completely different place, remote from this point?
• 5. Multiverse. Are there physical reasons for the existence of other universes that are fundamentally unobservable? For example: are there quantum mechanical " alternate histories or "many worlds"? Are there "other" universes with physical laws that result from alternative ways of breaking the apparent symmetry of physical forces at high energies, perhaps incredibly far away due to cosmic inflation? Could other universes influence ours, causing, for example, anomalies in the temperature distribution of the CMB? Is it justified to use the anthropic principle to solve global cosmological dilemmas?
• 6. The principle of cosmic censorship and the hypothesis of protection of chronology. Can singularities not hidden behind the event horizon, known as "naked singularities", arise from realistic initial conditions, or can one prove some version of Roger Penrose's "cosmic censorship hypothesis" that suggests this is impossible? IN Lately evidence has appeared in favor of the inconsistency of the cosmic censorship hypothesis, which means that bare singularities should occur much more often than just as extreme solutions of the Kerr-Newman equations, however, conclusive evidence for this has not yet been presented. Likewise, will the closed timelike curves that arise in some solutions to the equations of general relativity (and which involve the possibility of time travel backwards) be ruled out by the theory of quantum gravity, which combines general relativity with quantum mechanics, as Stephen Hawking's "Chronology Defense Hypothesis" suggests?
• 7. Axis of time. What can tell us about the nature of time phenomena that differ from each other by going forward and backward in time? How is time different from space? Why are violations of CP invariance observed only in some weak interactions and nowhere else? Are violations of CP invariance a consequence of the second law of thermodynamics, or are they a separate time axis? Are there exceptions to the causality principle? Is the past the only possible one? Is the present moment physically different from the past and the future, or is it simply the result of the peculiarities of consciousness? How did people learn to negotiate what is the present moment? (See also below Entropy (time axis)).
• 8. Locality. Are there nonlocal phenomena in quantum physics? If they exist, do they have limitations in transmitting information, or: can energy and matter also move along a non-local path? Under what conditions are non-local phenomena observed? What does the presence or absence of non-local phenomena imply for the fundamental structure of space-time? How does this relate to quantum entanglement? How can this be interpreted from the standpoint of a correct interpretation of the fundamental nature of quantum physics?
• 9. Future of the Universe. Is the Universe heading towards a Big Freeze, Big Rip, Big Crunch or Big Rebound? Is our universe part of an endlessly repeating cyclical pattern?
• 10. Hierarchy problem. Why is gravity such a weak force? It becomes large only on the Planck scale, for particles with an energy of the order of 10 19 GeV, which is much higher than the electroweak scale (in low energy physics, an energy of 100 GeV is dominant). Why are these scales so different from each other? What prevents quantities on the electroweak scale, such as the mass of the Higgs boson, from getting quantum corrections on scales of the order of Planck's? Is supersymmetry, extra dimensions, or just anthropic fine-tuning the solution to this problem?
• 11. Magnetic monopole. Have there been particles - carriers of "magnetic charge" in any past epochs with higher energies? If so, are there any to date? (Paul Dirac showed that the presence of certain types of magnetic monopoles could explain charge quantization.)
• 12. The decay of the proton and the Grand Unification. How can one unify the three different quantum mechanical fundamental interactions of quantum field theory? Why is the lightest baryon, which is a proton, absolutely stable? If the proton is unstable, then what is its half-life?
• 13. Supersymmetry. Is the supersymmetry of space realized in nature? If so, what is the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking? Does supersymmetry stabilize the electroweak scale, preventing high quantum corrections? Does dark matter consist of light supersymmetric particles?
• 14. Generations of matter. Are there more than three generations of quarks and leptons? Is the number of generations related to the dimension of space? Why do generations even exist? Is there a theory that could explain the presence of mass in some quarks and leptons in individual generations on the basis of first principles (Yukawa's theory of interaction)?
• 15. Fundamental symmetry and neutrinos. What is the nature of neutrinos, what is their mass, and how did they shape the evolution of the Universe? Why is there more matter than antimatter in the universe now? Which invisible forces were present at the dawn of the universe, but disappeared from view in the process of the development of the universe?
• 16. Quantum field theory. Are the principles of relativistic local quantum field theory compatible with the existence of a nontrivial scattering matrix?
• 17. massless particles. Why don't massless particles without spin exist in nature?
• 18. Quantum chromodynamics. What are the phase states of strongly interacting matter and what role do they play in space? What is the internal arrangement of nucleons? What properties of strongly interacting matter does QCD predict? What governs the transition of quarks and gluons into pi-mesons and nucleons? What is the role of gluons and gluon interaction in nucleons and nuclei? What determines the key features of QCD and what is their relationship to the nature of gravity and spacetime?
• 19. atomic nucleus and nuclear astrophysics. What is the nature of nuclear forces that binds protons and neutrons into stable nuclei and rare isotopes? What is the reason for combining simple particles into complex nuclei? What is the nature of neutron stars and dense nuclear matter? What is the origin of the elements in space? What's happened nuclear reactions that move stars and cause them to explode?
• 20. Island of stability. What is the heaviest stable or metastable nucleus that can exist?
• 21. Quantum mechanics and the correspondence principle (sometimes called quantum chaos). Are there any preferred interpretations of quantum mechanics? How does a quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as quantum superposition of states and wavefunction collapse or quantum decoherence, lead to the reality we see? The same can be stated in terms of the measurement problem: what is the "dimension" that causes the wave function to collapse into a certain state?
• 22. physical information. Are there physical phenomena such as black holes or wave function collapse that irrevocably destroy information about their previous states?
• 23. Theory of everything ("Great Unification Theories"). Is there a theory that explains the values ​​of all fundamental physical constants? Is there a theory that explains why the standard model's gauge invariance is the way it is, why observable spacetime has 3+1 dimensions, and why the laws of physics are the way they are? Do “fundamental physical constants” change over time? Are any of the particles in the Standard Model of particle physics actually made up of other particles so strongly bound that they cannot be observed at current experimental energies? Are there fundamental particles that have not yet been observed, and if so, what are they and what are their properties? Are there unobservable fundamental forces that the theory suggests that explain other unsolved problems in physics?
• 24. Gauge invariance. Are there really non-Abelian gauge theories with a gap in the mass spectrum?
• 25. CP symmetry. Why is CP symmetry not preserved? Why does it persist in most observed processes?
• 26. Physics of semiconductors. The quantum theory of semiconductors cannot accurately calculate any of the semiconductor constants.
• 27. The quantum physics. The exact solution of the Schrödinger equation for multielectron atoms is unknown.
• 28. When solving the problem of scattering of two beams by one obstacle, the scattering cross section is infinitely large.
• 29. Feynmanium: What will happen to a chemical element whose atomic number is higher than 137, as a result of which the 1s 1 electron will have to move at a speed exceeding the speed of light (according to the Bohr model of the atom)? Is "Feynmanium" the last chemical element capable of existing physically? The problem may show up around element 137, where the expansion of the nuclear charge distribution reaches its final point. See article Extended periodic table elements and the Relativistic effects section.
• 30. Statistical physics. There is no systematic theory of irreversible processes, which makes it possible to carry out quantitative calculations for any given physical process.
• 31. Quantum electrodynamics. Are there gravitational effects caused by zero oscillations electromagnetic field? It is not known how, when calculating quantum electrodynamics in the region of high frequencies, the conditions of finiteness of the result, relativistic invariance, and the sum of all alternative probabilities equal to one can be simultaneously satisfied.
• 32. Biophysics. There is no quantitative theory for the kinetics of conformational relaxation of protein macromolecules and their complexes. There is no complete theory of electron transfer in biological structures.
• 33. Superconductivity. It is impossible to theoretically predict, knowing the structure and composition of matter, whether it will pass into the superconducting state with decreasing temperature.

Where you can, among other things, join the project and take part in its discussion.

High

The article is a translation of the corresponding English version. Lev Dubovoy 09:51, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Pioneer effect[ edit code ]

Found an explanation for the Pioneer effect. Should I take it off the list now? Russians are coming! 20:55, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

There are many explanations for the effect, none of them is this moment generally accepted. IMHO let it hang for now :) Evatutin 19:35, September 13, 2012 (UTC) Yes, but as I understand it, this is the first explanation that is consistent with the observed deviation in speed. Although I agree that we have to wait. Russians are coming! 05:26, September 14, 2012 (UTC)

particle physics[ edit code ]

Generations of matter:

Why three generations of particles are needed is still unclear. The hierarchy of the bond constants and masses of these particles is not clear. It is not clear if there are other generations than these three. It is not known if there are other particles that we do not know about. It is not clear why the Higgs boson, just discovered at the Large Hadron Collider, is so light. There are other important questions that the Standard Model does not answer.

Higgs particle [ edit code ]

The Higgs particle has also been found. --195.248.94.136 10:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

While physicists are being cautious with conclusions, perhaps he is not alone there, various decay channels are being investigated - IMHO let it hang for now ... Evatutin 19:33, September 13, 2012 (UTC) Only solved problems that were on the list are moved to the section Unsolved problems of modern physics #Problems solved in recent decades .--Arbnos 10:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Neutrino mass[ edit code ]

Known for a long time. But after all, the section is called Problems solved in recent decades - it seems that the problem was solved not so long ago, after those in the list of portals.--Arbnos 14:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Horizon problem[ edit code ]

This is what you call "same temperature": http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/1583/img606x341spaceplanck21.jpg ??? It's the same as saying "Problem 2+2=5". This is not a problem at all, as it false statement fundamentally.

• I think the new video "Space" will be useful: http://video.euronews.com/flv/mag/130311_SESU_121A0_R.flv

Laws of aerodynamics[ edit code ]

I propose to add one more unsolved problem to the list - and even related to classical mechanics, which is usually considered to be completely studied and simple. The problem of a sharp discrepancy between the theoretical laws of aerohydrodynamics and experimental data. The results of simulations performed according to the Euler equations do not correspond to the results obtained in wind tunnels. As a result, there are currently no working systems of equations in aerohydrodynamics that could be used to make aerodynamic calculations. There are a number of empirical equations that describe experiments well only in a narrow framework of a number of conditions and there is no way to make calculations in the general case.

The situation is even absurd - in the 21st century, all developments in aerodynamics are carried out through tests in wind tunnels, while in all other areas of technology, only accurate calculations have long been dispensed with, without then rechecking them experimentally. 62.165.40.146 10:28, September 4, 2013 (UTC) Valeev Rustam

No, there are enough tasks for which there is not enough computing power in other areas, in thermodynamics, for example. There are no fundamental difficulties, just the models are extremely complex. --Renju player 15:28 November 1, 2013 (UTC)

nonsense [ edit code ]

Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete?

The question is very badly worded. Space-time is either continuous or discrete. So far, modern physics cannot answer this question. Therein lies the problem. But in this formulation, something completely different is asked: here both options are taken as a whole. continuous or discrete and asks: “Is space-time fundamentally continuous or discrete? The answer is yes, spacetime is continuous or discrete. And I have a question, why did you ask such a thing? You can't phrase the question like that. Apparently, the author poorly retold Ginzburg. And what is meant by " fundamentally"? >> Kron7 10:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Can be reformulated as "Is space continuous or is it discrete?". Such a formulation seems to exclude the meaning of the question you have cited. Dair T "arg 15:45, September 10, 2013 (UTC) Yes, this is a completely different matter. Corrected. >> Kron7 07:18, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, space-time is discrete, since only absolutely empty space can be continuous, and space-time is far from being empty.

Ratio inertial mass/gravitational mass for elementary particles In accordance with the principle of equivalence of the general theory of relativity, the ratio of the inertial mass to the gravitational one for all elementary particles is equal to one. However, there is no experimental confirmation of this law for many particles.

In particular, we do not know what will be weight macroscopic piece of antimatter known masses .

How to understand this proposal? >> Kron7 14:19 September 10, 2013 (UTC)

Weight, as you know, is the force with which a body acts on a support or suspension. Mass is measured in kilograms, weight in newtons. In zero gravity, a one-kilogram body will have zero weight. The question of what will be the weight of a piece of antimatter of a given mass, therefore, is not a tautology. --Renju player 11:42, November 21, 2013 (UTC)

Well, what's incomprehensible? And we must remove the question: what is the difference between space and time? Yakov176.49.146.171 19:59, November 23, 2013 (UTC) And we need to remove the question about the time machine: this is anti-scientific nonsense. Yakov176.49.75.100 21:47, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Hydrodynamics [ edit code ]

Hydrodynamics is one of the branches of modern physics, along with mechanics, field theory, quantum mechanics, etc. By the way, the methods of hydrodynamics are also actively used in cosmology, when studying the problems of the universe, (Ryabina 14:43, November 2, 2013 (UTC))

You may be confusing the complexity of computational problems with fundamentally unsolved problems. Thus, the N-body problem has not yet been solved analytically, in some cases it presents significant difficulties with an approximate numerical solution, but it does not contain any fundamental riddles and secrets of the universe. There are no fundamental difficulties in hydrodynamics, there are only computational and model ones, but in abundance. In general, let's be careful to separate warm and soft. --Renju player 07:19 November 5, 2013 (UTC)

Computational problems are unsolved problems in mathematics, not physics. Yakov176.49.185.224 07:08, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

Minus-substance [ edit code ]

To the theoretical questions of physics, I would add the minus-substance hypothesis. This hypothesis is purely mathematical: the mass can have negative meaning. Like any purely mathematical hypothesis, it is logically consistent. But, if we take the philosophy of physics, then this hypothesis contains a disguised rejection of determinism. Although, perhaps there are still undiscovered laws of physics that describe a minus substance. --Yakov 176.49.185.224 07:08, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

Sho tse take? (where did you get it from?) --Tpyvvikky ..for mathematicians, time can be negative .. and now what

Superconductivity[ edit code ]

What are the problems with the BCS, what does the article say about the lack of a "completely satisfactory microscopic theory of superconductivity"? At the same time, the link is to the textbook of the 1963 edition, a slightly outdated source for an article about contemporary issues physics. I'm removing this passage for now. --Renju player 08:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cold nuclear fusion[ edit code ]

"What is the explanation for the controversial reports of excess heat, radiation, and transmutations?" The explanation is, they are unreliable/incorrect/erroneous. At least by the standards of modern science. Links are dead. Removed. 95.106.188.102 09:59, October 30, 2014 (UTC)

Copy [ edit code ]

Copy of article http://ensiklopedia.ru/wiki/%D0%9D%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%88%D1%91%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0 %B5_%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BC%D1%8B_%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%80 %D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%84%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0 %B8 .--Arbnos 00:06, November 8, 2015 (UTC)

Absolute time[ edit code ]

According to SRT, there is no absolute time, so the question of the age of the Universe (and the future of the Universe) does not make sense. 37.215.42.23 00:24, March 19, 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're off topic. Soshenkov (obs.) 23:45, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Hamiltonian formalism and Newton's differential paradigm[ edit code ]

1. Is most fundamental problem of physics amazing fact that (so far) all fundamental theories are expressed through the Hamiltonian formalism?

2. Is even more amazing and completely inexplicable fact encoded in the second anagram Newton's hypothesis that that the laws of nature are expressed through differential equations? Is this conjecture exhaustive or does it allow other mathematical generalizations?

3. Is the problem of biological evolution a consequence of fundamental physical laws, or is it an independent phenomenon? Isn't the phenomenon of biological evolution a direct consequence of Newton's differential hypothesis? Soshenkov (obs.) 23:43, March 16, 2017 (UTC)

Space, time and mass[ edit code ]

What is "space" and "time"? How do massive bodies "curve" space and affect time? How does the "curved" space interact with bodies, causing universal gravitation, and photons, changing their trajectory? And what about entropy? (Explanation. General relativity gives formulas by which, for example, one can calculate relativistic corrections for the clock of a global navigation satellite system, but it does not even raise the above questions. If we consider the analogy with gas thermodynamics, then general relativity corresponds to the level of gas thermodynamics at the level of macroscopic parameters (pressure , density, temperature), and here we need an analogue at the level of the molecular kinetic theory of gas. Maybe hypothetical theories of quantum gravity will explain what we are looking for...) P36M AKrigel / obs 17:36, December 31, 2018 (UTC) It is interesting to know the reasons and see the link to the discussion. That's why I asked here, a well-known unresolved problem, better known in society than most of the article (in my subjective opinion). Even children are told about it for educational purposes: in Moscow, in the Experimentarium, there is a separate stand with this effect. Dissenters, please respond. Jukier (obs.) 06:33, January 1, 2019 (UTC)

• • Everything is simple here. "Serious" scientific journals they are afraid to publish materials on controversial and unclear issues, so as not to lose their reputation. Nobody reads articles in other publications and the results published in them do not affect anything. The polemic is generally published in exceptional cases. Textbook writers try to avoid writing about things they don't understand. The encyclopedia is not a place for discussion. The RJ rules require that the material of the articles be based on the AI, and that there be a consensus in disputes between participants. Neither requirement can be achieved in the case of publication of an article on unsolved problems of physics. The Rank tube is just a particular example of a big problem. In theoretical meteorology, the situation is more serious. The question of thermal equilibrium in the atmosphere is a basic one, it is impossible to hush it up, but there is no theory. Without this, all other reasoning is devoid of scientific basis. Professors do not tell students about this problem as unsolved, and textbooks lie in different ways. First of all, we are talking about the equilibrium temperature gradient ]

    Synodic period and rotation around the axis of the terrestrial planets. Earth and Venus are turned on the same side to each other while being on the same axis with the sun. Just like Earth and Mercury. Those. Mercury's rotation period is synchronized with the Earth, not the Sun (although for a very long time it was believed that it would be synchronized with the sun as the Earth was synchronized with the Moon). speakus (obs.) 18:11, March 9, 2019 (UTC)

    • If you find a source that talks about this as an unresolved problem, then you can add it. - Alexey Kopylov 21:00, March 15, 2019 (UTC)

    It is necessary to check the quality of the translation and bring the article in line with the stylistic rules of Wikipedia. You can help ... Wikipedia

    This article lists some of the problems in biology that remain unsolved to this day. Widely known problems Biological aging: Various theories of aging lead different reasons why it happens. There are genetic, ... ... Wikipedia

    I. The subject and structure of physics Physics is a science that studies the simplest and, at the same time, the most general patterns of natural phenomena, the properties and structure of matter, and the laws of its motion. Therefore, the concepts of F. and its laws underlie everything ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

    The science of compare, the study of cultures, in Amer. tradition part or synonymous with cultural anthropology, in European (British and French) analogue of social anthropology, in German countries. languages ​​are independent. research direction. Basic unit ... ... Encyclopedia of cultural studies

    Paradigm- (Paradigm) Definition of a paradigm, history of the emergence of a paradigm Information about the definition of a paradigm, history of the emergence of a paradigm Contents Contents History of occurrence Special cases (linguistics) Management paradigm Paradigm ... ... Encyclopedia of the investor

    Modernization- (Modernization) Modernization is the process of changing something in accordance with the requirements of modernity, the transition to more perfect conditions, by introducing various new updates. Modernization theory, types of modernization, organic ... ... Encyclopedia of the investor

    PETROV Mikhail Konstantinovich- (1924 1987) Russian philosopher, culturologist, sociologist, linguist. He dealt specifically with the problems of the science of science, in particular scientometrics, as well as the history of science and the sociology of (cognition). P.'s special area of ​​​​interest is thesaurus dynamics (in 1986 he ... ... Sociology: Encyclopedia

    JOHN PAUL II- K. Wojtyla with his parents. Photo. Beginning 20s 20th century K. Wojtyla with his parents. Photo. Beginning 20s 20th century (05/18/1920, Wadowice, near Krakow, Poland 04/2/2005, Vatican; before being elected pope Karol Jozef Wojtyla), Pope of Rome (since October 16 ... ... Orthodox Encyclopedia

    Byzantinology, branch of ist. science that studies the history and culture of Byzantium. The emergence of V. Intensive economic., Political. and cultural relations of Byzantium with various countries of Europe and Asia, a high level of development of the Byzantines. culture that has... Soviet historical encyclopedia

    Anatoly Ivanovich Gretchenko (born January 30, 1951, S. Stephekha, Volgograd region) Russian economist, Doctor of Economics (1991), Professor (1993), Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation (2002), Rector of the International Business Training Institute. 1975 graduated ... ... Wikipedia

    Books

    • , Berezhko Evgeny Grigorievich. The book was written on the basis of a course of lectures on the fundamentals of space physics, which the author read for a number of years to students of the Physics Department of the North-Eastern Federal University (before…
    • Introduction to the physics of space. Tutorial. Vulture UMO on classical university education, Berezhko Evgeny Grigorievich. The book was written on the basis of a course of lectures on the fundamentals of space physics, which the author read for a number of years to students of the Physics Department of the North-Eastern Federal University (until 2010…