Aren't science and technology the same thing? No, they are different.

Although the technology that determines modern culture, develops thanks to science’s comprehension of the Universe, technology and science are guided by different motives. Let's look at the main differences between science and technology. If science is caused by a person’s desire to know and understand the Universe, then technical innovations are caused by people’s desire to change the conditions of their existence in order to get food for themselves, help others, and often commit violence for personal gain.

People often engage in “pure” and applied science at the same time, but science can be conducted basic research without regard to the end result. British Prime Minister William Gladstone once remarked to Michael Faraday regarding his seminal discoveries linking electricity and magnetism: “It’s all very interesting, but what’s the use of it?” Faraday replied, “Sir, I don’t know, but one day you will benefit from it.” Almost half of current wealth developed countries brought the connection between electricity and magnetism.

Before scientific achievements become the property of technology, additional considerations must be taken into account: what kind of device can be developed, what is permissible to build (a question essentially related to the field of ethics). Ethics belongs to a completely different area of ​​human mental activity: the humanities. The main difference between science and the humanities is objectivity. Natural science strives to study the behavior of the Universe as objectively as possible, while the humanities have no such goal or requirement. To paraphrase the words of the 19th century Irish writer Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, we can say: “Beauty [and truth, and justice, and nobility, and...] is seen differently by everyone.”

Science is far from monolithic. Natural sciences are concerned with studying how environment, and the people themselves, since they are functionally similar to other forms of life. And the humanities study the rational (emotional) behavior of people and their attitudes, which they need for social, political and economic interaction. In Fig. 1. 1 graphically presents these relationships.

No matter how much such a harmonious presentation may contribute to the understanding existing connections, reality always turns out to be much more complicated. Ethics helps determine what to investigate, what research methods and techniques to use, and what experiments are unacceptable because they pose a threat to human well-being. Political economy and political science also play a huge role, since science can only study what a culture tends to encourage as tools of production, labor, or whatever is politically acceptable.

Rice. 1.1. Areas of mental activity

The success of science in studying the Universe is made up of observations and ideas. This kind of interchange is called the scientific method (Fig. 1.2).

Rice. 1.2. Scientific method

During observation, a particular phenomenon is perceived by the senses with or without instruments. If in natural science observations are made of many similar objects (for example, carbon atoms), then the human sciences deal with a smaller number of different subjects (for example, people, even identical twins).

After collecting data, our mind, trying to organize it, begins to build images or explanations. This is the work of human thought. This stage is called the hypothesis generation stage. The construction of a general hypothesis based on the observations obtained is carried out through inductive inference, which contains a generalization and is therefore considered the most unreliable type of inference. And no matter how they try to artificially build conclusions, within the framework of the scientific method this kind of activity is limited, since at subsequent stages the hypothesis collides with reality.

Often a hypothesis is formulated in whole or in part in a language different from everyday speech, the language of mathematics. Acquiring mathematical skills requires a lot of effort, otherwise those who are ignorant of mathematics will need to translate mathematical concepts into everyday language when explaining scientific hypotheses. Unfortunately, the meaning of the hypothesis may be significantly affected.

Once constructed, a hypothesis can be used to predict certain events that should occur if the hypothesis is true. Such a prediction is derived from a hypothesis through deductive reasoning. For example, Newton's second law states that F = ma. If m equals 3 units of mass and a equals 5 units of acceleration, then F must equal 15 units of force. At this stage, mathematical calculations can be performed by computers operating on the basis of the deductive method.

The next stage is to conduct an experiment to find out whether the prediction made at the previous stage is confirmed. Some experiments are quite easy to carry out, but more often it is extremely difficult. Even after building complex and expensive scientific equipment to produce highly valuable data, it can often be difficult to find the money and then the patience needed to process and make sense of the vast array of data. Natural science has the advantage of being able to isolate the subject matter being studied, whereas the human and social sciences have to deal with numerous variables depending on the different views (biases) of many people.

After completing the experiments, their results are checked against the prediction. Since the hypothesis is general, and the experimental data are private character, then the result, when the experience agrees with the prediction, does not prove the hypothesis, but only confirms it. However, if the outcome of the experiment does not agree with the prediction, a certain side of the hypothesis turns out to be false. This feature of the scientific method, called falsifiability (falsifiability), imposes a certain strict requirement on hypotheses. As Albert Einstein put it, “No amount of experimentation can prove a theory; but one experiment is enough to refute it.”

A hypothesis that turns out to be false must be revised in some way, that is, slightly changed, thoroughly reworked, or completely discarded. It can be extremely difficult to decide what changes are appropriate. The revised hypotheses will have to go through the same path again, and either they will survive or they will be abandoned in the course of further comparisons of prediction with experience.

Another aspect of the scientific method that does not allow one to go astray is reproduction. Any observer with appropriate training and equipment should be able to repeat the experiments or predictions and obtain comparable results. In other words, science is characterized by constant double-checking. For example, a team of scientists from the National Laboratory named after. Lawrence University of California, Berkeley, tried to produce a new chemical element by firing a powerful beam of krypton ions at a lead target and then studying the resulting substances. In 1999, scientists announced the synthesis of an element with atomic number 118.

The synthesis of a new element is always an important event. In this case, its synthesis could confirm the prevailing ideas about the stability of heavy elements. However, scientists from other laboratories of the Society for the Study of Heavy Ions (Darmstadt, Germany), the Large State Heavy Ion Accelerator of the University of Cayenne (France) and the Laboratory atomic physics The Riken Institute of Physics and Chemistry (Japan) were unable to repeat the synthesis of element 118. An expanded team at the Berkeley Laboratory repeated the experiment, but they also failed to reproduce the previously obtained results. Berkeley rechecked the original experimental data using a program with a modified code and was unable to confirm the presence of element 118. They had to withdraw their application. This case shows that scientific search is endless.

Sometimes, along with experiments, hypotheses are also retested. In February 2001, Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York reported an experiment in which the magnetic moment of a muon (like the electron of a negatively charged particle, but much heavier) slightly exceeds the value predicted by the standard model of particle physics (for more on this model, see Chapter .2). And since the assumptions of the standard model about many other properties of particles were in very good agreement with experimental data, such a discrepancy regarding the magnitude of the muon’s magnetic moment destroyed the basis of the standard model.

The prediction of the muon's magnetic moment was the result of complex and lengthy calculations carried out independently by scientists in Japan and New York in 1995. In November 2001, these calculations were repeated by French physicists, who discovered an erroneous negative sign at one of the terms of the equation and posted their results on the Internet. As a result, the Brookhaven group rechecked its own calculations, admitted the error and published corrected results. As a result, it was possible to reduce the discrepancy between the prediction and experimental data. The Standard Model will once again have to withstand the tests that ongoing scientific research prepares for it.

Let's take a step-by-step look at a classic example of the scientific method at work.

Observation. J. J. Thomson, director of the Cavendish Laboratory (1884–1919) in England, studied the behavior of a light beam in a cathode ray tube (the prototype of the modern CRT television receiver). Since the beam: 1) was deflected towards positively charged electrical plates and 2) when it struck them it caused flashes of light, it turned out that it consisted of negatively charged particles - electrons, as the 19th century Irish physicist George Fitzgerald called them in his remarks on the experiment Thomson. (The name electron as a unit of electric charge was proposed by another Irish physicist, George Stoney.)

Hypothesis. Since atoms have no charge (neutral), and Thomson discovered negatively charged particles inside them, he concluded that the atom must also have a positive charge. In 1903, Thomson created a theory according to which the positive charge is “smeared” throughout the atom, and negatively charged electrons are interspersed in the middle of the positively charged substance. This picture resembled a traditional British dish, so it was called the “Thomson raisin pudding model of the atom.”

Prediction. Ernst Rutherford was an expert on positively charged particles called α particles. At the beginning of the 20th century, he predicted that firing these particles at atoms consisting of a rare and “smeared” positive charge, according to Thomson’s “raisin pudding” model, would be reminiscent of throwing billiard balls into the fog. Most of the balls will pass straight through, and only a fraction of them will deviate by an extremely small amount.

Experience. In 1909, Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden began firing alpha particles at thin gold foil. The results turned out to be completely different from what was expected. Some alpha particles were deflected by large amounts, and some even bounced back. Rutherford noted that this was "as improbable as if you fired a fifteen-pound shell at tissue paper and the shell bounced back and killed you."

Repeat. The Thomson model of the atom was replaced by the Rutherford model along the lines of solar system, where the positive charge was concentrated in a relatively tiny nucleus in the middle of the atom, and the electrons (like planets) were in circular orbits around the nucleus (like the Sun). In the 20th century, after further predictions and experiments, Rutherford’s model of the atom in the form of the Solar System was replaced by other models. When experimental data did not agree with the predictions of an existing hypothesis, the hypothesis had to be revised.

Thus, the interpretation of the laws of mechanics discovered by Isaac Newton and the classical hypotheses of James Clerk Maxwell about the nature of electricity and magnetism led to a tempting assumption about the absolute nature of space and time. Einstein's theory of relativity replaced these convenient absolute quantities with counterintuitive and philosophically untrustworthy relative quantities. The main reason that forced us to admit the existence of relativity was the agreement of the predictions of this theory with experimental data.

Despite the prevalence of a particular idea, the fame of supporters of a theory, the unattractiveness of a new theory, the political views of the authors of ideas or the difficulty of understanding them, one thing remains unshakable: the supremacy of the data of experience.

The scientific method presented here is a rational reconstruction of how science actually works. Such an idealization naturally differs from what actually happens, for example, with a large number of participants, when the stages are separated by long periods of time. And yet we have the opportunity to see a lot.

There are a number of difficulties to consider here. First of all, science makes several philosophical assumptions that some philosophers disagree with. Science admits the existence of an objective reality that does not depend on the observer. Otherwise, without such objectivity, the same observations and experiments repeated in different laboratories could differ, and then it would be impossible for researchers to come to agreement. Further, science believes that the Universe is governed by certain immutable laws, and man is able to comprehend these laws. If the laws governing the Universe are uncertain or we are unable to comprehend them, all the efforts of science to put forward any hypotheses will be in vain. But as our understanding of these laws seems to be increasing, and the predictions based on them are being confirmed by experiments, such assumptions seem quite reasonable.

Scientific hypotheses are constructed in connection with events that occur over a long period of time, including past events that cannot be verified by experience. Usually this difficulty is avoided by putting forward cross-hypotheses from various branches of knowledge in search of mutual agreement. For example, the estimated age of the Earth at more than 4 billion years is supported by astronomical calculations of helium content in the interior of the Sun, geological measurements of plate tectonics, and biological observations of the growth of coral deposits.

When explaining a certain event - especially in the absence of experimental data for some phenomena (for example, about a distant past that had no chroniclers, or about inaccessible corners of the Universe) - several hypotheses may be put forward at once. The delicate situation, when many hypotheses cannot be confirmed experimentally, is resolved on the basis of the principle of scientific frugality [lat. principium parsimoniae], called Occam's razor.

English philosopher William of Ockham [a place in the English county of Surrey] (1285–1349) was a Franciscan monk and often used the medieval maxim in his philosophical writings: “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” The military gave this rule a simpler and more direct expression: KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid, or Keep It Short and Sweet. In any case, it serves as a guide in the absence of experimental data. If there are several hypotheses and it is impossible to conduct experiments that would allow one to choose between them, they stop at the simplest one.

Experience proves the correctness of this approach. For example, in 1971, the Uhur X-ray probe unexpectedly detected a powerful X-ray stream from the constellation Cygnus, designated Cygnus X -1. There was no visible source of this radiation, which seemed to come from a void near the supergiant star HDE 226868, 8 thousand light years away from Earth. (For an explanation of the HDE designation, see: List of Ideas, 14. Compilation of star catalogs.) According to one hypothesis, the culprit was the invisible companion of the star HDE 226868. This ghost attracted the mass that HDE 226868 expelled from itself. When this material was pulled in by the invisible satellite, its temperature increased to such an extent that the satellite began to emit radio waves. Another hypothesis called for at least two invisible bodies interacting with HDE 226868 - an ordinary star, invisible due to its fading, and a rotating neutron star (the core of a star that, after completing its allotted life, collapses into a ball consisting of neutrons), called a pulsar. These three bodies, located in a certain way, could be the sources of the observed radio emission.

The remoteness of Cygnus X -1 does not allow direct verification, especially since this radiation itself occurred 8 thousand years ago. Then which of the competing hypotheses is true? According to experimental data - both. But, using Occam's razor, we see that a simpler explanation limited to one celestial body is best suited here. Thus, Cygnus X-1 became the first recorded example of an invisible satellite known as a black hole. Subsequently, under similar circumstances, more than 30 such objects were discovered.

The Occam's Razor principle comes into play only in the absence of experimental confirmation. Its task is to help select the simplest hypothesis that is consistent with observations. However, it cannot exclude other hypotheses that are supported by even more complex data. After all, it is not capable of replacing the confirmation received in experience. Naturally, Occam's razor is inferior to detailed experimental data, but sometimes this is the only thing we have.

Now, having understood how science fits into human mental activity and how it functions, we can see that its openness allows us to go in various ways to a more complete comprehension of the Universe. New phenomena arise about which hypotheses remain silent, and in order to break it, new hypotheses are put forward, full of fresh ideas. Based on them, predictions are refined. New experimental equipment is being created. All this activity leads to the emergence of hypotheses that more accurately reflect the behavior of the Universe. And all this for the sake of one goal - to understand the Universe in all its diversity.

Scientific hypotheses can be considered as answers to questions about the structure of the Universe. Our task is to study the five largest problems that have not been solved to date. The word “largest” refers to problems that have far-reaching consequences, are the most important for our further understanding, or have the most significant applied significance. We will limit ourselves to one major unsolved problem, taken from each of the five branches of natural science, and will try to describe how their solution can be accelerated. Of course, the sciences about man and society, the humanities and applied ones, have their own unresolved problems (for example, the nature of consciousness), but this issue is beyond the scope of this book.

Here are the largest unsolved problems we selected in each of the five branches of natural science and what guided our choice.

Physics. The motion-related properties of body mass (velocity, acceleration and torque, along with kinetic and potential energy) are well known to us. And the nature of the mass itself, inherent in many, but not all elementary particles of the Universe, is not clear to us. The biggest unsolved problem in physics is: why do some particles have [rest] mass and others do not?

Chemistry. The study of chemical reactions of living and nonliving bodies is carried out widely and very successfully. The biggest unsolved problem in chemistry is: what kind of chemical reactions pushed atoms to form the first living beings?

Biology. Recently it was possible to obtain the genome, or molecular blueprint, of many living organisms. Genomes carry information about the common proteins, or proteome, of living organisms. The biggest unsolved problem in biology is: what is the structure and purpose of the proteome?

Geology. The plate tectonics model satisfactorily describes the consequences of the interaction of the Earth's upper shells. But atmospheric phenomena, especially weather types, seem to defy attempts to create models that lead to reliable forecasts. The biggest unsolved problem in geology is: is accurate long-term weather forecast possible?

Astronomy. Although many sides common device The universe is well known, but there is still much that is unclear in its development. The recent discovery that the rate of expansion of the Universe is increasing leads to the idea that it will expand indefinitely. The biggest unsolved problem in astronomy is: why is the universe expanding at an ever-increasing rate?

Many other interesting questions related to these problems will arise along the way, and some of them may themselves become major ones in the future. About it we're talking about in the final section of the book: “List of Ideas.”

William Harvey, an English physician of the 17th century who determined the nature of blood circulation, said: “Everything that we know is infinitely small compared with what we do not yet know” [Anatomical Study of the Movement of the Heart and Blood in Animals, 1628]. And this is true, since questions are multiplying faster than they can be answered. As the space illuminated by science expands, the darkness surrounding it also increases.

Notes:

The oldest national laboratory named after. Lawrence Berkeley, founded by cyclotron inventor Ernst Orlando Lawrence in 1931. Operated by the US Department of Energy

Occam's razor - the principle that everything should be sought for the simplest interpretation; Most often this principle is formulated as follows: “Unnecessarily one should not assert many things” (pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate) or: “What can be explained by means of less should not be expressed by means of more” (frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora ). The formulation usually cited by historians, “Entities should not be multiplied without necessity” (entia non sunt multiplicandasine necessitate), is not found in Occam’s writings (these are the words of Durand of Saint-Pourcin, c. 1270–1334, a French theologian and Dominican monk; a very similar expression appears for the first time found in the French Franciscan monk Odo Rigaud, ca. 1205–1275).

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]

We found an explanation for the Pioneer effect. Should I remove it from the list now? Russians are coming! 20:55, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

There are many explanations for the effect, none of them are this moment generally recognized. 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 need to wait. Russians are coming! 05:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

particle physics[edit code]

Generations of matter:

Why three generations of particles are needed is still not completely clear. The hierarchy of coupling constants and masses of these particles is not clear. It is not clear whether there are other generations besides these three. It is unknown whether there are other particles that we don't know about. It's 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 already been found. --195.248.94.136 10:51, September 6, 2012 (UTC)

While physicists are cautious with conclusions, perhaps he is not alone there, different 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, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

Neutrino mass[edit code]

It has been known for a long time. But the section is called Problems solved over the past decades - it seems that the problem was solved not so long ago, after the portals on the list.--Arbnos 14:15, July 2, 2013 (UTC)

Horizon problem[edit code]

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

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

Laws of aerohydrodynamics[edit code]

I propose to add one more unsolved problem to the list - even one related to classical mechanics, which is usually considered completely studied and simple. The problem of a sharp discrepancy between the theoretical laws of aerohydrodynamics and experimental data. The results of simulations performed using Euler's equations do not correspond to the results obtained in wind tunnels. As a result, in aerohydrodynamics there are currently no working systems of equations that could be used to make aerodynamic calculations. There are a number of empirical equations that describe experiments well only within 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 they have long made do only with accurate calculations, without then re-checking 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, the models are simply extremely complex. --Renju player 15:28, November 1, 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense [edit code]

Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete?

The question is very poorly formulated. Spacetime is either continuous or discrete. So far, modern physics cannot answer this question. This is the problem. But in this formulation, something completely different is asked: here both options are taken as a single 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 this? You can't phrase the question like that. Apparently, the author retold Ginzburg poorly. And what is meant by “ fundamentally"? >> Kron7 10:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Can be restated as “Is space continuous or is it discrete?” This formulation seems to exclude the meaning of the question given by you. 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 empty

Inertial mass/gravitational mass ratio for elementary particles In accordance with the principle of equivalence of the general theory of relativity, the ratio of inertial mass to gravitational mass for all elementary particles is equal to unity. 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 should we understand this proposal? >> Kron7 14:19, September 10, 2013 (UTC)

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

Well, what’s unclear? And we need to ask the question: how does space differ from 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, hydrodynamic methods are actively used in cosmology, in the study of 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 they are in abundance. In general, let's be more careful in separating the warm and the 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 hypothesis of minus matter. This hypothesis is purely mathematical: mass can have a negative value. 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 minus matter. --Yakov 176.49.185.224 07:08, November 9, 2013 (UTC)

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

Superconductivity[edit code]

What are the problems with the BCS, what is written in the article about the lack of “a completely satisfactory microscopic theory of superconductivity”? The reference is to a textbook from the 1963 edition, a slightly outdated source for an article on modern problems in physics. I'm removing this passage for now. --Renju player 08:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Cold fusion[edit code]

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

Copy [edit code]

Copy of the 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 STR, there is no absolute time, so the question about the age of the Universe (and even about the future of the Universe) makes no 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 is the surprising fact that (so far) all fundamental theories are expressed through the Hamiltonian formalism?

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

3. Problem biological evolution Is it 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 are "space" and "time"? How do massive bodies “bend” space and affect time? How does “curved” space interact with bodies, causing universal gravity, and photons, changing their trajectory? And what does entropy have to do with it? (Explanation. General relativity provides formulas by which one can, for example, calculate relativistic corrections for the clocks of the global navigation satellite system, but it does not even pose the listed 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 for discussion. That’s why I asked here, a well-known unsolved problem, more well-known in society than most of the article (in my subjective opinion). Even children are told about it for educational purposes: in Moscow, at the Experimentarium, there is a separate stand with this effect. Those who disagree, please respond. Jukier (obs.) 06:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• • Everything is simple here. “Serious” scientific journals 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 influence anything. Polemics are generally published in exceptional cases. Textbook authors try to avoid writing about what they do not understand. The encyclopedia is not a place for discussion. The VP rules require that the material of articles be based on AI, and that in disputes between participants a consensus must be reached. Neither of these requirements can be achieved in the case of the publication of an article on unsolved problems in physics. The Ranque tube is just a partial example of a larger problem. In theoretical meteorology the situation is more serious. The question of thermal equilibrium in the atmosphere is basic, 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. We are talking primarily about the equilibrium temperature gradient]

    Synodic period and rotation around the axis of the terrestrial planets. The Earth and Venus are turned with one side towards each other while they are on the same axis with the sun. Just like the 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 unsolved problem, then you can add it. - Alexey Kopylov 21:00, March 15, 2019 (UTC)

    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, meaning 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 problems are closely interrelated. For example, extra dimensions or supersymmetry can solve the hierarchy problem. It is believed that the complete theory of quantum gravity is capable of answering most of the listed questions (except for the problem of the island of stability).

    • 1. Quantum gravity. Is it possible for quantum mechanics and general theory relativity to be combined into a single self-consistent theory (perhaps quantum field theory)? Is spacetime continuous or is it discrete? Will the self-consistent theory use a hypothetical graviton or will it be entirely a product of the discrete structure of spacetime (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity for very small or very large scales or other extreme circumstances that arise 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 theory predicts? Does this radiation contain information about their internal structure, as suggested by gravity-gauge invariance duality, or not, as implied by 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 study their internal structure, if such a structure even exists? Is the law of conservation of baryon charge true inside a black hole? The proof of the principle of cosmic censorship, as well as the exact formulation of the conditions under which it is fulfilled, is unknown. 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, the collapse of which leads to the emergence of a black hole with a given mass, angular momentum and charge, is unknown. There is no known proof in the general case of the “no hair theorem” for a black hole.
    • 3. Dimension of space-time. Are there additional dimensions of space-time in nature besides the four we know? 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 true, according to which the physics of our “3+1”-dimensional space-time is equivalent to the physics on a hypersurface with a “2+1” dimension?
    • 4. Inflationary model of the Universe. Is the theory true? cosmic inflation, 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 " alternative histories" or "many worlds"? Are there "other" universes with physical laws resulting from alternative ways violation of apparent symmetry physical strength at high energies, located perhaps incredibly far away due to cosmic inflation? Could other universes influence ours, causing, for example, anomalies in the temperature distribution of the cosmic microwave background radiation? Is it justified to use the anthropic principle to solve global cosmological dilemmas?
    • 6. The principle of cosmic censorship and the hypothesis of chronology protection. Can singularities not hidden behind the event horizon, known as "naked singularities", arise from realistic initial conditions, or can some version of Roger Penrose's "cosmic censorship hypothesis" be proven that suggests this is impossible? IN Lately facts have appeared in favor of the inconsistency of the cosmic censorship hypothesis, which means that naked singularities should occur much more often than just as extremal solutions of the Kerr-Newman equations, however, conclusive evidence of this has not yet been presented. Likewise, there will be closed timelike curves that arise in some solutions of the equations of general relativity (and which imply the possibility of backward time travel) excluded by the theory of quantum gravity, which unifies general relativity with quantum mechanics, as suggested by Stephen's "chronology protection conjecture" Hawking?
    • 7. Time axis. What can phenomena that differ from each other by moving forward and backward in time tell us about the nature of time? How is time different from space? Why are CP violations 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 axis of time? Are there exceptions to the principle of causation? Is the past the only possible one? Is the present moment physically different from the past and future, or is it simply a result of the characteristics of consciousness? How did humans learn to negotiate what is the present moment? (See also below Entropy (time axis)).
    • 8. Locality. Are there non-local phenomena in quantum physics? If they exist, do they have limitations in the transfer of information, or: can energy and matter also move along a non-local path? Under what conditions are nonlocal phenomena observed? What does the presence or absence of nonlocal phenomena entail 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. The future of the Universe. Is the Universe heading towards a Big Freeze, a Big Rip, a Big Crunch or a Big Bounce? Is our Universe part of an endlessly repeating cyclic pattern?
    • 10. The problem of hierarchy. Why is gravity such a weak force? It becomes large only on the Planck scale, for particles with energies of the order of 10 19 GeV, which is much higher than the electroweak scale (in low energy physics the dominant energy is 100 GeV). Why are these scales so different from each other? What prevents electroweak-scale quantities, such as the mass of the Higgs boson, from receiving quantum corrections on scales on the order of Planck's? Is supersymmetry, extra dimensions, or just anthropic fine-tuning the solution to this problem?
    • 11. Magnetic monopole. Did particles - carriers of "magnetic charge" - exist in any past eras with higher energies? If so, are there any available today? (Paul Dirac showed that the presence of certain types of magnetic monopoles could explain charge quantization.)
    • 12. Proton decay and the Grand Unification. How can we 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 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 exist at all? Is there a theory that could explain the presence of mass in some quarks and leptons in individual generations based on first principles (Yukawa interaction theory)?
    • 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 now more matter being discovered in the Universe than antimatter? Which invisible forces were present at the dawn of the Universe, but disappeared from view during 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 do massless particles without spin not 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 structure of nucleons? What properties of strongly interacting matter does QCD predict? What controls 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 defines 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 nature nuclear forces, which binds protons and neutrons into stable nuclei and rare isotopes? What is the reason why simple particles combine into complex nuclei? What is the nature of neutron stars and dense nuclear matter? What is the origin of elements in space? What's happened nuclear reactions, which move stars and lead to their explosions?
    • 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 preferred interpretations? quantum mechanics? How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as quantum superposition of states and wave function collapse or quantum decoherence, lead to the reality we see? The same thing can be formulated using the measurement problem: what is the “measurement” 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 permanently destroy information about their previous states?
    • 23. The Theory of Everything (“Grand Unified Theories”). Is there a theory that explains the values ​​of all fundamental physical constants? Is there a theory that explains why the gauge invariance of the standard model 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 bound together so tightly 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 is it preserved in most observed processes?
    • 26. Physics of semiconductors. Quantum theory of semiconductors cannot accurately calculate a single constant of a semiconductor.
    • 27. The quantum physics. The exact solution of the Schrödinger equation for multielectron atoms is unknown.
    • 28. When solving the problem of scattering two beams on one obstacle, the scattering cross section turns out to be 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 physically existing? The problem may appear around element 137, where the expansion of nuclear charge distribution reaches its final point. See the article Extended Periodic Table of the Elements and the Relativistic effects section.
    • 30. Statistical physics. There is no systematic theory of irreversible processes that makes it possible to carry out quantitative calculations for any given physical process.
    • 31. Quantum electrodynamics. Are there gravitational effects caused by zero-point oscillations? electromagnetic field? It is not known how to simultaneously satisfy the conditions of finiteness of the result, relativistic invariance and the sum of all alternative probabilities equal to unity when calculating quantum electrodynamics in the high-frequency region.
    • 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 a substance, whether it will go into a superconducting state with decreasing temperature.

    Physics problems

    What is the nature of light?

    Light behaves like a wave in some cases, and like a particle in many others. The question is: what is he? Neither one nor the other. Particle and wave are just a simplified representation of the behavior of light. In reality, light is neither a particle nor a wave. Light turns out to be more complex than the image that these simplified ideas paint.

    What are the conditions inside black holes?

    Black holes discussed in Chap. 1 and 6 usually represent the collapsing cores of large stars that have experienced a supernova explosion. They have such a huge density that even light is not able to leave their depths. Due to the enormous internal compression of black holes, ordinary laws of physics do not apply to them. And since nothing can leave black holes, it is also impossible to conduct any experiments to test certain theories.

    

    How many dimensions are inherent in the Universe and is it possible to create a “theory of everything that exists”?

    As stated in Chap. 2, which attempts to displace the standard model theory, may eventually clarify the number of dimensions, as well as present us with a “theory of everything.” But don't let the name fool you. If the “theory of everything that exists” provides the key to understanding the nature of elementary particles, the impressive list of unsolved problems is a guarantee that such a theory will leave many more unanswered important issues. Like the rumors of Mark Twain's death, rumors of the demise of science with the advent of the "theory of everything" are greatly exaggerated.

    Is time travel possible?

    In theory, Einstein's general theory of relativity allows for such travel. However, the required impact on black holes and their theoretical cousins, “wormholes,” will require enormous amounts of energy, significantly exceeding our current technical capabilities. An explanatory description of time travel is given in Michio Kaku's books Hyperspace (1994) and Images (1997) and on the website http://mkaku. org

    Will gravitational waves be detected?

    Some observatories are looking for evidence of the existence of gravitational waves. If such waves can be found, these fluctuations in the space-time structure itself will indicate cataclysms occurring in the Universe, such as supernova explosions, collisions of black holes, and possibly still unknown events. For details, see W. Waite Gibbs's article "Spacetime Ripple."

    What is the lifetime of a proton?

    Some theories that do not fit the standard model (see Chapter 2) predict proton decay, and several detectors have been built to detect such decay. Although the decay itself has not yet been observed, the lower limit of the half-life of the proton is estimated at 10 32 years (significantly exceeding the age of the Universe). With the advent of more sensitive sensors, it may be possible to detect proton decay or the lower limit of its half-life will have to be pushed back.

    Are superconductors possible at high temperatures?

    Superconductivity occurs when the electrical resistance of a metal drops to zero. Under such conditions, established in the conductor electricity flows without losses that are characteristic of ordinary current when passing through conductors such as copper wire. The phenomenon of superconductivity was first observed at extremely low temperatures (just above absolute zero, - 273 °C). In 1986, scientists managed to make materials superconducting at the boiling point of liquid nitrogen (-196 °C), which already allowed the creation of industrial products. The mechanism of this phenomenon is not yet fully understood, but researchers are trying to achieve superconductivity at room temperature, which will reduce electricity losses.

    From the book Interesting about astronomy author Tomilin Anatoly Nikolaevich

    5. Problems of relativistic celestial navigation One of the most disgusting tests that a pilot, and now an astronaut, is subjected to, as shown in the movies, is the carousel. We, pilots of the recent past, once called it a “turntable” or “separator.” Those who don't

    From the book Five Unsolved Problems of Science by Wiggins Arthur

    Unsolved problems Now, having understood how science fits into human mental activity and how it functions, we can see that its openness allows us to go in various ways to a more complete comprehension of the Universe. New phenomena arise about which

    From the book The World in a Nutshell [ill. book-magazine] author Hawking Stephen William

    Problems of chemistry How does the composition of a molecule determine its appearance? Knowledge of the orbital structure of atoms in simple molecules makes it quite easy to determine appearance molecules. However, theoretical studies of the appearance of complex molecules, especially biologically important ones, have not yet been

    From the book History of the Laser author Bertolotti Mario

    Problems of biology How does a whole organism develop from one fertilized egg? This question, it seems, can be answered as soon as it is solved the main task from ch. 4: what is the structure and purpose of the proteome? Of course, each organism has its own

    From the book The Atomic Problem by Ran Philip

    Geological problems What causes big changes in the Earth's climate, like widespread warming and ice ages? Ice ages, characteristic of the Earth for the last 35 million years, occurred approximately every 100 thousand years. Glaciers advance and retreat throughout

    From the book Asteroid-Comet Hazard: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow author Shustov Boris Mikhailovich

    Problems of astronomy Are we alone in the Universe? Despite the lack of any experimental evidence of the existence of extraterrestrial life, there are plenty of theories on this subject, as well as attempts to detect news from distant civilizations. How do they evolve

    From the book The King's New Mind [On computers, thinking and the laws of physics] by Penrose Roger

    Unsolved problems of modern physics

    From the book Gravity [From crystal spheres to wormholes] author Petrov Alexander Nikolaevich

    Theoretical problems Insert from Wikipedia.Psychedelic - August 2013 Below is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics. Some of these problems are theoretical in nature, meaning that existing theories are unable to explain certain

    From the book Perpetual Motion. The story of an obsession by Ord-Hume Arthur

    CHAPTER 14 SOLUTION IN SEARCH OF A PROBLEM OR MANY PROBLEMS WITH THE SAME SOLUTION? APPLICATIONS OF LASERS In 1898, Mr. Wells imagined in his book The War of the Worlds the takeover of the Earth by Martians, who used death rays that could easily pass through bricks, burn forests, and

    From the book Ideal Theory [The Battle for General Relativity] by Ferreira Pedro

    II. Social side of the problem This side of the problem is, without a doubt, the most important and most interesting. In view of its great complexity, we will limit ourselves here to only the most general considerations.1. Changes in world economic geography. As we saw above, the cost

    From the author's book

    1.2. Astronomical aspect of the ACO problem The question of assessing the significance of the asteroid-comet hazard is associated, first of all, with our knowledge of the population of the Solar System with small bodies, especially those that can collide with the Earth. Astronomy provides such knowledge.

    From the author's book
    From the author's book
    From the author's book

    New problems of cosmology Let us return to the paradoxes of non-relativistic cosmology. Let us remember that the reason for the gravitational paradox is that to unambiguously determine the gravitational influence, either there are not enough equations, or there is no way to correctly set

    From the author's book
    From the author's book

    Chapter 9. Unification Problems In 1947, freshly graduated from graduate school, Brice DeWitt met with Wolfgang Pauli and told him that he was working on quantizing the gravitational field. Devitt did not understand why the two great concepts of the 20th century - quantum physics and general theory

    Ecology of life. In addition to standard logical problems like “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, does it make a sound?”, countless riddles

    Besides standard logic problems like “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears, does it make a sound?”, countless mysteries continue to excite the minds of people involved in all disciplines of modern science and the humanities.

    Questions like “is there a universal definition of “word”?”, “does color exist physically or does it only appear in our minds?” and “what is the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow?” don't let people sleep. We collected these questions in all areas: medicine, physics, biology, philosophy and mathematics, and decided to ask them to you. Can you answer?

    Why do cells commit suicide?

    The biochemical event known as apoptosis is sometimes called “programmed cell death” or “cellular suicide.” For reasons that science does not fully understand, cells have the ability to "decide to die" in a very organized and expected manner, which is completely different from necrosis (cell death caused by disease or injury). An estimated 50-80 billion cells die as a result of programmed cell death in the human body every day, but the mechanism behind them, and even the intent itself, are not fully understood.

    On the one hand, too much programmed cell death leads to muscle atrophy and muscle weakness, on the other hand, the lack of proper apoptosis allows cells to proliferate, which can lead to cancer. The general concept of apoptosis was first described by the German scientist Karl Vogt in 1842. Since then, considerable progress has been made in understanding this process, but there is still no full explanation for it.

    Computational theory of consciousness

    Some scientists equate the activity of the mind with the way a computer processes information. Thus, in the mid-60s, the computational theory of consciousness was developed, and man began to fight the machine in earnest. Simply put, think of your brain as a computer and your mind as the operating system that runs it.

    If you dive into the context of computer science, the analogy is simple: in theory, programs produce data based on a series of input information (external stimuli, sight, sound, etc.) and memory (which can be considered both a physical hard drive and our psychological memory) . Programs are controlled by algorithms that have a finite number of steps that are repeated according to various inputs. Like the brain, a computer must make representations of what it cannot physically calculate - and this is one of the strongest arguments in favor of this theory.

    However, computational theory differs from the representational theory of consciousness in that not all states are representational (like depression), and therefore will not be able to respond to computational influences. But this problem is philosophical: the computational theory of consciousness works fine until it comes to “reprogramming” brains that are depressed. We cannot reset ourselves to factory settings.

    The Hard Problem of Consciousness

    In philosophical dialogues, “consciousness” is defined as “qualia” and the problem of qualia will probably haunt humanity forever. Qualia describes individual manifestations of subjective conscious experience - for example, a headache. We have all experienced this pain, but there is no way to measure whether we experienced the same headache, or whether the experience was the same, because the experience of pain is based on our perception of it.

    Although many scientific attempts have been made to define consciousness, no one has ever developed a generally accepted theory. Some philosophers have questioned the very possibility of this.

    Getye's problem

    Goethier's problem is: “Is a justified true belief knowledge?” This logic puzzle is one of the most vexing because it requires us to think about whether truth is a universal constant. She also raises a lot of thought experiments and philosophical arguments, including “justified true belief”:

    Subject A knows that proposition B is true if and only if:

    B is true

    and A believes that B is true,

    and A is convinced that the belief that B is true is justified.

    Problem critics like Goethier believe that it is impossible to justify anything that is not true (since “truth” is considered a concept that elevates an argument to an immutable status). It is difficult to define not only what it means for someone to be true, but also what it means to believe that it is true. And it has had a major impact on everything from forensics to medicine.

    Are all the colors in our heads?

    One of the most complex aspects of human experience remains the perception of color: do physical objects in our world actually have a color that we recognize and process, or does the process of imparting color occur entirely in our heads?

    We know that colors owe their existence to different wavelengths, but when it comes to our perception of color, our general nomenclature and simple fact that our heads would probably explode if we suddenly encountered a never-before-seen color in our universal palette, an idea that continues to amaze scientists, philosophers, and everyone else.

    What is dark matter?

    Astrophysicists know what dark matter is not, but they are not at all happy with this definition: although we cannot see it even with the most powerful telescopes, we know that there is more of it in the Universe than ordinary matter. It does not absorb or emit light, but the difference in the gravitational effects of large bodies (planets, etc.) has led scientists to believe that something invisible plays a role in their movement.

    The theory, first proposed in 1932, boiled down largely to the problem of “missing mass.” The existence of black matter remains unproven, but science community forced to accept its existence as a fact, whatever it is.

    Sunrise problem

    What is the probability that the sun will rise tomorrow? Philosophers and statisticians have been asking this question for millennia, trying to come up with an irrefutable formula for this daily event. This question is intended to demonstrate the limitations of probability theory. The difficulty arises when we begin to think that there are many differences between one person's prior knowledge, humanity's prior knowledge, and the universe's prior knowledge of whether the sun will rise.

    If p is the long-term frequency of sunrises, and to p a uniform probability distribution is applied, then the value p increases every day when the sun actually rises and we see (the individual, humanity, the Universe) that it is happening.

    137 element

    Named after Richard Feynman, the proposed final element periodic table Mendeleev's "Feynmanium" is a theoretical element that may become the last possible element; to move beyond #137, elements will have to move faster speed Sveta. It has been suggested that elements above #124 would not be stable enough to survive for more than a few nanoseconds, meaning that an element such as Feynmanium would be destroyed by spontaneous fission before it could be studied.

    What's even more interesting is that number 137 was chosen to honor Feynman for a reason; he believed that this number had a deep meaning, since “1/137 = almost exactly the value of the so-called fine structure constant, a dimensionless quantity that determines the strength of electromagnetic interaction.”

    The big question remains whether such an element can exist beyond the purely theoretical and will this happen in our lifetime?

    Is there a universal definition of the word “word”?

    In linguistics, a word is a small statement that can have some meaning: in a practical or literal sense. A morpheme, which is slightly smaller, but with the help of which it is still possible to convey meaning, unlike a word, cannot stand alone. You can say “-stvo” and understand what it means, but it’s unlikely that a conversation made from such scraps will make sense.

    Every language in the world has its own lexicon, which is divided into lexemes, which are forms of individual words. Lexemes are extremely important for a language. But again, in a more general sense, the smallest unit of speech remains the word, which can stand alone and have meaning; True, there remain problems with the definition of, for example, particles, prepositions and conjunctions, since they do not have a special meaning outside the context, although they remain words in the general sense.

    Million Dollar Paranormal Powers

    Since it began in 1964, approximately 1,000 people have taken part in the Paranormal Challenge, but no one has ever won a prize. The James Randi Educational Foundation is offering a million dollars to anyone who can scientifically prove supernatural or paranormal abilities. Over the years, a lot of mediums have tried to prove themselves, but they were categorically refused. For everything to be successful, the applicant must obtain approval from an educational institute or other organization of the appropriate level.

    Although none of the 1,000 applicants could prove observable psychic paranormal abilities that could be scientifically attested, Randy said that "very few" of the contestants felt that their failure was due to a lack of talent. For the most part, everyone attributed failure to nervousness.

    The problem is that hardly anyone will ever win this competition. If someone has supernatural powers, it means that they cannot be explained by natural science. Do you get it? published