Unsolved problems. What problems of physics and astrophysics seem especially important and interesting now, on the threshold of the 21st century?
Issues:
* Aleksandrov E.B., Khvostenko G.I., Chaika M.P. Interference of atomic states. (1991)
* Alikhanov A.I. Weak interactions. Latest research on beta decay. (1960)
* Allen L., Jones D. Fundamentals of gas laser physics. (1970)
* Alpert Ya.L. Waves and artificial bodies in surface plasma. (1974)
* (1988)
* Andreev I.V. Chromodynamics and hard processes at high energies. (1981)
* Anisimov M.A. Critical phenomena in liquids and liquid crystals. (1987)
* Arakelyan S.M., Chilingaryan Yu.S. Nonlinear optics of liquid crystals. (1984)
* (1969)
* Akhmanov S.A., Vysloukh V.A., Chirkin A.S. Optics of femotosecond laser pulses. (1988)
* (1981)
* (1962)
* Bakhvalov N.S., Zhileikin Ya.M., Zabolotskaya E.A. and others. Nonlinear theory of sound beams. (1982)
* Belov K.P., Belyanchikova M.A., Levitin R.Z., Nikitin S.A. Rare earth ferromagnets and antiferromagnets. (1965)
* Butykin V.S., Kaplan A.E., Khronopulo Yu.G., Yakubovich E.I. Resonant interactions of light with matter. (1977)
* (1970)
* Bresler S.E. Radioactive elements. (1949)
* Brodsky A.M., Gurevich Yu.Ya. Theory of electron emission from metals. (1973)
* Bugakov V.V. Diffusion in metals and alloys. (1949)
* Vavilov V.S., Gippius A.A., Konorova E.A. Electronic and optical processes in diamond. (1985)
* Weissenberg A.O. Mu meson. (1964)
* (1968)
* Vasiliev V.A., Romanovsky Yu.M., Yakhno V.G. Autowave processes. (1987)
* (1986)
* (1988)
* (1984)
* Vonsovsky S.V. Modern doctrine of magnetism. (1952)
* (1969)
* Vonsovsky S.V. and others. Ferromagnetic resonance. The phenomenon of resonant absorption of high frequency electromagnetic field in ferromagnetic substances. (1961)
* (1981)
* Geilikman B.T., Kresin V.Z. Kinetic and non-stationary phenomena in superconductors. (1972)
* Goetze V. Phase transitions liquid-glass. (1992)
* (1975)
* Ginzburg V.L., Rukhadze A.A. Waves in magnetically active plasma. (1970)
* Ginzburg S.L. Irreversible phenomena in spin glasses. (1989)
* Grinberg A.P. Methods for accelerating charged particles. (1950)
* Gurbatov S.N., Malakhov A.N., Saichev A.I. Nonlinear random waves in media without dispersion. (1990)
* Gurevich Yu.Ya., Kharkats Yu.I. Superionic conductors. (1992)
* Dorfman Ya.G. Magnetic properties atomic nucleus. (1948)
* Dorfman Ya.G. Diamagnetism and chemical bond. (1961)
* Zhevandrov N.D. Optical anisotropy and energy migration in molecular crystals. (1987)
* (1970)
* (1984)
* (1972)
* Kerner B.S., Osipov V.V. Autosolitons: Localized highly nonequilibrium regions in homogeneous dissipative systems. (1991)
* (1985)
* Klyatskin V.I. Immersion method in the theory of wave propagation. (1986)
* Klyatskin V.I. Statistical description of dynamic systems with fluctuating parameters. (1975)
* Korsunsky M.I. Abnormal photoconductivity. (1972)
* Kulik I.O., Yanson I.K. Josephson effect in superconducting tunnel structures. (1970)
* Likharev K.K. Introduction to the dynamics of Josephson junctions. (1985)
* Beam approximation and issues of radio wave propagation. (1971) Collection
* (1958)
* (1967)
* Minogin V.G., Letokhov V.S. Pressure of a laser beam on atoms. (1986)
* Mikhailov I.G. Propagation of ultrasonic waves in liquids. (1949)
* Neutrino. (1970) Collection
* General principles quantum theory fields and their consequences. (1977) Collection
* Ostashev V.E. Propagation of sound in moving media. (1992)
* Pavlenko V.N., Sitenko A.G. Echo phenomena in plasma and plasma-like media. (1988)
* Patashinsky A.Z., Pokrovsky V.L. Fluctuation theory of phase transitions. (1975)
* Pushkarov D.I. Defectons in crystals: The quasiparticle method in the quantum theory of defects. (1993)
* Rick G.R. Mass spectroscopy. (1953)
* Superconductivity: Sat. Art. (1967)
* Sena L.A. Collisions of electrons and ions with gas atoms. (1948)
* (1960)
* (1964)
* Smilga V.P., Belousov Yu.M. Muon method for studying matter. (1991)
* Smirnov B.M. Complex ions. (1983)
* (1988)
* (1991)
* Stepanyants Yu.A., Fabrikant A.L. Wave propagation in shear flows. (1996)
* Tverskoy B.A. Dynamics of the Earth's radiation belts. (1968)
* Turov E.A. - Physical properties magnetically ordered crystals. phenomenol. Theory of spin waves in ferromagnets and antiferromagnets. (1963)
* (1972)
* (1961)
* Photoconductivity. (1967) Collection
* Frisch S.E. Spectroscopic determination of nuclear moments. (1948)
* (1965)
* Khriplovich I.B. Non-conservation of parity in atomic phenomena. (1981)
* Chester J. Theory of irreversible processes. (1966)
* Shikin V.B., Monarcha Yu.P. Two-dimensional charged systems in helium. (1989)
Any physical theory that contradicts
human existence is obviously false.
P. Davis
What we need is a Darwinian view of physics, an evolutionary view of physics, a biological view of physics.
I. Prigogine
Until 1984, most scientists believed in the theory supersymmetry (supergravity, superforces) . Its essence is that all particles (particles of matter, gravitons, photons, bosons and gluons) - different types one “superparticle”.
This “superparticle” or “superforce”, with decreasing energy, appears to us in different guises, as strong and weak interactions, as electromagnetic and gravitational forces. But today the experiment has not yet reached the energies to test this theory (a cyclotron the size of the solar system is needed), but testing on a computer would take more than 4 years. S. Weinberg believes that physics is entering an era when experiments are no longer able to shed light on fundamental problems (Davis 1989; Hawking 1990: 134; Nalimov 1993: 16).
In the 80s becomes popular string theory . A book with a characteristic title was published in 1989, edited by P. Davis and J. Brown Superstrings: The Theory of Everything ? According to the theory, microparticles are not point objects, but thin pieces of string, determined by their length and openness. Particles are waves running along strings, like waves on a rope. The emission of a particle is a connection, the absorption of a carrier particle is separation. The Sun acts on the Earth through a graviton running along a string (Hawking 1990: 134-137).
Quantum field theory placed our thoughts about the nature of matter in a new context, and resolved the problem of emptiness. She forced us to shift our gaze from what “can be seen,” that is, particles, to what is invisible, that is, the field. The presence of matter is just an excited state of the field at a given point. Having come to the concept of a quantum field, physics found the answer to the old question of what matter consists of - atoms or the continuum that underlies everything. The field is a continuum that permeates the entire Pr, which, nevertheless, has an extended, as if “granular”, structure in one of its manifestations, that is, in the form of particles. The quantum field theory of modern physics has changed ideas about forces and helps in solving the problems of singularity and emptiness:
in subatomic physics there are no forces acting at a distance, they are replaced by interactions between particles that occur through fields, that is, other particles, not force, but interaction;
it is necessary to abandon the opposition between “material” particles and emptiness; particles are associated with Pr and cannot be considered in isolation from it; particles influence the structure of the Pr; they are not independent particles, but rather clots in an infinite field that permeates the entire Pr;
our Universe is born from singularity, vacuum instability;
the field exists always and everywhere: it cannot disappear. The field is a conductor for all material phenomena. This is the “emptiness” from which the proton creates π-mesons. The appearance and disappearance of particles are just forms of field movement. Field theory states that the birth of particles from vacuum and the transformation of particles into vacuum occur constantly. Most physicists consider the discovery of the dynamic essence and self-organization of vacuum to be one of the most important achievements of modern physics (Capra 1994: 191-201).
But there are also unsolved problems: ultra-precise self-consistency of vacuum structures has been discovered, through which the parameters of micro-particles are expressed. Vacuum structures must be matched to the 55th decimal place. Behind this self-organization of the vacuum there are laws of a new type unknown to us. The anthropic principle 35 is a consequence of this self-organization, superpower.
S-matrix theory describes hadrons, the key concept of the theory was proposed by W. Heisenberg, on this basis scientists built a mathematical model to describe strong interactions. The S-matrix got its name because the entire set of hadronic reactions was represented in the form of an infinite sequence of cells, which in mathematics is called a matrix. The letter “S” is preserved from the full name of this matrix – the scattering matrix (Capra 1994: 232-233).
An important innovation of this theory is that it shifts the emphasis from objects to events; it is not particles that are studied, but the reactions of particles. According to Heisenberg, the world is divided not into different groups of objects, but into different groups of mutual transformations. All particles are understood as intermediate steps in a network of reactions. For example, a neutron turns out to be a link in a huge network of interactions, a network of “interlacing events.” Interactions in such a network cannot be determined with 100% accuracy. They can only be assigned probabilistic characteristics.
In a dynamic context, the neutron can be considered as the “bound state” of the proton (p) and pion () from which it was formed, as well as the bound state of the particles and that are formed as a result of its decay. Hadronic reactions are a flow of energy in which particles appear and “disappear” (Capra 1994: 233-249).
Further development of the S-matrix theory led to the creation bootstrap hypothesis , which was put forward by J. Chu. According to the bootstrap hypothesis, none of the properties of any part of the Universe is fundamental; all of them are determined by the properties of other parts of the network, the general structure of which is determined by the universal consistency of all relationships.
This theory denies fundamental entities (“building blocks” of matter, constants, laws, equations); the Universe is understood as a dynamic network of interconnected events.
Unlike most physicists, Chu does not dream of a single decisive discovery; he sees his task as slowly and gradually creating a network of interrelated concepts, none of which are more fundamental than the others. In bootstrap particle theory there is no continuous Pr-Vr. Physical reality is described in terms of isolated events, causally related, but not included in the continuous Pr-Vr. The bootstrap hypothesis is so alien to traditional thinking that it is accepted by a minority of physicists. Most look for the fundamental constituents of matter (Capra 1994: 258-277, 1996: 55-57).
Theories of atomic and subatomic physics revealed the fundamental interconnectedness of various aspects of the existence of matter, discovering that energy can be converted into mass, and suggesting that particles are processes rather than objects.
Although the search for the elementary components of matter continues to this day, another direction is presented in physics, based on the fact that the structure of the universe cannot be reduced to any fundamental, elementary, finite units (fundamental fields, “elementary” particles). Nature should be understood in self-consistency. This idea arose in line with the S-matrix theory, and later formed the basis of the bootstrap hypothesis (Nalimov 1993: 41-42; Capra 1994: 258-259).
Chu hoped to carry out a synthesis of the principles of quantum theory, the theory of relativity (the concept of macroscopic Pr-Vr), the characteristics of observation and measurement based on the logical coherence of his theory. A similar program was developed by D. Bohm and created theory of implicit order . He introduced the term cold movement , which is used to denote the basis of material entities and takes into account both unity and motion. Bohm's starting point is the concept of “indivisible wholeness.” The cosmic fabric has an implicit, folded order that can be described using the analogy of a hologram, in which each part contains the whole. If you illuminate each part of the hologram, the entire image will be restored. Some semblance of implicative order is common to both consciousness and matter, so it can facilitate communication between them. In consciousness, perhaps, the entire material world is collapsed(Bohm 1993: 11; Capra 1996: 56)!
The concepts of Chu and Bom involve the inclusion of consciousness in the general connection of all things. Taken to their logical conclusion, they provide that the existence of consciousness, along with the existence of all other aspects of nature, is necessary for the self-consistency of the whole (Capra 1994: 259, 275).
So philosophical mind-matter problem (the problem of the observer, the problem of the connection between the semantic and physical worlds) becomes a serious problem in physics, “eluding” philosophers, this can be judged on the basis of:
revival of the ideas of panpsychism in an attempt to explain the behavior of microparticles, R. Feynman writes 36 that the particle “decides,” “reconsiders,” “sniffs,” “senses,” “goes the right path” (Feynman et al. 1966: 109);
the impossibility of separating subject and object in quantum mechanics (W. Heisenberg);
the strong anthropic principle in cosmology, which presupposes the conscious creation of life and man (D. Carter);
hypotheses about weak forms of consciousness, cosmic consciousness (Nalimov 1993: 36-37, 61-64).
Physicists are trying to include consciousness in the picture of the physical world. In the book by P. Davis, J. Brown Spirit in an atom talks about the role of the measurement process in quantum mechanics. Observation instantly changes the state of a quantum system. A change in the mental state of the experimenter enters into feedback with laboratory equipment and, , with a quantum system, changing its state. According to J. Jeans, nature and our mathematically thinking mind work according to the same laws. V.V. Nalimov finds parallels in the description of two worlds, physical and semantic:
unpacked physical vacuum – the possibility of spontaneous particle creation;
unpacked semantic vacuum – the possibility of spontaneous birth of texts;
the unpacking of the vacuum is the birth of particles and the creation of texts (Nalimov1993:54-61).
V.V. Nalimov wrote about the problem of fragmentation of science. It will be necessary to free ourselves from the locality of the description of the universe, in which the scientist becomes preoccupied with studying a certain phenomenon only within the framework of his narrow specialty. There are processes that occur in a similar way at different levels of the Universe and require a single, end-to-end description (Nalimov 1993: 30).
But so far the modern physical picture of the world is fundamentally incomplete: the most difficult problem in physics is the problem of combining particular theories, for example, the theory of relativity does not include the uncertainty principle, the theory of gravity is not included in the theory of 3 interactions, and in chemistry the structure of the atomic nucleus is not taken into account.
The problem of combining 4 types of interactions within one theory has not been solved either. Until the 30s. believed that there are 2 types of forces at the macro level - gravitational and electromagnetic, but discovered weak and strong nuclear interactions. The world inside the proton and neutron was discovered (the energy threshold is higher than in the center of stars). Will other “elementary” particles be discovered?
The problem of unifying physical theories is related to the problem of achieving high energies . With the help of accelerators, it is unlikely that it will be possible to build a bridge across the gap between the Planck energy (higher than 10 18 giga electron volts) and what is being achieved today in the laboratory in the foreseeable future.
In mathematical models of supergravity theory, there arises problem of infinities . The equations describing the behavior of microparticles yield infinite numbers. There is another aspect of this problem - old philosophical questions: is the world in Pr-Vr finite or infinite? If the Universe is expanding from a singularity of Planck dimensions, then where is it expanding - into the void or is the matrix stretching? What surrounded the singularity - this infinitely small point before the onset of inflation or did our world “split off” from the Megaverse?
In string theories, infinities are also preserved, but arises problem of multidimensionality Pr-Vr, for example, an electron is a small vibrating string of Planck length in a 6-dimensional and even 27-dimensional Pr. There are other theories according to which our Pr is actually not 3-dimensional, but, for example, 10-dimensional. It is assumed that in all directions except 3 (x, y, z), Pr is, as it were, rolled up into a very thin tube, “compactified”. Therefore, we can only move in 3 different, independent directions, and Pr appears to us to be 3-dimensional. But why, if there are other measures, were only 3 PR and 1 VR measures deployed? S. Hawking illustrates travel in different dimensions with the example of a donut: the 2-dimensional path along the surface of the donut is longer than the path through the third, volumetric dimension (Linde 1987: 5; Hawking 1990: 138).
Another aspect of the problem of multidimensionality is the problem of others, not one-dimensional worlds for us. Are there parallel Universes 37 that are not one-dimensional for us, and, finally, can there be other forms of life and intelligence that are not one-dimensional for us? String theory allows for the existence of other worlds in the Universe, the existence of 10- or 26-dimensional Pr-Vr. But if there are other measures, why don’t we notice them?
In physics and throughout science there arises the problem of creating a universal language : Our ordinary concepts cannot be applied to the structure of the atom. In the abstract artificial language of physics, mathematics, processes, patterns of modern physics Not are described. What do such particle characteristics as “charmed” or “strange” quark flavors or “schizoid” particles mean? This is one of the conclusions of the book Tao of Physics F. Capra. What is the way out: to return to agnosticism, Eastern mystical philosophy?
Heisenberg believed: mathematical schemes more adequately reflect experiment than artificial language; ordinary concepts cannot be applied to the structure of the atom; Born wrote about the problem of symbols for reflecting real processes (Heisenberg 1989: 104-117).
Maybe try to calculate the basic matrix of natural language (thing - connection - property and attribute), something that will be invariant to any articulations and, without criticizing the diversity of artificial languages, try to “force” one to speak one common natural language? The strategic role of synergetics and philosophy in solving the problem of creating a universal language of science is discussed in the article Dialectical philosophy and synergetics (Fedorovich 2001: 180-211).
Creation of a single physical theory and the theory of UI, the unified E of man and nature is extremely challenging task Sciences. One of the most important questions in modern philosophy of science is: is our future predetermined and what is our role? If we are part of nature, can we play some role in shaping the world that is under construction?
If the Universe is one, then can there be a unified theory of reality? S. Hawking considers 3 answer options.
A unified theory exists, and we will create it someday. I. Newton thought so; M. Born in 1928, after P. Dirac’s discovery of the equation for the electron, wrote: physics will end in six months.
Theories are constantly refined and improved. From the standpoint of evolutionary epistemology, scientific progress is the improvement of the cognitive competence of the species Homo Sapiens(K. Halweg). All scientific concepts and theories are only approximations to the true nature of reality, significant only for a certain range of phenomena. E scientific knowledge there is a succession of models, but no model is final.
The paradox of the evolutionary picture of the world has not yet been resolved: the downward direction of E in physics and the upward trend of complexity in biology. The incompatibility of physics and biology was discovered in the 19th century; today there is a possibility of resolving the physics-biology collision: an evolutionary consideration of the Universe as a whole, translation of the evolutionary approach into physics (Stopin, Kuznetsova 1994: 197-198; Khazen 2000).
I. Prigogine, whom E. Toffler in the preface of the book Order out of chaos called Newton of the twentieth century, spoke in one of his interviews about the need to introduce the ideas of irreversibility and history into physics. Classical science describes stability, balance, but there is another world - unstable, evolutionary, we need other words, different terminology, which did not exist in Newton's time. But even after Newton and Einstein, we do not have a clear formula for the essence of the world. Nature is a very complex phenomenon and we are an integral part of nature, part of the Universe, which is in constant self-development (Horgan 2001: 351).
Possible prospects for the development of physics the following: completion of the construction of a unified physical theory describing the 3-dimensional physical world and penetration into other Pr-Vr dimensions; study of new properties of matter, types of radiation, energy and speeds exceeding the speed of light (torsion radiation) and the discovery of the possibility of instantaneous movement in the Metagalaxy (a number of theoretical works have shown the possibility of the existence of topological tunnels connecting any regions of the Metagalaxy, MV); establishing a connection between the physical world and the semantic world, which V.V. tried to do. Nalimov (Gindilis 2001: 143-145).
But the main thing that physicists have to do is to include the evolutionary idea in their theories. In physics of the second half of the twentieth century. understanding of the complexity of micro- and mega-worlds is established. The idea of the E physical Universe also changes: there is no existing without arising . D. Horgan quotes the following words from I. Prigozhin: we are not the fathers of time. We are children of time. We appeared as a result of evolution. What we need to do is incorporate evolutionary models into our descriptions. What we need is a Darwinian view of physics, an evolutionary view of physics, a biological view of physics (Prigogine 1985; Horgan 2001: 353).
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
Beyond standard logic problems like “if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?”, countless mysteries continue to challenge the minds of people in all disciplines. modern science and 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). About 50-80 billion cells die as a result of programmed cell death in human body every day, but the mechanism behind them, and even this very intention, 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, imagine that your brain is a computer and your consciousness is operating system which controls it.
If we dive into the context of computer science, the analogy is simple: in theory, programs produce data based on a series of inputs ( 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 - e.g. 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 the scientific community is 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 of the periodic table "Feynmanium" is a theoretical element that may be the last possible element; to go beyond #137, the elements will have to move faster than the speed of light. 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 deep meaning, since “1/137 = almost exactly the value of the so-called fine structure constant, a dimensionless quantity that determines the strength of the 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
10 Unsolved Problems of Modern Physics
Below we provide a list unresolved problems modern physics.
Some of these problems are theoretical. It 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.
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 can answer most of these questions.
What will the end of the Universe be like?
The answer largely depends on dark energy, which remains an unknown member of the equation.
Dark energy is responsible for the accelerating expansion of the Universe, but its origin is a mystery shrouded in darkness. If dark energy is constant over time, we're likely to experience a "big freeze": The universe will continue to expand faster, and eventually galaxies will move so far apart that the current emptiness of space will seem like child's play.
If dark energy increases, the expansion will become so fast that the space not only between galaxies will increase, but also between stars, that is, the galaxies themselves will be torn apart; this option is called the "big gap".
Another scenario is that dark energy will decrease and can no longer counteract gravity, causing the Universe to collapse (the “big crunch”).
Well, the point is that, no matter how events unfold, we are doomed. Before that, however, there are still billions or even trillions of years — enough to figure out how the Universe will die.
Quantum gravity
Despite active research, the theory of quantum gravity has not yet been constructed. The main difficulty in constructing it is that the two physical theories it attempts to link together—quantum mechanics and general relativity (GR)—rely on different sets of principles.
Thus, quantum mechanics is formulated as a theory that describes the temporal evolution of physical systems (for example, atoms or elementary particles) against the background of external space-time.
In general relativity there is no external space-time — it itself is dynamic variable theory, depending on the characteristics of those contained in it classic systems
When moving to quantum gravity, at a minimum, it is necessary to replace the systems with quantum ones (that is, quantize). The emerging connection requires some kind of quantization of the geometry of space-time itself, and physical meaning such quantization is absolutely unclear and there is no successful consistent attempt to carry it out.
Even an attempt to quantize the linearized classical theory of gravity (GR) encounters numerous technical difficulties — quantum gravity turns out to be a non-renormalizable theory due to the fact that the gravitational constant is a dimensional quantity.
The situation is aggravated by the fact that direct experiments in the field of quantum gravity, due to the weakness of the gravitational interactions themselves, are not available modern technologies. In this regard, in the search for the correct formulation of quantum gravity, we have to rely only on theoretical calculations.
The Higgs boson makes absolutely no sense. Why does it exist?
The Higgs boson explains how all other particles acquire mass, but it also raises many new questions. For example, why does the Higgs boson interact with all particles differently? Thus, the t-quark interacts with it more strongly than the electron, which is why the mass of the first is much higher than that of the second.
In addition, the Higgs boson is the first elementary particle with zero spin.
"In front of us there is absolutely new area particle physics,” says scientist Richard Ruiz, “we have no idea what its nature is.”
Hawking radiation
Do black holes produce thermal radiation as theory predicts? Does this radiation contain information about their internal structure or not, as Hawking's original calculation suggests?
Why did it happen that the Universe consists of matter and not antimatter?
Antimatter is the same matter: it has exactly the same properties as the substance from which planets, stars, and galaxies are made.
The only difference is the charge. According to modern ideas, in the newborn Universe there was an equal amount of both. Soon after big bang matter and antimatter annihilated (reacted with mutual destruction and the emergence of other particles of each other).
The question is, how did it happen that some amount of matter still remained? Why did matter succeed and antimatter lose the tug-of-war?
To explain this inequality, scientists are diligently looking for examples of CP violation, that is, processes in which particles prefer to decay to form matter rather than antimatter.
“First of all, I would like to understand whether neutrino oscillations (the transformation of neutrinos into antineutrinos) differ between neutrinos and antineutrinos,” says Alicia Marino from the University of Colorado, who shared the question. “Nothing like this has been observed before, but we look forward to the next generation of experiments.”
Theory of everything
Is there a theory that explains the values of all fundamental physical constants? Is there a theory that explains why the laws of physics are the way they are?
Theory of everything — a hypothetical unified physical and mathematical theory that describes all known fundamental interactions.
Initially, this term was used in an ironic way to refer to a variety of generalized theories. Over time, the term became established in popularizations of quantum physics to denote a theory that would unify all four fundamental interactions in nature.
During the twentieth century, many "theories of everything" have been proposed, but none have been tested experimentally, or there are significant difficulties in establishing experimental testing for some of the candidates.
Bonus: Ball Lightning
What is the nature of this phenomenon? Is ball lightning an independent object or is it fed by energy from the outside? Are all ball lightnings of the same nature or are there different types?
Ball lightning — a glowing ball of fire floating in the air, uniquely rare a natural phenomenon.
To date, no unified physical theory of the occurrence and course of this phenomenon has been presented; there are also scientific theories, which reduce the phenomenon to hallucinations.
There are about 400 theories that explain the phenomenon, but none of them have received absolute recognition in the academic environment. IN laboratory conditions Similar, but short-term phenomena were obtained by several different ways, so the question about the nature of ball lightning remains open. At the end of the 20th century, not a single experimental stand had been created in which this natural phenomenon would be artificially reproduced in accordance with the descriptions of eyewitnesses of ball lightning.
It is widely believed that ball lightning is a phenomenon of electrical origin, of natural nature, that is, it is a special type of lightning that exists long time and having the shape of a ball, capable of moving along an unpredictable trajectory, sometimes surprising to eyewitnesses.
Traditionally, the reliability of many eyewitness accounts of ball lightning remains in doubt, including:
- the very fact of observing at least some phenomenon;
- the fact of observing ball lightning, and not some other phenomenon;
- individual details of the phenomenon given in an eyewitness account.
Doubts about the reliability of many evidence complicate the study of the phenomenon, and also create the ground for the appearance of various speculative and sensational materials allegedly related to this phenomenon.
Based on materials from: several dozen articles from
Below we present a list of unsolved problems in 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.
Some of these problems are closely interrelated. For example, extra dimensions or supersymmetry can solve the hierarchy problem. It is believed that a complete theory of quantum gravity can answer most of these questions.
What will the end of the Universe be like?
The answer largely depends on dark energy, which remains an unknown member of the equation.
Dark energy is responsible for the accelerating expansion of the Universe, but its origin is a mystery. If dark energy is constant over time, we're likely to experience a "big freeze": The universe will continue to expand faster, and eventually galaxies will move so far apart that the current emptiness of space will seem like child's play.
If dark energy increases, the expansion will become so fast that the space not only between galaxies will increase, but also between stars, that is, the galaxies themselves will be torn apart; this option is called the "big gap".
Another scenario is that dark energy will decrease and can no longer counteract gravity, causing the Universe to collapse (the “big crunch”).
Well, the point is that, no matter how events unfold, we are doomed. Before this, however, there are still billions or even trillions of years - enough to figure out how the Universe will perish.
Quantum gravity
Despite active research, the theory of quantum gravity has not yet been constructed. The main difficulty in its construction is that the two physical theories it attempts to link together—quantum mechanics and general relativity (GR)—rely on different sets of principles.
Thus, quantum mechanics is formulated as a theory that describes the temporal evolution of physical systems (for example, atoms or elementary particles) against the background of external space-time.
In general relativity there is no external space-time — it itself is a dynamic variable of the theory, depending on the characteristics of those in it classic systems
When moving to quantum gravity, at a minimum, it is necessary to replace the systems with quantum ones (that is, quantize). The emerging connection requires some kind of quantization of the geometry of space-time itself, and the physical meaning of such quantization is absolutely unclear and there is no successful, consistent attempt to carry it out.
Even an attempt to quantize the linearized classical theory of gravity (GTR) encounters numerous technical difficulties — quantum gravity turns out to be a non-renormalizable theory due to the fact that the gravitational constant is a dimensional quantity.
The situation is aggravated by the fact that direct experiments in the field of quantum gravity, due to the weakness of the gravitational interactions themselves, are inaccessible to modern technologies. In this regard, in the search for the correct formulation of quantum gravity, we have to rely only on theoretical calculations.
The Higgs boson makes absolutely no sense. Why does it exist?
The Higgs boson explains how all other particles acquire mass, but it also raises many new questions. For example, why does the Higgs boson interact with all particles differently? Thus, the t-quark interacts with it more strongly than the electron, which is why the mass of the first is much higher than that of the second.
In addition, the Higgs boson is the first elementary particle with zero spin.
“We have a completely new field of particle physics,” says scientist Richard Ruiz, “we have no idea what its nature is.”
Hawking radiation
Do black holes produce thermal radiation as theory predicts? Does this radiation contain information about their internal structure or not, as Hawking's original calculation suggests?
Why did it happen that the Universe consists of matter and not antimatter?
Antimatter is the same matter: it has exactly the same properties as the substance from which planets, stars, and galaxies are made.
The only difference is the charge. According to modern ideas, in the newborn Universe there was an equal amount of both. Shortly after the Big Bang, matter and antimatter annihilated (reacted to mutually annihilate and create other particles of each other).
The question is, how did it happen that some amount of matter still remained? Why did matter succeed and antimatter lose the tug-of-war?
To explain this inequality, scientists are diligently looking for examples of CP violation, that is, processes in which particles prefer to decay to form matter rather than antimatter.
“First of all, I would like to understand whether neutrino oscillations (the transformation of neutrinos into antineutrinos) differ between neutrinos and antineutrinos,” says Alicia Marino from the University of Colorado, who shared the question. “Nothing like this has ever been seen before, but we look forward to the next generation of experiments.”
Theory of everything
Is there a theory that explains the values of all fundamental physical constants? Is there a theory that explains why the laws of physics are the way they are?
To denote a theory that would unify all four fundamental interactions in nature.
During the twentieth century, many "theories of everything" have been proposed, but none have been tested experimentally, or there are significant difficulties in establishing experimental testing for some of the candidates.
Bonus: Ball Lightning
What is the nature of this phenomenon? Is ball lightning an independent object or is it fed by energy from the outside? Are all ball lightnings of the same nature or are there different types?
Ball lightning is a luminous ball of fire floating in the air, a uniquely rare natural phenomenon.
To date, no unified physical theory of the occurrence and course of this phenomenon has been presented; there are also scientific theories that reduce the phenomenon to hallucinations.
There are about 400 theories that explain the phenomenon, but none of them have received absolute recognition in the academic environment. In laboratory conditions, similar but short-term phenomena were obtained in several different ways, so the question about the nature of ball lightning remains open. At the end of the 20th century, not a single experimental stand had been created in which this natural phenomenon would be artificially reproduced in accordance with the descriptions of eyewitnesses of ball lightning.
It is widely believed that ball lightning is a phenomenon of electrical origin, of natural nature, that is, it is a special type of lightning that exists for a long time and has the shape of a ball capable of moving along an unpredictable trajectory, sometimes surprising to eyewitnesses.
Traditionally, the reliability of many eyewitness accounts of ball lightning remains in doubt, including:
- the very fact of observing at least some phenomenon;
- the fact of observing ball lightning, and not some other phenomenon;
- individual details of the phenomenon given in an eyewitness account.
Doubts about the reliability of many evidence complicate the study of the phenomenon, and also create the ground for the appearance of various speculative and sensational materials allegedly related to this phenomenon.
Based on materials from: several dozen articles from