10 unsolved problems modern physics
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 the full 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 are 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 the force of 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 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 dynamic variable theory, depending on the characteristics of those contained in it classic systems

When transitioning 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.

“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 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 forces 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? Is everything ball lightning Are they of the same nature or are there different types?

Ball lightning — glowing floating in the air fireball, 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, 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 in 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 represents special type lightning, which 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

Physics

• Translation

Our Standard Model of elementary particles and interactions has recently become as complete as could be desired. Every single elementary particle - in all its possible forms - was created in the laboratory, measured, and their properties determined. The longest-lasting ones, the top quark, the antiquark, the tau neutrino and antineutrino, and finally the Higgs boson, fell victim to our capabilities.

And the latter - the Higgs boson - also solved an old problem in physics: finally, we can demonstrate where elementary particles get their mass from!

This is all cool, but science doesn’t end when you finish solving this riddle. On the contrary, it raises important questions, and one of them is “what next?” Regarding the Standard Model, we can say that we don’t know everything yet. And for most physicists, one question is especially important - to describe it, let's first consider the following property of the Standard Model.

On the one hand, the weak, electromagnetic and strong forces can be very important, depending on their energies and the distances at which the interaction occurs. But this is not the case with gravity.

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

In this case, you cannot simply increase the mass of a proton by 10 20 times so that gravity pulls them together, overcoming the electromagnetic force.

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

This is a description of how the Universe works - but we don't know why it works the way it does. Why is gravity so much weaker than other interactions? Why is "gravitational charge" (i.e. mass) so much weaker than electrical or color, or even weak?

This is the problem of hierarchy, and it is, for many reasons, the greatest unsolved problem in physics. We don’t know the answer, but we can’t say that we are completely ignorant. In theory, we have some good ideas for finding a solution, and a tool to find evidence of their correctness.

So far, the Large Hadron Collider—the highest-energy collider—has reached unprecedented energy levels in the laboratory, collected reams of data, and reconstructed what happened at the collision points. This includes the creation of new, hitherto unseen particles (such as the Higgs boson), and the appearance of old, well-known particles of the Standard Model (quarks, leptons, gauge bosons). It is also capable, if they exist, of producing any other particles not included in the Standard Model.

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

Apart from the Higgs boson, found several years ago, there are no new fundamental particles They didn’t find it on the LHC. (Moreover, no intriguing new particle candidates are observed at all). And yet, the found particle fully corresponded to the description of the Standard Model; no statistically significant hints of new physics were seen. Not to composite Higgs bosons, not to multiple Higgs particles, not to non-standard decays, nothing like that.

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

1) Supersymmetry, or SUSY. Supersymmetry is a special symmetry that can cause the normal masses of any particles large enough for gravity to be comparable to other influences to cancel each other out with a high degree of precision. This symmetry also implies that each particle in standard model there is a superpartner particle, and that there are five Higgs particles and their five superpartners. If such a symmetry exists, it must be broken, or the superpartners would have the same masses as ordinary particles and would have been found long ago.

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

Here's your first possible solution problems of hierarchy, which has present moment there is no evidence.

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

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

Tags:

• gravity
• fundamental interactions
• tank

Add tags

ARTHUR WIGGINS, CHARLES WYNN

FIVE

UNSOLVED

PROBLEMS

SCIENCE

Drawings by Sidney Harris

WigginsA. , WinnH.

THE FIVE BIGGEST UNSOLVED PROBLEMS IN SCIENCE

ARTHUR W. WIGGINS CHARLES M. WYNN

With Cartoon Commentary by Sidney Harris

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

The book talks about the biggest problems in astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology and geology that scientists are currently working on. The authors review the discoveries that led to these problems, introduce work to solve them, and discuss new theories, including string theory, chaos theory, the human genome, and protein folding.

Preface

We humans are huddled on a piece of rock called a “planet,” orbiting a nuclear reactor called a “star,” which is part of a huge collection of stars called a “Galaxy,” which in turn is part of the clusters of galaxies that make up the Universe. Our condition, which we call life, is inherent in many other organisms on this planet, but it seems that we alone have the tool of the mind to comprehend the Universe and everything that it has. We subsume our efforts to clarify the nature of the Universe under the concept of science. Such understanding is not easy, and the path to it is long. However, progress is evident.

This book will tell the reader about the largest unsolved problems of science that scientists are working on today. Despite the abundance of experimental data, they are not enough to confirm one or another hypothesis. We'll look at the events and discoveries that led to these problems, and then take you through how scientists at the forefront of science are trying to solve them today. Sidney Harris, America's premier scientific illustrator, enlivens our discussions with the humor inherent in his drawings, not only clarifying the ideas involved, but also highlighting them in a completely new way.

We also discuss here unsolved problems in the main branches of natural science, guided in our choice by the degree of their importance, difficulty, breadth of coverage and scale of consequences. Along with them, we included in the book brief overview and some other problems in each of the branches of knowledge affected, as well as a “List of Ideas”, where the reader will find additional information about the background of some unresolved problems. Finally, we've included Deeper Resources, which lists information resources to help you learn more about the subjects that interest you.

Special thanks to Kate Bradford, Senior Editor Wiley, the first to suggest such a book, and our literary agent Louise Ketz for her constant words of encouragement.

Chapter one

Vision of science

After all, it is common for an educated person to strive for accuracy for every kind [of objects] 1

to the extent permitted by the nature of the subject. It seems equally [absurd] to be content with the lengthy reasoning of a mathematician and to demand rigorous proofs from a rhetorician.

Aristotle

Science ≠ technology

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

Although the technology that defines modern culture develops through science's understanding 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 the current wealth of developed countries has come from the connection between electricity and magnetism.

Before scientific advances become available to technology, additional considerations must be taken into account: what kind of device should be developed? possible, What acceptable 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 contributes to the understanding of existing connections, reality always turns out to be much more complicated. Ethics helps determine what to study, what research methods, techniques to use and what experiments are unacceptable due to the threat to human well-being hidden in them. 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.

How science works

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

During observations this or that 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 stage putting forward a hypothesis. 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 draw conclusions, within the framework scientific method This kind of activity is limited because 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. This prediction deduced from a hypothesis by deductive reasoning. For example, Newton's second law states that F = ta. If T equals 3 units of mass, and A - 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 carrying out experience, to find out whether the prediction made in the previous step 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 specific, the result, when the experiment 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.

The other side of the scientific method, which does not allow you to go astray, is playback 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 2 tried to produce a new chemical element by firing at a lead target powerful beam krypton ions and then studying the resulting substances. In 1999, scientists announced the synthesis of an element with serial 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 of Atomic Physics of the Riken Institute of Physics and Chemistry (Japan) were unable to repeat the synthesis of element 118. The expanded team of the Berkeley laboratory repeated the experiment, but he 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 indicates that scientific research 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.

Current problems mean important for a given time. Once upon a time, the relevance of physics problems was completely different. Questions such as “why does it get dark at night”, “why does the wind blow” or “why is the water wet” were solved. Let's see what scientists are scratching their heads over these days.

Despite the fact that we can explain the world around us more and more fully and in more detail, over time there are more and more questions. Scientists direct their thoughts and instruments into the depths of the Universe and the jungle of atoms, finding there things that cannot yet be explained.

Unsolved problems in physics

Some of the current and unresolved issues modern physics is purely theoretical in nature. Some problems theoretical physics it is simply impossible to test experimentally. Another part is questions related to experiments.

For example, an experiment does not agree with a previously developed theory. There are also applied problems. Example: environmental problems physicists related to the search for new energy sources. Finally, the fourth group is purely philosophical problems modern science, looking for an answer to “the main question of the meaning of life, the Universe and everything.”

Dark energy and the future of the Universe

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

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

Depending on which of the ideas about dark energy is correct, we can assume the future fate of the Universe. If the density of dark energy increases, then we will face Big gap, in which all matter will fall apart.

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

Many unresolved issues are associated with black holes and their radiation. Read a separate article about these mysterious objects.

Matter and antimatter

Everything we see around us is matter, consisting of particles. Antimatter is a substance consisting of antiparticles. An antiparticle is a twin of a particle. The only difference between a particle and an antiparticle is charge. For example, the charge of an electron is negative, while its counterpart from the world of antiparticles - the positron - has the same positive charge. Antiparticles can be obtained in particle accelerators, but no one has encountered them in nature.

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

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

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

Theory of everything

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

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

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

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

How many dimensions are there?

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

It is quite difficult, if not impossible, to imagine this. True, for such cases there is a mathematical apparatus that helps to cope with the problem. In order not to blow our minds and yours, we will not present mathematical calculations from M-theory. A better quote from physicist Stephen Hawking:

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

What can we say about distant space when we don’t know everything about our home? For example, there is still no clear explanation for the origin and periodic inversion of its poles.

There are a lot of mysteries and tasks. There are similar unsolved problems in chemistry, astronomy, biology, mathematics, and philosophy. By solving one mystery, we get two in return. This is the joy of knowledge. Let us remind you that we will help you cope with any task, no matter how difficult it may be. Problems of teaching physics, like any other science, are much easier to solve than fundamental scientific issues.

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, are usually collapsible cores big stars survivors of 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 of 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 important questions unanswered. 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 busy searching 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' 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 electric current 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 (slightly 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 that we understand 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 orbital structure 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 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 absence 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 Inserted from Wikipedia.Psychedelic - August 2013 Below is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics. Some of these problems are theoretical in nature, which means 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 that the Earth would be invaded by Martians who would use 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 solar system small bodies, especially those that may 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