Slashdot Mirror
Physics Problems For The New Age
In May, we ran a story on ten
"math problems for the new age."
ContinuousPark writes: "Last month, at the end of a conference on superstring theory at the University of Michigan, a group of physicists chose ten of the hardest problems in their field. They range from 'simple' ones like 'What is the lifetime of the proton and how do we understand it?' to obscure ones like 'Can we quantitatively understand quark and gluon confinement in quantum chromodynamics and the existence of a mass gap?' Resolve one today, get a Nobel Prize tomorrow. This
NY Times article
has the details." And unfortunately, says the Times,
"'Just because' is not considered an acceptable answer." Darn, there goes my Nobel.
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Question #4 discusses Supersymmetry. The lab group that I am part of is working with simulating supersymmetry, if you want more information on supersymmetry then go to the University of Colorado NLC group site.
We only hope that the NLC, or Tesla, is built. Right now particle physicists around the world are trying to scrape up the ~$9 billion that it would require to build one of them.
I know that some of you will say, "We already have particle accelerators that can reach TeV (Tera Electron Volts), why do we need the NLC?" The particle accelarators today that can reach TeV, like the Tevatron at Fermilabs, accelerate Hadrons like protons. Although the physics gained from accelerating Hadrons is very useful, it cannot give us the information necessary for supersymmetry. Hadrons are composed of three quarks, and therefore when they collide not all six quarks are hitting at the same time, generally only one quark hits one quark. These kind of reactions are useful but not what we need. We need a particle accelerator that can accelarate leptons, like electrons and pions, to the TeV scale. When electrons hit we are getting the entire center of mass energy at one point at one time. This allows for physics that is extremely useful to supersymmetry.
I am just an undergrad so my understanding of this next aspect is kind of shakey. From what I have been able to understand, hadron colliders are really good for understanding the forces between particles, whereas lepton colliders are really good for discovering new particles. In order to prove, or disprove, supersymmetry we need to see if sparticles (supersymmetric particles) exist, therefore we need lepton colliders. Today the most powerful lepton collider in the US is SLAC (Stanford Linear Accelerator).
Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Ask Jeeves!
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Berto
Let's not forget that the theory of relativity was concieved by one man, all alone, without contact to the "greatest minds of the day".
I hope you were joking, my friend. The concept of special relativity had been in development for several years, perhaps starting when Maxwell suddenly noticed that his equations weren't invarient under Galilean (Newtonian) transformations. If you study a bit of rudimentary E&M (say a bar magnent moving through an electric field) you see that the E vector will not be the same in all inertial reference frames... think a little bit and viola, you have Lorentzian transformations.
Ever wonder why the special relativity transforms you learn in intro physics aren't Einsteinian transformations? Hrm...
Also, GTR was a clever amalgomation of theories developed by several thinkers, including Gauss, Leibniz (read the letters between Clark, a Newtonian advocate and Leibniz and you see the beginnings of a relativistic nature of space and time (though not nearly as sophisticated as GTR)), Mach, and Poincare.
Of course, this dosen't take away from the genius of Einstein, but still, it dosen't give credit where credit is due.
In Steven Weinberg's book, Gravitation and Cosmology (Wiley and Sons, 1972) there is an excellent first chapter on the development of this science. It's a good book overall, you should check it out.
My favorite unanswered questions like this are those which are easy to explain but relatively impossible to figure out. For example, no one has yet to discover *any* pattern in the prime numbers. I can explain that question to my grandmother. Difficult questions aren't always complicated to explain.
Source code is a lot like a parachute; it needs to be open in order to function properly.
'Can we quantitatively understand quark and gluon confinement in quantum chromodynamics and the existence of a mass gap?'
People PLEASE! Do I have to spell out everything for you? The answer is obviously 'NO'.
This is 3rd grade stuff, people.
D
The first, last, and only tech news site on the net
I have only a laypersons understanding of quantum physics, so feel free to ignore me.
Whenever I read about these incredibly complex theories, like 11 dimensional superstrings, the M-theory, "sparticles", and what have you, it just reminds me of the "theories of planetary motion" that people used to come up with before they realized the earth goes around the sun.
To explain the observed motion of the planets in a way consistent with the sun going around the earth, they invented "epicycles", which were essentially loops within loops on the hypothical orbits. This went on for years, with the epicycles getting more and more complicated. They built amazing geared machines to simulate the motion of the planets. Now we look back at them and shake our heads, thinking "Why didn't they look for the simpler explanation? Why did it take so long for a Copernicus to come along?"
I don't mean to dis modern physics... but I can't help thinking that in 100 years, people will look back on M-theory and sparticles and laugh, saying "Why didn't those people realize how ridiculous those theories are? Why didn't they try harder to find a simpler explanation?"
Maybe the real world really is that complicated. But history would indicate otherwise.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
This was quite an interesting list, but let's not forget who came up with it -- a group of string theorists. The list reflects a certain... severe bias, in that ALL of the problems lie in the fields of high energy physics and cosmology. They completely ignore the equally fascinating (and much more rapidly growing) fields of condensed matter physics, biophysics, geophysics, and astrophysics (apart from cosmology). These fields promise to change our world, both in terms of the gadgets we use, to our very genetic essence, and contain problems of significant scientific merit as well.
This point reminds me of a listing posted to slashdot a couple of months ago of the top ten algorithms of all time. It just so happened that all ten were numerical algorithms, reflecting the bias of the poster in that case as well. A more objective list requires a more universal panel.
Science, like Nature, must also be tamed, with a view turned towards its preservation.
What they mean by information disappearing is that we would never be able to find out about what's in the black hole again. It would cease having an effect on the universe. Particles lost in a black hole take their history with them. You have to be realistic about this; how much information would anyone have spent time extracting from those particles anyway?
But the point is that the singularity means, for all we can tell, the complete destruction of everything except the raw mass of the particles that fall into it.
Using the encyclopedia is a bad pun; imagine dropping something simpler, like a salt grain down instead. The salt grain contains information about its structure and if you were clever enough you could figure out where it came from and how long ago. That information vanishes in a black hole.
I think this type of think is what's needed to get the average person interested in math and science again. Math used to be a hobby for a lot of people, and many discoveries were made by people in their spare time, but unfortuneately the outer boundaries of math and science are generally too specialized and complex for the average person to understand.
A few months ago I saw a list of unsolved mathematical problems that required no special knowledge to understand and I thought it was a really good idea since it might get your average person interested in solving one of these problems. For example, Fermat's last theorem has been proven, but using very complex math that was unknown at the time he wrote his little note in the margin. The concept behind the theorem is pretty intuitive, and assuming Fermat wasn't bluffing or erred in his proof, then a simpler method awaits rediscovery.
Published lists of unsolved problems that can be comprehended by a layman may increase interest and make science "real" again for a lot of people who view things like physics and chemistry as voodoo.
Actuaries - making accountants look interesting since 1949