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.

Comments

11-dimensional superstrings, etc.

[Azog]

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)

Let's keep things in perspective.

[RobertFisher]

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.

Re:The Answer is Easy

[pigpogm]

'Can we quantitatively understand quark and gluon confinement in quantum chromodynamics and the existence of a mass gap?'

Where can I buy clothing from Gap?

er, not quite what i had in mind, thanks, Jeeves.

I think i'd sack my butler if he was making money on the side selling crappy products whilst working for me.

Re:# 8 just doesn't seem to fit

[MaxGrant]

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 like these ideas

[Clubber Lang]

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.