The 11 Greatest Unanswered Questions of Physics

Adn writes: "Discover magzine has a cover story on the "..11 Greatest Unanswered Questions of Physics" and why answering these might lead to a new age of science.... the full article can be found at The National Academy Site. Almost brings to mind Hilbert's 11 questions on Mathematics which if solved were supposed to usher in a new era of logic and formalism."

Comments

Re:I'm no scientist, but *these* are the biggies?

[Anonymous Coward]

6) How did the universe begin?

This has got to be the easiest test in Topeka.

ROFL!!

Ya know, Personally, i've always liked the J authors work better than P. J made god seem so much more powerful.

Gen 1:1(a) ("P" Author). Probably came after Gen 2:4(b) ("J" Author)to correct any "Mistakes" or ambiguity in the other text for the priesthood.

What's your opinion on the matter?

and in reference to nr 9, you forgot the "cakedon". Not to mention the "wankon", antiparticle to the.. well, youknow.

Disappointing

[Euphonious Coward]

After the buildup comparing the list to Hilbert's, I was disappointed to see how far from fundamental many of the questions were. The elaborations presuppose details of what are merely fashionable postulates, rather than mysterious facts, about the universe.

The questions seem directed more at justifying big equipment expenditures than at taking on analyses of the numerous physical anomalies we already know about. Great advancements in the last twelve decades -- electromagnetics, quantum mechanics, the relativities -- arose from hard thought about phenomena that were already well-known, but contradicted received wisdom. They generally have not come from further measurements of already understood phenomena but involving bigger numbers.

I'd much rather see a list of questions based on well-known phenomena that contradict fashionable theories, with the goal of replacing the latter with something less arbitrary.

Re:That's called hijacking the agenda

[Alsee]

What we really need is research that focuses on how quickly we might grow our endeavours in the planetary arena

Yeah I know most of these big picture types are caught up in the dream of finally answering the big "Why?" ...better to focus on "What should I do?"

This is a very shortsighted view on science. We need both applied science and "pure research". Pure research and asking "why?" are what open up new areas of applied science.

When Newton came up with his theory of gravity and the laws of motion, he wasn't asking "What should I do?". He was asking "Why?". The same goes for Mendel and inheritance, Darwin and evolution, Einstein and relativity, Curie and radiation, Maxwell and elecromagnetism, and on and on.

Had scientists dedicated themselves, as you suggest, to "mineralisation" and "serious industrialisation" then we would currently have much better technology for mining the resources to build better horse drawn carriges.

Some of these "blue sky" theories state that the Earth is awash in a sea of almost undetectable dark matter particles (see Neutralinos and Axions in the report). What would be the benefit of such a discovery? I have no clue. Applied science could then go to work on this new form of matter. Maybe an energy source. Maybe a better means of space travel. More likely something neither of us could even imagine.

-