I Besides magnetic monopoles, what else doesn’t exist?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around compiling a list of theoretical concepts in physics that were once believed to exist but are now considered unlikely, similar to magnetic monopoles. Participants suggest various examples, including aether, cosmic strings, and room-temperature superconductors, while also referencing Wikipedia entries on experimental errors and pseudoscience. There is some debate about the clarity of the original request, with concerns that the thread lacks a focused question and may have been initiated for controversy rather than genuine inquiry. The conversation highlights the difficulty in defining what constitutes non-existent theories and the challenges of creating a comprehensive list. Ultimately, the thread is closed due to the original poster's lack of engagement.
Maximum7
Messages
124
Reaction score
11
TL;DR Summary
Trying to make a list of all the things in physics that probably don’t exist
I’m trying to keep a master list of all the theoretical “things” in physics that were once postulated to exist but probably don’t, like magnetic monopoles. Could anyone help me out?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aether.
 
  • Like
Likes DeBangis21
Maximum7 said:
TL;DR Summary: Trying to make a list of all the things in physics that probably don’t exist

I’m trying to keep a master list of all the theoretical “things” in physics that were once postulated to exist but probably don’t, like magnetic monopoles. Could anyone help me out?
Perhaps, the following Wikipedia entries might be of help:

List of experimental errors and frauds in physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_experimental_errors_and_frauds_in_physics

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

Pathological science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes DeBangis21, phinds, Steve4Physics and 2 others
@Lord Jestocost : Three great lists but you can be such a spoilsport at times. :approve:
 
  • Haha
Likes Lord Jestocost and berkeman
I like ultra-mundane corpuscles and phlogiston.
 
Conventional current in metal conductors.
Friction between hailstones (Graupel), causing atmospheric electrification.
Tectonic subduction zones.
 
With great temerity, may I suggest Huygens' Wavelets as not actually existing?
 
Lord Jestocost said:
Perhaps, the following Wikipedia entries might be of help:

List of experimental errors and frauds in physics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_experimental_errors_and_frauds_in_physics

List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience

Pathological science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_science
Good lists, but missing from them is the "work" of Eugene Podkletnov/Ning Li/Doug Torr claiming gravity shielding/gravitomagnetics/anti-gravity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ning_Li_(physicist)

I had the misfortune of having to sit through a few seminars by Li and Torr in grad school.....
 
I understood that OP wanted things that could exists but have not been disproved, like caloric rays or something like that.

  • Cosmic strings are a big one.
  • CMB B-modes
  • Room-temperature superconductors
  • Hawking points
  • Hawking radiation
  • Primordial black holes
  • White holes, wormholes
  • Planet 9
  • Extraterrestrial life
  • Right-handed neutrinos
  • Fault-tolerant quantum computers
  • True Majorana zero modes
  • True non-Abelian anyons
  • Nuclear island of stability
 
Last edited:
  • #10
pines-demon said:
I understood that OP wanted things that ...
I don't think it matters too much. The OP is not participating
 
  • Like
Likes pines-demon
  • #11
tech99 said:
may I suggest Huygens' Wavelets as not actually existing?
More of a model in non-symbolic mathematics. There are always the questions "yes but what exactly is it?" - "what is it in physical terms? etc." when actually everything could be looked on as partly virtual.
 
  • #12
Yes, the OP seems to have declined to follow-up. Some call these threads "stink bombs" - the OP posts what he thinks is a controversial start and then runs away to watch the reaction.

I think the real problem here is that he wants a complete list. That puts us into the "read my mind" position. "Moon men!" "I'm not talking about that". "Vampires!" "No I'm not talking about that either." And so it goes.

That is a game that is fun for zero or one of us.

There probably is a better-defined and discussable question. But this isn't it.
 
  • #13
Vanadium 50 said:
Yes, the OP seems to have declined to follow-up. Some call these threads "stink bombs" - the OP posts what he thinks is a controversial start and then runs away to watch the reaction.
Whelp, the OP earned a gentle drive-by stinkbomb infraction but that added to their numerous previous infractions to ban them. Thread is closed.
 
  • Like
Likes sophiecentaur
Back
Top