Finding out what are the recent problems

[ShayanJ]

For someone to work in a field, s\he should know what are the recent problems. But for someone new to a field, how should s\he find out what are the recent problems?
I know about review papers but sometimes its not easy to find a up to date review paper. Is there some special website like arxiv.org which only publishes review papers?
Thanks

 

[Danger]

To tell you the truth, if you want to know the down-and-dirty of how things really work in a particular job you have to find one of the "peon-class" like a driller (I'm in oil country) or a welder or truck driver or similar and sit him/her down in a bar with a dozen beers. Some of the stuff that you hear about corporate stupidity and safety violations will curdle your eyeballs.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Lol, @Danger I'm not sure if listening to a boozed-up janitor (or even a lowly PhD student) regale you with hair-raising tales of Health & Safety violations is the best way to find out the most promising area of research to focus on.

 

[ShayanJ]

Looks like you guys got the wrong idea!
I posted this thread in the physics section and also used words like "review paper" and "arxiv.org"! I think I made clear I'm asking about recent problems which theoretical physicists working in a particular branch of physics are struggling with!

 

[jerromyjon]

Galactic rotation.

 

[Danger]

I think I made clear I'm asking about recent problems which theoretical physicists working in a particular branch of physics are struggling with!

Actually, that wasn't the least bit clear to me. If you had said "peer-reviewed" paper, it would have been. A "revue paper" sounds more like a union newsletter or government fact-finding report. There's absolutely no mention whatsoever about physics, theoretical or otherwise, in the post. Yes, I realize that you posted it in the General Physics section, but people are constantly doing that with things that belong in Engineering or General Discussion. Even in a physics environment, though, you could be an electrician trying to balance a power-supply problem or a janitor who wants to know how to get quark-dust or whatever off his shoes after work. I have no idea what "arxiv" is, and didn't feel like visiting it to find out.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I really was trying to be helpful. I spend most of my social hours (what very few I have any more) with my good friends who are my intellectual equals, with more common sense than most, who work as a drywaller (ex-rigpig), a sawyer at the local mill who builds websites as a hobby, a gas jockey who used to be the estimator for a huge printing company until he got sick of it... you get the idea. Some others of my best friends in the same circle are dumber than stumps, but still excellent people.

 

[ShayanJ]

Actually, that wasn't the least bit clear to me. If you had said "peer-reviewed" paper, it would have been. A "revue paper" sounds more like a union newsletter or government fact-finding report. There's absolutely no mention whatsoever about physics, theoretical or otherwise, in the post. Yes, I realize that you posted it in the General Physics section, but people are constantly doing that with things that belong in Engineering or General Discussion. Even in a physics environment, though, you could be an electrician trying to balance a power-supply problem or a janitor who wants to know how to get quark-dust or whatever off his shoes after work. I have no idea what "arxiv" is, and didn't feel like visiting it to find out.
Sorry for the misunderstanding, but I really was trying to be helpful. I spend most of my social hours (what very few I have any more) with my good friends who are my intellectual equals, with more common sense than most, who work as a drywaller (ex-rigpig), a sawyer at the local mill who builds websites as a hobby, a gas jockey who used to be the estimator for a huge printing company until he got sick of it... you get the idea. Some others of my best friends in the same circle are dumber than stump/s, but still excellent people.

Yeah, I know you wanted to be helpful and I appreciate it. Sorry if my post was a little mean(which I didn't want it to be). Also I'm sorry for not being clear enough!(Not only to Danger)

 

[Danger]

Sorry if my post was a little mean(which I didn't want it to be)

It wasn't. You were clarifying the situation. That's what scientists do.
Conversely, my response probably seems antagonistic to some people, which also was not my intention.