What is the biggest most fundamental question in all of physics?

[jadrian]

thanks

 

[Drakkith]

"How does this work?"

 

[jadrian]

"How does this work?"

ok what's the most fundamental and controversial argument in physics

 

[256bits]

ok what's the most fundamental and controversial argument in physics

Your question is rather abstract, so answers such as "Why?", or "How does this work?" would naturally be the answer.
Then again "the most fundamental and controversial question" might be "Where is my &^$) pen again", in any science or profession.

 

[Drakkith]

ok what's the most fundamental and controversial argument in physics

Physics is a huge area with many different things being researched and discovered all the time. I'm not sure there is an argument like the one you are asking about.

 

[Randomguy]

String theory is both fundamental and controversial, so it fits your criteria pretty neatly.

 

[fellupahill]

I think he is asking which question like. What is time? What is space? And I think a good answer to the question he is actually asking would probably contain more than one question :) As to what they are? I think someone else would be more qualified to answer ;p

 

[fellupahill]

Or another good answer and someone correct me if I am making an incorrect inference, would be; The conflictions with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics...

 

[Oldfart]

What occurred at T=0?

 

[Drakkith]

What occurred at T=0?

"Is there a T=0?"

 

[Millacol88]

"What occurred before T = 0?" is an interesting one. I think questions like this are more suited to philosophy than physics ;)

 

[fellupahill]

"What occurred before T = 0?" is an interesting one. I think questions like this are more suited to philosophy than physics ;)

Ive read that before, somewere. ha

 

[jadrian]

"What occurred before T = 0?" is an interesting one. I think questions like this are more suited to philosophy than physics ;)

meh i don't think our universe needed any magic.

 

[DaveC426913]

meh i don't think our universe needed any magic.

Strange thing to say. Where did magic come into it?

It is a very intriguing question what caused the universe to come into being. But there's no way we can expect any evidence that will illuminate it, which is the reason is will likely be a philosophical question for a long, long time.

 

[Millacol88]

Strange thing to say. Where did magic come into it?

It is a very intriguing question what caused the universe to come into being. But there's no way we can expect any evidence that will illuminate it, which is the reason is will likely be a philosophical question for a long, long time.

That's basically what I think. I don't think there needs to be any assumption of "magic" when the question is asked how the universe came to be, just that its well beyond our current understanding.

 

[Oldfart]

It is a very intriguing question what caused the universe to come into being. But there's no way we can expect any evidence that will illuminate it, which is the reason is will likely be a philosophical question for a long, long time.

That seems to me to be a rather pessimistic appraisal, what is your reasoning?

 

[DaveC426913]

That seems to me to be a rather pessimistic appraisal, what is your reasoning?

I writ my reasoning: because there's no expectation of any evidence to be forthcoming of any events preceding the BB.

No information from T < 0 will survive the BB. No information = no evidence. We can philosophize, but we can't make any models with any predictive properties. And if it can't be falsified, it's not a theory.

 

[Oldfart]

I writ my reasoning: because there's no expectation of any evidence to be forthcoming of any events preceding the BB.

No information from T < 0 will survive the BB. No information = no evidence. We can philosophize, but we can't make any models with any predictive properties. And if it can't be falsified, it's not a theory.

Agree, but I was talking about T=0, not <0.

 

[tarnhelm]

I think, as in so many areas, there's a convergence between physics and philosophy. Philosophers in the past have argued that unless there is some uncaused cause external to the universe, then the universe must be causa sui and have persisted through infinite time up to now. The notion of an uncaused event is anathema to physics, as is the notion of belief in some unseen metaphysical entity. Therefore, physics and a philosophical perspective both demand that there is no spontaneous ex nihilo creation. It is contrary to the foundational principles of physics that the universe should have just popped into existence with a cause. So there is no such thing as t<0. If something else caused our universe, then its contours will surely one day be divined just as surely as we are now probing the contours of events 14 billion years ago.

And in any case, it's not really a question for philosophers because that sort of speculation was the preserve of philosophers centuries ago. Nowadays philosophers tend to be interested in things like logic, language, and the mind. The real heirs of that sort of philosophy are modern theoretical physicists.

 

[John15]

I think " why is there something rather than nothing " or make a universe out of absolutely nothing, says it all you could also add where does God fit in as well

 

[EmpaDoc]

Physics is a huge area with many different things being researched and discovered all the time. I'm not sure there is an argument like the one you are asking about.

I think you put it well. There is no consensus in physics about "the fundamental question".

Particle physicists would argue that it's something like "how to combine relativity and QM", which would then hopefully lead to the "theory of everything" governing the behavior of all fundamental particles (and then, some think that string theory is the answer to that). This is of course often heard in popular media.

On the other hand, a condensed-matter or non-linear physicist, for example, would argue that understanding phenomena is more important than understanding specific cases. Like broken gauge symmetry which underlies both superconductivity and the Higgs mechanism. With this view, it is hard to formulate a single "ultimate question".

Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin's nice book "A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down" is an excellent critique of the common particle-physics view.

 

[fellupahill]

Who was the physicist that said "after the big bang is the job of science, before the big bang is the job of theologists." Not an exact quote, but hopefully someone can make the connection. I've read it somewere, a while ago.

 

[Claude Bile]

1. Why don't General Relativity and Quantum Physics agree?

2. How did Justin Beiber ever become popular?

Claude.

 

[HallsofIvy]

"String theory" still needs an experimental basis. I would say that the most important fundamental problem is combining quantum theory and relativity- the "unified field theory".

 

[dpa]

well extend it to what is fundamental problem in physics NOW?
That would definitely be GUT/UFT
or add FTL travel to conquer space.

Physics is more of EXPLAINATION OF NATURAL PHENOMENA.
ANOTHER age of successful space exploration and beyond will bring in new phenomenons.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Whatever question you formulate, its answer will not be the answer to 'everything'. Why do I say that? Because, however long we take and however much we pool our own personal awarenesses, there is a limit to the degree to which we can analyse and understand ourselves.
I guess the best we can do is to come to terms with that basic situation but not to 'just give up'. Keep swimming or we drown.

And could someone explain to me why 'Space' and its conquest are supposed to be, in some way, the ultimate goal? That always sounds to me too much like the Wild West and Cowboy movies. The really important stuff is going on Inside our Heads.

 

[dpa]

Conquest of space will provide fuel to the brain we have. Fuel to open new vistas to our thought processes.
Well i am not going to believe that everything is inside our head after the clear evidence of evolution of beings and creation of our brain from chemicals.
Its difficult to imagine EVEN THAT to be hollogram created by brain.
Where would evolution/bigbang and everything outside that fit in?
There might be no end to curiosity but at least I can't remain without thinking.

 

[DennisN]

what is the biggest most fundamental question in all of physics?

Wonderful question! However, I refuse to give only one answer, so here comes ten :

1. Can Quantum mechanics be joined with Relativity?
2. What is the most correct interpretation of Quantum mechanics?
3. When will QM & Relativity be replaced with even better theories? Will they? The history of science seems to say yes...
4. Why does the arrow of time point in only one direction?
5. What is the origin of mass (Higgs?) and how does the interaction of gravitation work (gravitons?)?
6. What is the origin of charge? Can it in any way be related to energy? Why does it not care about relativity?
7. Do the electron and/or the quarks have any substructure?
8. What is the true nature of vacuum? Is it empty or not?
9. Are there more spatial dimensions than three? How could we find out? Can we ever?
10. Is there only one Universe? Can we ever answer that question?

Here is a good link too: Open Questions in Physics.

 

[jnorman]

hmmm - to me, it boils down to "what is a field?"

since there is basically no-thing there (ie, all fundamental particles are point particles with no volume, just properties), and the idea that "particles" are simply excitations of a given field, and since, from what i can tell, there is no understanding of what a field actually is or how it operates (virtual particle exchange explains pretty much nothing at all), i would say that is my most basic question.

 

[sophiecentaur]

You make the very important point that it's YOUR most basic question and that's the point. We all have different ones - which makes life interesting.

 

[CaptFirePanda]

Does this TI-36X Pro make me look fat?

 

[AnTav]

I can't tell you what the most puzzling question in physics is now, but I can tell you what it will be probably like in a year or so.

"And now? How do we cope with this?"

You have to picture some distressed faces saying that.

 

[DennisN]

"And now? How do we cope with this?"

At least I think there are some distressed faces today saying "Why didn't we check if that cable was properly connected?".

 

[DennisN]

I just want to add that I think jnormans question is a really good one too;

hmmm - to me, it boils down to "what is a field?...[]"

 

[sophiecentaur]

That presupposes that a field has to be anything more than a way of explaining an effect.
If someone said that a 2kg mass and a 2kg mass, when added together, give you a 4kg mass, would you think to ask the question "what is arithmetic?". Is the arithmetic part of the Physical World around us or just a tool with which we can predict certain things? Using the concept of Fields to explain and predict could be thought of as just the same as using arithmetic for a similar purpose.

There can't be a hierarchy of significance to the questions that arise in Science because they only exist in the context of all the others.

This thread is a bit like the final question on 'Any Questions" and other discussion panel programmes. Not as trivial, of course, but it's not unlike "what Christmas present would you want to give your favourite politician and why?"

Just listen to the Guru Feynman about the "Why" question. I think he gets it just right - in a nicely grumpy way.

 

[DennisN]

I agree with most of what you say above, sophiecentaur. Science deals more with "hows" than "whys". But it seems it is in our human nature to first ask the question "why" and then try to explain/model "how", regardless of if "why" has been/can be answered or not (this is no criticism of science from me, it's just an observation of human nature ). And I agree Feynman was great, but he was still just one scientist among others, though. The field question (as jnorman originally formulated it) is a reasonable question IMHO. I see it as related to questions of the nature of vacuum;

"It [the field] occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum." (Wheeler)

"The fact that the electromagnetic field can possesses momentum and energy makes it very real... a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle, and the field has such familiar properties as energy content and momentum, just as particles can have". (Feynman)

 

[sophiecentaur]

"It [the field] occupies space. It contains energy. Its presence eliminates a true vacuum." (Wheeler)

etc...

This is too abbreviated, I think, because any statement which purports to be stating 'reality' should, implicitly or explicitly, be saying something like "The following model of reality, which we call a Field, behaves in the following way. . . ."
It is very handy to use the concept of Fields because it works very well. There need be nothing more than that.
We have almost managed to come to terms with the 'duality' of waves and particles and no one with any sense demands that we should choose one or the other. It is only a matter of time before an 'alternative' to Fields comes up which will explain certain things much better but not other things. (Sounds like String Theory, for instance). There will be a duality in this respect, too - so the Field will be recognised as just one way of looking at things.

I agree that Feynman was just one among others. He clearly had a number of hangups (not helped by his Ginormous EGO) but, on the whole, he was good value, I think. Goddam smart too.

 

[DennisN]

Sophiecentaur, I agree. And I think the progress of science will be something like you describe, in one way or another. And hey, we still use Newton now and then even though 300+ years have passed, so we'll probably be using fields too for a long time still . (Btw, the quotes were just examples that even Wheeler/Feynman may have wondered about the reality of fields at some point before; I'm of course not completely certain of how they were reasoning, though ).

 

[sophiecentaur]

Sophiecentaur, I agree. And I think the progress of science will be something like you describe, in one way or another. And hey, we still use Newton now and then even though 300+ years have passed, so we'll probably be using fields too for a long time still . (Btw, the quotes were just examples that even Wheeler/Feynman may have wondered about the reality of fields at some point before; I'm of course not completely certain of how they were reasoning, though ).

Only now and then?
When did you last sort out your car or put up a shelf using Relativity or QM?

 

[DennisN]

Good one! (I was thinking of gravitation). But you made a false assumption, leading to a false conclusion. I don't own a car.

 

[sophiecentaur]

But you do put up shelves?

This Forum's full of false assumptions.

 

[mklejeune]

And in any case, it's not really a question for philosophers because that sort of speculation was the preserve of philosophers centuries ago. Nowadays philosophers tend to be interested in things like logic, language, and the mind. The real heirs of that sort of philosophy are modern theoretical physicists.

In general I tend to agree, though modern developments in philosophy (in those areas you mentioned) have done a good job of examining the "sense" of certain questions. For example, the question of "what was going on in the Universe before stuff started existing?" may be more of a grammatical blunder than a tough nut to crack.

 

[DennisN]

Yep. For shelves I use common sense, a good hammer and Euclid if I ever would have to.