Talk:List of unsolved problems in physics/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Problem in astronomy, not physics

I don't think that this is about an unsolved problem in physics. At best it is a puzzle of current astronomy and cosmology, so i.m.o. it does not belong in this article. None of the given sources says that this is an unsolved problem in physics, so per off-topic (and wp:SYNTH), I removed it. - DVdm (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Note: already the undo was reverted, against wp:BRD. Sigh. - DVdm (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You have violated WP:ROWN by removing it. There was no reason to remove it. It is properly sourced and is in the 'Astronomy and astrophysics' section of the article. Do you suggest that all this section should be removed, because no sources to entries in that section state that these entries are an unsolved problem in physics? Please note, that this link: Unsolved problems in astronomy goes to exactly the section which I edited. There is no separate article in wikipedia about unsolved problems in astronomy. So my edit was done in the right place. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop pointing to WP:ROWN. That is an essay. There is nothing to violate. This was explained to you before by user Huon on your talk page. - DVdm (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you disagree with what's written in that essay? The WP:BRD referrs to WP:ROWN in that sentence on the WP:BRD page: "Consider reverting only when necessary", so I see no reason to stop pointing to WP:ROWN, since WP:BRD points to WP:ROWN. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

BRD suggests that when a bold edit is made and it gets reverted, then you start the discussion. You reverted the revert. - DVdm (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

First and foremost it states "Consider reverting only when necessary". Musashi miyamoto (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Phys.org churns press releases and is not an independent, reliable source. Without scholarly sources to evaluate Hawkins' work and set it context — i.e., without astronomy or astrophysics papers by other people — we shouldn't be writing about this in any section of any article. It's worth noting that the corner of the literature that discusses the matter poses the question as "what causes the optical variability of quasars?" rather than "OMG what is wrong with relativity?!?" as the more sensationalist pop-science media would. (E.g., optical/UV variability "could arise from instabilities in the accretion disc (Kawaguchi et al. 1998), supernovae (Aretxaga, Cid Fernandes & Terlevich 1997), microlensing (Hawkins 1993, 2010), stellar collisions (Torricelli-Ciamponi et al. 2000), thermal fluctuations from magnetic field turbulence (Kelly, Bechtold & Siemiginowska 2009) or more general (Poisson) processes (Cid Fernandes, Terlevich & Aretxaga 1997)" [1].) So, no, I don't think the passage should be included. XOR'easter (talk) 22:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What is important, from the point of view of wikipedia rules, is that the information is notable enough to be in the wikipedia article about the unsolved problems in physics, because there are reliable primary sources (several different papers) and secondary sources (not only phys.org, but also New Scientist, and problably more). That is enough for the entry to be in this wikipedia article. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

XOR'easter you have violated WP:ROWN, and WP:BRD, which states: "Consider reverting only when necessary". Please stop your disruptive behaviour and revert your changes until consensus is reached here. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What is important from the viewpoint of Wikipedia rules is that we abide by the Neutral Point of View policy, use reliable sources and do not give claims undue weight. Three primary sources, one unreliable "secondary source" and one paywalled source to a magazine known for flights of sensationalism — this does not constitute adequate referencing. Nor does a fuller examination of the relevant literature find it to be an accurate representation of the way the people in the field actually pose the question.

The burden is on you to show that your material should be included. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The burden of proof that these are not reliable sources is on you. One of the articles has been published in Nature. If they considered it important then it is important. I would rather believe Nature than an anonymous wikipedia editor. Also I am reminding again that most of the edits in this wikipedia article have no sources or just one source. So why do you demand more from me than from others? Why are you not removing all the unsourced or poorly sourced material from this article? Some more sources: 1, 2, 3, 4. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Your "more sources" include an older paper by Hawkins himself, a chapter in a book of conference proceedings by Hawkins himself, a post on an obscure science-news site that isn't even signed, and another copy of the same New Scientist story (7 April 2010, by Marcus Chown). In other words, they add virtually nothing.

The paper in Nature proves that this is considered a notable information by the most prestigous and important science journal there is. So if it was good for them it is certainly good for wikipedia. You are just pushing your POV now despite all the evidence provided. For an information to be included in wikipedia only one or two sources are needed. I provided 9 sources, including a paper in Nature - this is many more sources than any other edit in this article, so there is no reason not to include this information in this article. Even if you do not like some sources there are still enough sources left for the entry to be included in wikipedia. After all why wouldn't you want wikipedia users to know about this problem in astronomy and physics? Seeker.com is not "an obsucure science-news site", but an American digital media network - they have their article in wikipedia, so they are apparently a notable institution by wikipedia standards. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I read the article Seeker (media company). Neither that nor anything else I could find about them gave me reason to think they hold to high standards of science journalism. Because their piece is unsigned, we have no way of knowing if the author is an expert in any pertinent subject. I have nothing against the Nature article, in principle; but it is by Hawkins himself, and therefore not capable of setting his own work in context. As @Sbyrnes321: said way up above, "A paper, even a paper in a perfectly respectable peer-reviewed journal like EPL, is a primary source because it is the authors describing their own analysis." It is also years older than his other publications on the same topic, so for these purposes, it's pretty much redundant. XOR'easter (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Journalist has to be an expert in journalism, nothing else. It is common for many mass media journals to not sign their articles or just sign them with initials. Albert Einstein's most important papers also were only by himself. Just one paper in such prestigious journal as Nature is enough to be notable for wikipedia, while we have here more papers in very good journals The Astrophysical Journal and the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society and a popular science article in New Scientist. In fact it is hard to find a better tandem than Nature and New Scientist, the former is the best place for science papers, the latter the best place for popular science papers. Your personal bias against New Scientist does cause that it suddenly stopped being a respectable, reliable source for popular science articles. So really going by the book there is no reason whatsoever not to add this edit. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not my personal bias, but a common sentiment of the physics community [2]. And the biologists [3][4]. And the linguists [5][6]. A New Scientist cover has been used in a Nature article as an example of egregious hype [7]. And even if this particular New Scientist article were fine, that wouldn't change the fact that we need scholarly secondary sources independent of the original author to write NPOV text here. XOR'easter (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Just three controversial articles in a journal, which has been on the market since 1956 is nothing really. Nature has caused many more controversies than New Scientist, and even you would not dare to say that Nature is not a reliable source. The Emdrive article is in wikipedia, as well as McCulloch's hypothesis of quantised inertia is there, so criticims of New Scientist article on Emdrive did not prevent the subject to be added to wikipedia. Wikipedia does not require secondary sources in every case, but only in cases of very controversial or fringe subjects. And this is not the one. Nobody criticised Hawkins work on this subject. His work is reliable and has been published in very prestigious journals, as well as discussed by others in popular press. That is enough for the subject to be in wikipedia. Surely you must see that by now? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

There might be unsupported material elsewhere in this article, but that doesn't mean that new unsupported material should be added. Most of the other items point to full articles, where references can be found (and I have actually worked to improve the referencing of this article itself [8][9]). XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You know very well that almost all of the entries in that article would not pass wikpedia rules, so almost all should be deleted or have proper sources added. Because of that absolutely massive lack of compliance with wikipedia rules of nearly all of the entries in the article, it is very odd that you are so extremely fussy about my sources (assuming that you really think that they are not perfect, though I do not know how you can say that about Nature), it shows that you are very hypocritical and therefore not neutral, just, and honest about these edits.
It doesn't matter that allegedly "Most of the other items point to full articles, where references can be found", because per wikipedia rules those entires should have inline citations. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I don't know that, and again, even if the other content in the article is garbage, that doesn't justify adding more. XOR'easter (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That's strange that you say that, because that's what they told me when I claimed that there are links to the internal articles with references in my previous edits, and you read that thread, so you should know that, too. Hypocrisy again? I do not add garbage. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 13:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

The internal articles linked in your text did not support the very specific claims made in your text. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

They did, not always stating it directly with the same words I used, but they did nevertheless, in a way. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding "Absence of a time dilation effect in quasar power spectra: Why is there an absence of a time dilation effect in quasar power spectra?"[10] these were rightfully reverted. Only one author (Hawkins) in 2001-2010 has investigated this in detail, and relies on observations made between 1975-2002. Sure the evidence seemingly goes against the cosmological model, but there maybe other explanations like microlensing (as he discusses), even to the extent of questioning if the data is robust. For it to be an "unsolved problem in physics" there has to be independent verification of problem, it has to become a mainstream problem, and there are no known solutions to explain it. Just as said "Alternatively, the observed variations could be caused by microlensing, in which case time dilation would not be expected." Hence it is 'possible problem' not 'unsolved problem'. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

@Musashi miyamoto: @DVdm: @XOR'easter: Evidence stated here suggest Musashi miyamoto is continuously ignoring basic editing policies. Specifically:

• Demand sources
• Ignores/Refuses Good Faith Questions
• WP:REHASH

A direct example, is as previously advised on their talkpage. e.g. "The users who reverted my edits violated Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary rule. So why do you care about one policy and not the other? My objections are reasonable, and you know it, because you have not managed to prove that they are not. (Musashi miyamoto 13:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC))

The burden is yours — see wp:BURDEN. Policy. - (DVdm 13:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC))"

Yet ten days later sees Musashi miyamoto (above) further denial saying: "The burden of proof that these are not reliable sources is on you." I has now also been advised to on multiple occasions that Musashi miyamoto view is clearly wrong, and they knowingly know it is not true.

This defiance is now bordering on WP:DE, and they should read, and note: "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." Again, making knowing and deliberate false or misleading statements is plainly disruptive editing. As WP:Honesty says: "An honest Wikipedian: Does not say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument."

Very similarly displayed defiant behaviours have also occurred, which are contrary to Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR,WP:NPOV and the 3RR rules.

Yet another (above) is saying: ""Consider reverting only when necessary", so I see no reason to stop pointing to WP:ROWN, since WP:BRD points to WP:ROWN." Really. "Consider" does not mean that "You can't" revert. When Musashi miyamoto knowingly states falsely to: User:DVdm "You have violated WP:ROWN by removing it." and "Please do not violate WP:ROWN, go to talk page instead, if you still have any objections." [11] or accusing "XOR'easter you have violated WP:ROWN, and WP:BRD" when they haven't, is clearly deliberately trying to misrepresenting editing policies just to support their own arguments.

Please Musashi miyamoto you must immediately WP:Desist with the use of these unwarranted WP:Point tactics. Be quite aware that any further abuses shown here may be actionable via ANI, whose effect may prevent from editing via a page topic ban. Arianewiki1 (talk) 06:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

You are again making it personal, instead on focusing to prove your point of view with evidence (reliable sources). You have not shown a single source to prove your POV. You have also not explained why you point me to WP polices, which are not relevant to my edits. I asked you multiple times to prove your POV and to prove and explain why you point me to these WP polices, and each time you ignored my multiple requests.
You again lie in your above text in virtually every single sentence, thus not being WP:Honest, WP:COOL, and ignoring WP:AGF, as well as you are WP:cherrypicking. The fact that you attack me personaly additionally proves that I won the argument, because that's the reason why you attack me personaly - you cannot rebut my proofs, so instead you chose to attack me personaly.
"Consider" means consider according to the rules described in WP:ROWN, and not 'consider' in an arbitrary way. I already explained in the previous thread that according to WP:ROWN 'The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits.', so my edits did not qualify for reverting. By reverting DVdm revert here I was fixing the damage and disruptive reverting he has done by ignoring WP:ROWN rules. XOR'easter and previously you also violated it.
The burden of proof is on those who claim something, so if you claim that the sources are not reliable you have to prove it, if you claim that something I said is incorrect you have to prove it, if you point me to some WP polices, you have to prove that they are indeed relevant to my edits, what's so difficult to understand about that? It is not enough to say that my view is allegedly wrong, you have to prove it that it is wrong, because you claim it that allegedly it is wrong, not me. I presented plenty of proofs that my POV is the correct one, and you just ignored them, and not presented any evidence to the contrary. Therefore I see no reason to abandon my views, because nobody proved that they are wrong. If you will be further personally attacking me by spreading lies about me and falsely accusing me of any wrong doing, or in any other ways, an appropriate action would have to be made via ANI to stop your abusing, disruptive behaviour.
I once again ask you to behave reasonably, and focus on the issue of proving your POV, if you still disagree with my already proved POV, instead of personally attacking me without any reason. Musashi miyamoto (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

When an editor accuses another editor of personal attacks and responds by personally attacking that editor, and claiming it "proves I won the argument," the discussion is over. This is Wikipedia, not YouTube or Facebook. I support any ANI action that may be taken due to this ongoing and fairly extreme disruption. ps.: "Disruptive reverting" isn't a thing. -Jordgette [talk] 20:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I have never attacked anybody. I am being under attack. I requested multiple times that person to behave reasonably, i.e. instead of personally attacking me (already several times), I asked her/him politely several times to focus on proving her/his POV with evidence (sources), and to explain why he/she pointed me to the WP polices, which had no relevance to my edits - how can this be considered an attack?
I can see now that there is a clique of people here supporting each other regardless of the facts. How pathetic! You should be ashamed of yourselves. BTW, when will you reply to my other replies to your messages? Musashi miyamoto (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. Your situation appraisal here is far from being balance or realistic. Sure you might be very frustrated with the process, but all responses above are both unacceptable: showing total disregard in how material is added to articles, nor even close to understanding what constitutes WP:PA. Futhermore. When saying "Therefore I see no reason to abandon my views, because nobody proved that they are wrong." Who here said that you have to 'abandon my views'? No one here is obliged to prove anything, right or wrong, and so far, no one has been convinced from your arguments / cites on what you present are correct nor relevant. Hence, you don't have needed consensus.

I have taken many reasonable steps to try and resolve these subject / editing issues, and point out (as other do) that your continued views, especially, on 'reverting only when necessary' are wrong. The 'demands' you are placing on other editors are quite unreasonable and simply don't comply with policy.

I now have little choice here but to start ANI arbitration.

Note: My own written response above was under the section heading 'Problem in astronomy, not physics' NOT 'Arbitrary section break' and was changed by User:XOR'easter Such a change could be construed differently in the context is was intended. Arianewiki1 (talk) 03:56, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Statement : Inertia is not an 'Unsolved problem in physics'

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think, inertia (and gravity) being a "unsolved problem is physics" does not meet the necessary criteria, because it is not a 'mainstream' concern, and its effects are seemingly calculable, measurable and immutable. It is 'solved' because knowing both mass (or momentum) and acceleration means calculating the exact quantity of inertia in both classical physics and special relativity (where inertia is the gravitational coupling between matter and spacetime.) The inertial frame is invariant, and obeys conservation of energy and conservation of momentum. (This is not true if non-inertial reference frames exist, such as warped space, but this is theoretical and unproven.)

Whilst the 'cause' of inertia appears interesting, it is merely theoretical quandary, and the central issue mostly relates to the origin of mass, which IS already included in the 'List of unsolved problems in physics.' Simply: Could inertia stems not from some obscure cosmological gravitational effect but instead be a consequence of the quantum vacuum near an accelerating body? This question is just still conjecture in the current state of knowledge of physics.

It cannot be some unsolved problem, because we don't even know if we are asking the right question nor even if it relevant. No reference so far has said otherwise.

Solving the unknown cannot be some unsolved problem. (If F≠ma IS TRUE, then it would be an unsolved problem.)

When I originally reverted some earlier edits, this was my reasoning. No one else influenced me at all in making that decision.

Note: Musashi miyamoto please Desist. When it comes to inertia, we're done here. Arianewiki1 (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: Axis of Evil (cosmology)

@Paradoctor: Question under "Axis of evil (cosmology): Some large features of the microwave sky at distances of over 13 billion light years appear to be aligned with both the motion and orientation of the solar system. Is this due to systematic errors in processing, contamination of results by local effects, or an unexplained violation of the Copernican principle?"

Axis of evil (cosmology) says : "Land and Magueijo dubbed this alignment the "axis of evil" owing to the implications for current models of the cosmos, although several later studies have shown systematic errors in the collection of that data and the way it is processed."

The evidence supporting this seems WP:Fringe and this all hinges on this conjecture. This article also ends that is: "...the Axis of Evil, not statistically significant."

I think this statement needs to be removed from List of unsolved problems in physics because this conjecture, and is not necessarily 'unsolved'. e.g. There is doubt if this is a 'real' question that needs to be solved?

Opinons.

(I've only pinged Paradoctor here because of this association. Talk:Axis_of_evil_(cosmology)) Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks, I'll be staying out of this. @Friedlicherkoenig: may be interested, though. Paradoctor (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the evidence itself is fringe, though some of the interpretations (e.g., violation of the Copernican principle) certainly are. Whether or not it exists at all (beyond coincidence/pattern-finding in noise) is somewhat controversial, but, having its own article, it is a bit of a "thing." Perhaps the listing can be reworded. Full disclosure, I may have added this years ago, but I won't object if there's any consensus to remove it (unlike some people we've encountered recently). -Jordgette [talk] 01:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's terrible as written, but I wouldn't mind if it were modified or provisionally removed. Also, it's partially redundant with the "large-scale anisotropy" point under "astronomy and astrophysics". XOR'easter (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Question: 'Size of Universe' Actually Relevant?

Under this statement under 'Cosmology and general relativity' ; "Size of universe: The diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light-years, but what is the size of the whole universe? Does a multiverse exist?"

I don't quite understand what this question is about. Is this questioning if the Universe finite or infinite or actually asking about its size. Universe#Size and region does not say 93 but 91 million light-year, 46 billion light years to 'edge'. Also this says "The size of the Universe is somewhat difficult to define." All here is not cited.

However, on this link[12] under Observable universe#Size says "93 billion ly (light years) (It is not however known if the size of the entire universe is finite or infinite.)"

Another is Observable universe#Misconceptions on its size, assuming "Many secondary sources have reported a wide variety of incorrect figures for the size of the visible universe. Some of these figures are listed below, with brief descriptions of possible reasons for misconceptions about them."

It seems this size/question seemingly all hinges on this single and likely dubious web cite.

How can this be confirmed 'unsolved'?

(I have also posted this on Observable universe)

Also "Does a multiverse exist?" Isn't this just conjecture and not "unsolved" problem? Should this be deleted? Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This point could easily be removed rather than trying to clarify and source. The question about 'size of the universe' is equivalent to asking whether the universe if finite or infinite and its shape, topology, and curvature, and we already have a 'Shape of the universe' point. Unless the person meant the size of the observable universe, which may have some uncertainty over the precise number but is not fundamentally an unsolved problem. The 'multiverse' bit should also be removed until someone can show that it's a problem physical cosmologists are recently working on. Cyrej (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Size of universe: The diameter of the observable universe is about 93 billion light-years, but is the whole universe finite or infinite? --MaoGo (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

This does seem to be a distinct topic from the 'shape of the universe' point. A source that says we can't know if the universe (in contrast to the observable universe) is infinite: . Cyrej (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I do agree, it is not the same problem. You can have a finite universe with negative curvature. Shape and extensions are different. --MaoGo (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Not important, but aesthetically, it would be nice if shape and size problems would be one after the other. MaoGo (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Removal of astronomy/astrophysics questions

The following were recently removed:

• Nature of KIC 8462852, commonly known as Tabby's Star: What is the origin of unusual luminosity changes of this star?
• Nature of Wow! signal: Was that a real signal and, if so, what is the origin of it?
• Planetary systems: How does accretion form planetary systems? Where did Earth's water come from?
• Are there any planets beyond Neptune? What is the explanation for the elongated orbits of a group of Kuiper belt objects?

I believe they should be reinstated. Whether or not they require "new physics" (in the sense of new fundamental fields, quantum gravity, etc.) to solve is beside the point. After all, most physics research is not devoted to finding new fundamental laws . The section is for "Astronomy and astrophysics", and these are unsolved problems in astronomy and/or astrophysics. XOR'easter (talk) 14:21, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. Paradoctor (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Unsolved (but still interesting) problems of physics (or astronomy, or geophysics, or biophysics, or other related subjects) usually don't involve "fundamentally" new physics. And, thanks for the interesting references. Attic Salt (talk) 14:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Look. Some good points, but IMO none of these examples qualify. (I've removed them as current physics can explain without the need for any new theory or changing the laws of physics that we currently accept.)

As with: "Are there any planets beyond Neptune?" Possibly, but it is a failure finding it, not a problem with physics or with known physics. For: "What is the explanation for the elongated orbits of a group of Kuiper belt objects?" Who knows / it is like unknowable. But preexisting theory of gravitation and perturbation is likely without any need of new physics. Nearby approaches of stars to the Sun are known to probable perturbed comet's orbits.

Not knowing something is not a problem with our understanding of physics. Many things are yet to be discovered but that is not the fault with theory. The first article statement: "Some of the major unsolved problems in physics are theoretical, meaning that existing theories seem incapable of explaining a certain observed phenomenon or experimental result." These questions simply fail the acid test.

Secondly "The others are experimental, meaning that there is a difficulty in creating an experiment to test a proposed theory or investigate a phenomenon in greater detail." Again there is no means of testing it – other than a time machine –– as our time to investigate is too short against the age of the Solar System. However, using gravitation and perturbation theory we can predict the position of the planets etc. to fair accuracy without needed any new physics to calculate it. If we do discover a new planet, the existence means we can continue to use the same law of physics to improve or model and predictions. (If dark matter exists, then this is a new influence on planetary motion, but that is a physics problem (as earlier stated in the article), but that means all astronomical explanations from small bodies to galaxies, leaving a huge article of examples.

However, and importantly, this does not change Newtonian or relativistic gravitation and perturbation theory. Nothing new is required at our present state of scientific knowledge.

If we added these as unknown, I can add 1001 others that would qualify too. Arianewiki1 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd characterize three of the above as unexplained observations, rather than problems in physics (KIC, Wow and Trans-neptunian objects). The observations are puzzling, but don't themselves demonstrate any physical processes we don't understand. These are equivalent to "who?" rather than "how?" questions (who turned on the lights?, rather than how did night turn into day?).

The Accretion question is slightly different, and I'd see it as similar to the problem of how supernovae explode; unlikely to involve new physics, but we simply haven't worked out the process in enough detail yet. In both cases, we know the general outlines, but not enough to make confident predictions about the results. I'd suggest that one deserves inclusion. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 01:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I can agree that the accretion problem be restored. I can live without the other unsolved problems (those removed by Arianewiki) appearing on this list. Attic Salt (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, "unlikely to involve new physics, but we simply haven't worked out the process in enough detail yet" applies to the question of trans-Neptunian bodies. It can almost certainly all be done with Newton's laws, the mechanical properties of methane ice, etc., without invoking "new physics". (The physical process that led to the anomalously fast rotation rate of Hi'iaka, for example, was probably not a Beyond-Standard-Model event.) But we don't know the right boundary conditions, the extent to which we can approximate various quantities, and all that — the practical details necessary to make the calculations go. Figuring out how to apply Newton's laws in a specific situation is not "nothing new". It's an unknown of a different sort than, say, the nature of dark matter, but it's still an unknown. Most of the questions investigated in modern physics are of this nature. Leaving them out paints a misleading picture of what physics is.

You don't need a time machine to test hypotheses about planetary astronomy, any more than you need one for archeology or paleontology. You just need the ability to find instances of historical evidence that you didn't have at the time when you formulated your hypothesis. An idea for how one species evolved into another, plus some knowledge of which strata are accessible where, tells you where to look for transitional fossils. A guess about which groups of species are more closely related and how long the process of divergence took lets you make predictions about what you'll find in genomes that nobody has yet sequenced. In the same way, a hypothesis based on current knowledge generates predictions for what we might find with the next space probe, the next generation of telescopes.

If we don't list unexplained astronomical observations here, then we ought to have a List of unsolved problems in astronomy. There would naturally be some overlap between the physics and astronomy lists, but I suppose that wouldn't be the worst thing. XOR'easter (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Rather than List of unsolved problems in astronomy wouldn't that be List of unexplained observations? Tarl N. (discuss) 17:09, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure where these issues should be mentioned, but a list is needed somewhere. So I am OK with them back in here, or in a new article. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

To me, "unsolved problems" and "unexplained observations" sound roughly synonymous, though maybe there is some shade of difference between them; the former is just the template that the existing pages all seem to follow. XOR'easter (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've also asked for comments at WikiProject Astronomy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Maybe its time to create List of unsolved problems in astronomy--MaoGo (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I arrived late to the discussion. Surely a new article is not necessary for only four entries. The wow signal is another category of problem along the Oh-My-God particle and the Bloop.MaoGo(talk) 15:34, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, there are 18 bullet points in the "astronomy and astrophysics" section, and 12 more in "cosmology", with some overlap (e.g., dark matter appears in both). It seems like a list of unsolved problems in astronomy could easily have a couple dozen items, just working with what we've already got.

I agree that there is a qualitative distinction between one-off events and recurring phenomena, but I think these lists cast a wide enough net to encompass both without trouble. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest making a draft article then asking for feedback. Praemonitus (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that there can be a qualitative difference between "unsolved problems" and "unexplained observations", we might also consider the significance (scientific and otherwise) of either. In this respect, I can understand how some people might consider, for example, odd astronomical signals or possible far-away planets to be of significance (possibly for cultural reasons), and so they might reasonably think that they should appear on a list like this in Wikipedia. Not everyone is a research scientist. Attic Salt (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. Our articles do have to serve multiple audiences. XOR'easter (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Not much activity here lately, so I am being bold, and started List of unsolved problems in astronomy. There seems to be quite a majority for publishing these somewhere (all agreed except Arianewiki). Please help. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What happens now with the astronomy problems in the physics list article? Should we move most of them to astronomy list and a leave a {{main|List of unsolved probems in astronomy}}?--rMaoGo (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I moved the Fermi paradox over from this page to that. I'd be fine with shortening the list here further, though in this case I don't see duplication as a serious problem. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Diffuse interstellar bands

Wasn't it solved last year ? see Diffuse_interstellar_bands#Fullerene_C60+_identified_as_carrier_of_diffuse_interstellar_bands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabrice.Neyret (talk • contribs) 18:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Neutron lifetime puzzle

Should the Free neutron decay#Neutron lifetime puzzle be added to this list? Solving it potentially leads to fundamental new physics and new applicable experiments happening at ORNL. Kevreth (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. XOR'easter (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Done.Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Intermediate Mass Black Holes

Shall we add an item for the question about why we have not observed any intermediate mass black holes? This is an active area of research. It plays into the question of how did supermassive black holes appear so soon after the beginning of the universe according to Big Bang theory. What do others think? If there is support, we can draft an item here on the talk page. J Mark Morris (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Charged buoyant plasma phenomenon

Here is a UFO study undertaken by the British Government's Defense Intelligence staff called "Project condign". The report concluded that UFOs had an observable presence that was “indisputable”

https://web.archive.org/web/20110906134848/http://www.mod.uk:80/defenceinternet/freedomofinformation/publicationscheme/searchpublicationscheme/unidentifiedaerialphenomenauapintheukairdefenceregion.htm

The report states that "the majority, if not all, of the hitherto unexplained reports may well be due to atmospheric gaseous electrically charged buoyant plasmas". When describing the specific case of black triangle ufos they said that. "Occasionally and perhaps exceptionally, it seems that a field with, as yet, undetermined characteristics, can exist between certain charged buoyant objects in loose formation, such that, depending on the viewing aspect, the intervening space between them forms an area (viewed as a shape, often triangular) from which the reflection of light does not occur. This is a key finding in the attribution of what have frequently been reported as black 'craft,' often triangular and even up to hundreds of feet in length." These plasma formations also have the effect through "magnetic, electric or electromagnetic (or even unknown field), appears to emanate from some of the buoyant charged masses"

I thought this phenomenon could be added.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Condign — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.234.4 (talk) 04:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

How does that pertain to unsolved problems in physics? El_C 04:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This is an observed phenomenon which remains unexplained, and thus tautologically physics has not solved it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.234.4 (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about general problems, not "what is this thing". --mfb (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, speculation about events that may or may not have occurred written by people who may or may not be physicists is outside the remit of this article. XOR'easter (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

formatting

would it be worth bolding the head link of each parapgraph to make it stand out from the many other links in the paragraph? e.g.

Hierarchy problem: Why is gravity such a weak force? It becomes strong for particles only at the Planck scale, around 10¹⁹ GeV, much above the electroweak scale (100 GeV, the energy scale dominating physics at low energies). Why are these scales so different from each other? What prevents quantities at the electroweak scale, such as the Higgs boson mass, from getting quantum corrections on the order of the Planck scale? Is the solution supersymmetry, extra dimensions, or just anthropic fine-tuning?

Thanks, —Soap— 23:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Doing that for the whole page might be too much bold; I'm not sure. You can always mock up a version in your sandbox to see how it looks. XOR'easter (talk) 02:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Phase transition

The recently added condensed matter problem:

"Phase transition: At any nonzero temperature, can there be a phase transition that is spontaneous (i.e., not induced by an external stimulus that changes the model parameters) and unconventional (i.e., not involving magnetization or sublattice magnetization) in a one-dimensional isotropic Heisenberg model with finite-range exchange interactions? [70][80]"

is not clearly formulated nor properly referenced (the first cited article by Mermin and Wagner famously proves that there is no spontaneous symmetry breaking in 1D and 2D Heisenberg model at finite temperature, the second cited articled deals only with the 2D case). In none of the two articles do I see this problem posed.

I contacted the user who added the problem on his/her talk page for clarifications, with no reaction. In absence of clarifications, I propose the problem for deletion.

PhysicsAboveAll (talk) 07:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Black Hole Information Paradox Resolved?

It seems like there is a growing consensus that this has been solved by Pennington, Shenker, Stanford and Yang (https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.11977). I want to suggest moving this to the solved category.

Replying to the above suggestion by Rebelyis: The has been recent progress to compute the Page curve of black hole consistently with unitary being preserved. Page curve computations have been done in holographic models, and in the paper you cite in a model of 2d gravity (JT gravity). While this progress is encouraging, I believe it is too early to say that Black Hole Information Paradox is solved (although it may consistute a step towards the eventual solution). Juan Maldacena gave an interesting review talk at the online Strings conference this summer about this progress, and I don't remember him claiming that this is a complete solution. He did say I believe that the AMPS firewall paradox was solved. PhysicsAboveAll (talk) 09:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

That would need reliable secondary sources considering the problem solved. --mfb (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Does this count? 73.168.5.183 (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

physicists have come tantalizingly close to resolving the black hole information paradox [...] The revised semiclassical theory has yet to explain how exactly the information gets out [...] And not everyone is convinced. Some still think that Hawking got it right and that string theory or other novel physics has to come into play if information is to escape. Nope. Not there yet. XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Abraham-Minkowski

Just for curiosity, why was the Abraham-Minkowski controversy removed from the list?--ReyHahn (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite of article

I'm planning a rewrite of this article here to bring it in line with WP:LSC by only including problems that are notable enough to have their own "problem" page (even if that page doesn't exist yet). The draft of the rewrite is not near a state where it's ready for feedback, but if anyone has feedback on the general approach or specific ideas on what to include, please let me know! - car chasm (talk) 18:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The point of the article is precisely to collect all problems which can't have their own page. Yann (talk) 21:31, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Strange final sentence in Physics section

The final sentence in the "Fine-tuned universe" section is:

"In particular, Tegmark's mathematical multiverse hypothesis of abstract mathematical parallel universe formalized models, and the landscape multiverse hypothesis of spacetime regions having different formalized sets of laws and physical constants from that of the surrounding space—require formalization."

What the heck does this mean? Where is the verb? What does the "—require formalization" phrase at the end mean, and why is there an em-dash in front of it? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

I think if you cut out a lot of words, it makes sense; "In particular, Tegmark's mathematical multiverse hypothesis and the landscape multiverse hypothesis require formalization." In other words, it's trying to say that these two ideas are still only vaguely defined. Then it tries to sketch what they are by shoving in additional phrases, so the whole sentence becomes difficult to follow. XOR'easter (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Is that really an "unsolved problem in physics", though? To me (admittedly a layman) it sounds more like something that would belong in the realm of mathematics. Hypothetical physics in parallel universes that, to us, can never be observed except as a model on pencil and paper, shouldn't be considered 'physics'. (If it is something that can, in theory, be physically tested, I will take your word for it). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:D43F:9051:2D0:8EC1 (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Broken link

Ref "Hubble Surveys the 'Homes' of Quasars". Hubblesite News Archive" is broken. Did they retreat from their claim of their solution? Netsivi (talk) 13:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Netsivi, they just moved their old press releases. I've updated the reference. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

High temperature superconductivity

Does this article pertain to the question in the Condensed Matter Physics section or is it specific to cuprate superconductors? - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the headline of the Quanta article is too strong; if you read the article, they quote scientists that are much more cautious; in addition, this work is concerned with one specific high-Tc superconductor only. I think that (while O'Mahoney et al. have done very nice work, it is too early to call the high-Tc problem solved. --Qcomp (talk) 12:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Friction-driven static charge

Surprised, given https://xkcd.com/2682/, that it's not mentioned here. DewiMorgan (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Voids and cell-structure

Ozric14 deleted two references, claiming the cosmology section deals with the “large structure of the universe.” The two refs are about the unexplained observations of huge voids surrounded by huge cells. This cell-structure of the universe was first observed and announced and published by long-live Einasto in 1977. The cosmology section does not say a word about the huge voids nor about the huge observed unexplained cell structures. Ozric14 considered the title of Doroshkevich paper and ignored its important contents. Greenantilope (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ball lightnings and aerodynamic lift

The to me most thrilling question in classical(?) physics that is yet unaswered is what ball lightnings are and how they operate. I think ball lightnings deserve to be on the list.

And recently, I read that physics is still unable to explain how something as trivial an ordinary aircraft works. How is lift induced in a wing when it moves through the air? That problem would also deserve to be on the list. 2A05:9CC3:67:CCE7:0:0:23F0:5FDD (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

lift is induced due to still air being denser than moving air. this is elementary physics. Howjy (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Are current challenges included here?

The challenge of reaching fault-tolerant qubits is part of the open problems? ReyHahn (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Origin of Inertia

Should there be an entry that is something like "what is the origin of inertia" (or "what is the exact statement of Mach's Principle", or something to that effect?

Spope3 (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Causality

Considering locality is mentionned in the section Philosophy of Physics, causality should have its entry. Especially the problem of indefinite causal orders are open questions whether this type of system is physically achievable. Some predicted causal orders are physically interpretable but some are not, are they physically possible to realize ? Dryhb (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Not a list of unsolved problems

This is mostly a list of theories, not problems. To top it off, a style of theory followed by problem implies the theory is the answer. The article needs a rewrite. Some items, like the hierarchy problem are written as a problem, followed by questions and theories which would be a scientific review of a “problem” 2600:1700:1111:5940:1186:9B6E:82FF:C699 (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Sabine Hossenfelder called out this article

At 14:24 she says that most of the problems described here are "pseudoproblems" that are there to solve aesthetic misgivings rather than actual conflicts between theory and observation

She also has a list of what she considers real vs false problems. Serendi^podous 16:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE, there is no reason to give her a platform here. --mfb (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, a random Joe Sixpack WP editor determines an Institute for Advanced Studies scientist is fringe and should be deplatformed. -edited-2600:1700:1111:5940:1186:9B6E:82FF:C699 (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Hubble tension

Currently there are several types of measurements of the Hubble constant, which seem incompatible with each other, given the experimental errors. The situation is described in Hubble tension, it seems that this is an unsolved problem that could be added to the astronomy section. --Davius (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

It is in the "Cosmology and general relativity" section. StarryGrandma (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Quantum gravity: Problem of time.

The statement says 'background parameter', which is actually untrue. Everything happens due to a consistent use of cause and effect over time. Take any influence, set Δt to zero, and any influence becomes zero. Also, cause and effect can not exist at the same time, which is when Δt = 0. Any state can be only singular at any given time. Since no more than a single state can exist during any given time, without time, any influence or force can't have any effect, and thus a local big bang can not have occured that created all 3 of time, space and filler. Time needs to exist for any state change, so that must have existed before the big bang. But also space, since a point can't contain volume, and so if all energy that exists in the univere today would be from a point, this would lead to an energy density equation looking like E/v in 4D => E/0^4 => E x ∞^4. If that were true the amount of energy released would be enough to fill any part of space with an infinite amount of energy. The big bang was not a singular event, but happens 'locally' in each segment of space and has a volume to start out with. This then makes then energy density equation into E/v in 4D => E/f, where f is a finite greater than zero => E x f^4. This yields a finite ampount of energy, and a finite amount of energy density, which satisfies the current observation. So, first time, then space, then filler, in that order, but t is always present for any influence greater than zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.238.45.149 (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)