Why are there so many unsolved problems in physics?
in [Physics]
|
Prev: SERC: Forests are growing faster, climate change appears to driving accelerated growth
Next: 'Marshall' is a disgusting troll
From: BURT on 9 Feb 2010 00:06 On Feb 8, 2:10 pm, bert <herbertglazie...(a)msn.com> wrote: > On Feb 7, 11:40 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 8:32 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 7, 12:31 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 4, 4:06 am, Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > > > > > Why are so many problems? Don't you think there is something seriously > > > > > wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > > > > > just overcomplicating things? > > > > > ----------------- > > > > you are right!! > > > > and that list you saw > > > > is only a very partial list !! > > > > just a few days a go > > > > i found an inner contradiction in QM > > > > Y.Porat > > > > -------------------- > > > > > Y.P > > > > ---------------- > > > > No .. you didn't .. you merely found that you didn't understand QM. > > > There's a big difference.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Einstein has been proven right about Quantum Mechanics. > > > Mitch Raemsch- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Reality is in Einstein's later years he realized how great a theory QM > was.He even looked for gravity in the Q M realm.He knew GR did not > fit where Q M ruled. TreBert- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - He was fully right about quantum mechanics. Mitch Raemsch
From: Ste on 9 Feb 2010 04:25 On 8 Feb, 20:11, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 4, 2:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 4 Feb, 12:20, "Cwatters" > > > <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > > > > Peer reviewed scientific papers are hidden away on subscription sites > > > where as the cranks publish openly. > > > And whose fault is that exactly? Scientists can't expect to act as > > gatekeepers to knowledge, and then complain that too few people > > understand their work. > > This isn't gatekeeping. It's publishing as a business. Yes, gatekeeping. > I get the feeling that you believe that all information should be > free, Free to access, yes. > and that any impediment to that is a sign of gatekeeping and > obfuscation. This isn't the case. I'm saying that the reality of charging individuals for access to scientific knowledge is that there will be fewer individuals who have scientific knowledge. > Information is available to subscribers to that information. There are > ample ways to become better acquainted with that information. One is > to subscribe to an educational environment, where you are paying for > time and attention to have information laid out in an organized > fashion to facilitate your free investigation. One is to purchase > books, where the royalties on the book pay for the several years of > time and effort that the authors took to present that information > carefully, precisely, and plainly. One is to subscribe to journals, > where there is rapid turnaround on research results so that you can > get much broader access to the information base, not to mention quite > a bit more current. Since all that requires extensive overhead, then > it does cost some money to subscribe to it. I'm afraid I have my own views on the free market, which are probably not appropriate for sci.physics.
From: PD on 9 Feb 2010 11:16 On Feb 9, 3:25 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 8 Feb, 20:11, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 4, 2:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 4 Feb, 12:20, "Cwatters" > > > > <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > > > > > Peer reviewed scientific papers are hidden away on subscription sites > > > > where as the cranks publish openly. > > > > And whose fault is that exactly? Scientists can't expect to act as > > > gatekeepers to knowledge, and then complain that too few people > > > understand their work. > > > This isn't gatekeeping. It's publishing as a business. > > Yes, gatekeeping. > > > I get the feeling that you believe that all information should be > > free, > > Free to access, yes. > > > and that any impediment to that is a sign of gatekeeping and > > obfuscation. This isn't the case. > > I'm saying that the reality of charging individuals for access to > scientific knowledge is that there will be fewer individuals who have > scientific knowledge. Yes, of course. It will be limited to those people who are willing to prioritize their lives to afford themselves access to scientific knowledge. The same, of course, is true about law or medicine or masonry. It should not be expected that ANY area of expertise is devoid of experts, in the sense that the whole body of knowledge is shared by everybody. This is the reason FOR expertise. There is too much knowledge in any given area for everyone to have the same depth of understanding. So there is delegation to self-selected experts, who have opted to so order their lives to become more competent in that area of knowledge than other people who do not make the same choice. Fortunately, there is a gradient. If you want to become a hobbyist, you can choose to read Barnes & Noble books, Scientific American, and other popularizations intended for hobbyists. If you want to become broadly familiar and competent in concepts though not necessarily skills, you can pursue a bachelor's degree or equivalent. If you want to learn how to actually contribute to the field, then you will have to invest more. > > > Information is available to subscribers to that information. There are > > ample ways to become better acquainted with that information. One is > > to subscribe to an educational environment, where you are paying for > > time and attention to have information laid out in an organized > > fashion to facilitate your free investigation. One is to purchase > > books, where the royalties on the book pay for the several years of > > time and effort that the authors took to present that information > > carefully, precisely, and plainly. One is to subscribe to journals, > > where there is rapid turnaround on research results so that you can > > get much broader access to the information base, not to mention quite > > a bit more current. Since all that requires extensive overhead, then > > it does cost some money to subscribe to it. > > I'm afraid I have my own views on the free market, which are probably > not appropriate for sci.physics. Perhaps so. In any event, what I have described is real-world.
From: Raymond Yohros on 9 Feb 2010 16:31 On Feb 6, 10:36 am, "Dr Ivan D. Reid" <Ivan.R...(a)brunel.ac.uk> wrote: > On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:06:19 -0800 (PST), Urion <blackman_...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote in <4ce380aa-c08a-463f-a776-893db0542...(a)n33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>: > > > Here is a list of unsolved problems in modern physics from wikipedia: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics > > Why are so many [unsolved] problems? > > Because there are far many more solved problems. Some of those on > the list are due to be elucidated this year or next, too. > yes, every time something great is discovered it leads to a new question or questions that go deeper into the matr. i also believe that this next two years will be historic for science because of a peek in experimental research. > > Don't you think there is something seriously > > wrong with our understanding of physics and the universe or are we > > just overcomplicating things? > > We're always overcomplicating things (e.g. epicycles) until someone > has a breakthrough that clears up the overcomplications, and then they start > building up again... Do you seriously think we'll ever know *everything* > about the Universe? There's a reason things are called "theories" and not > "facts"! > yes like the dark ages of multiple dimental delutions that are now gone for good. a math failure that made physics look blury and dark. now the foundations are solid with 3d strings to map up matenergy, light&sound. when will the planck explorer will begin listening to the sound of sounds? regards r.y
From: tadchem on 10 Feb 2010 05:45
On Feb 9, 4:25 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 8 Feb, 20:11, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 4, 2:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 4 Feb, 12:20, "Cwatters" > > > > <colin.wattersNOS...(a)TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote: > > > > > Peer reviewed scientific papers are hidden away on subscription sites > > > > where as the cranks publish openly. > > > > And whose fault is that exactly? Scientists can't expect to act as > > > gatekeepers to knowledge, and then complain that too few people > > > understand their work. > > > This isn't gatekeeping. It's publishing as a business. > > Yes, gatekeeping. > > > I get the feeling that you believe that all information should be > > free, > > Free to access, yes. > > > and that any impediment to that is a sign of gatekeeping and > > obfuscation. This isn't the case. > > I'm saying that the reality of charging individuals for access to > scientific knowledge is that there will be fewer individuals who have > scientific knowledge. > > > Information is available to subscribers to that information. There are > > ample ways to become better acquainted with that information. One is > > to subscribe to an educational environment, where you are paying for > > time and attention to have information laid out in an organized > > fashion to facilitate your free investigation. One is to purchase > > books, where the royalties on the book pay for the several years of > > time and effort that the authors took to present that information > > carefully, precisely, and plainly. One is to subscribe to journals, > > where there is rapid turnaround on research results so that you can > > get much broader access to the information base, not to mention quite > > a bit more current. Since all that requires extensive overhead, then > > it does cost some money to subscribe to it. > > I'm afraid I have my own views on the free market, which are probably > not appropriate for sci.physics. I suspect your views on the free market may be inconsistent with peer- reviewed science. Scientific publication makes intensive use of highly skilled and trained people - editors, proofreaders, reviewers, etc. This is too expensive to make the reports immediately available to the public for free. To *serious* researchers the expense of a few journal subscriptions is well worth it to get the data quickly in raw form unfiltered by the alleged minds of the popular press. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA |