So..what are the problems in physics exactly?

[j-man123]

I would like to know what scientists are searching for, and what about

 

like gravity....i know its a force, but besides that why does it propegate..and why isn't there anything faster than light...since it's a wave...and sound is also..why wouldn't it make sence that there is a faster type of wave?

[Walden]

Einstein said that the speed of light is not absolute. I think that means no matter what speed you're going, light always travels the same speed relative to your motion.

 

Am I right?

[michael37607]

I know exactly how you feel, I've been told that its more philosophy to ask "why?" in physics, but I feel, after we have learned a bit more about something, we can take a second look at it and explain previous phenomenon we something deeper, hopefully A big thing in theoretical physics is trying to find a unified theory to explain the forces, light, etc. If we found it a set of basic rules to derive everything else from, we then might starting asking why these fundamental rules exist.

[j-man123]

Yes. the special theory of relativety, but light in its reference frame from which is was propegated is constant........

[j-man123]

maybe, what i was saying..is isn't it logical to reason that there is another type of matter moving much faster than light particles?

[Walden]

Why do you say it's "logical" to reason that?

[j-man123]

ok....light is noticed by the eyes..and sound by ears....those are two different type of waves only notices by human senses...

 

so why couldn't there be anything we missed

[Daecon]

Sound is made up of waves *through* air particles, photons ARE the light particles themselves. They travel under their own power and not through the motion of something else.

 

[Walden]

There definitely could be something we "missed" - but I wouldn't say its logical to presume such a case. There are people on the boards who know much more than I, so I will stop here and let the experts answer your question.

[danny8522003]

Do you mean that since we have Longitudinal waves in the form of sound waves and Transverse waves in the form of EM, there might be some other 'type' of wave that we cant detect?

[Kniteli]

Basically its a breakdown of the laws of physics when we try to combine quantum mechanics(which are very well supported by experimental data) and relativity(also very strongly supported), that is the biggest problem, how to unify those two punks, and how to demonstrate it resembles our universe once you do. Also finding the carrier particle of gravity seems to be trixy as well.

[Daecon]

Do you mean that since we have Longitudinal waves in the form of sound waves and Transverse waves in the form of EM, there might be some other 'type' of wave that we cant detect?

Who knows, Psionic energy may be real and then it'd be like: "OMFG who ordered THAT?!"

[Severian]

I would like to know what scientists are searching for, and what about

 

As far as fundamental physics which is currently being probed is concerned, the biggies right now are the Higgs boson, supersymmetry, dark matter, dark energy, the baryon asymmetry problem, and neurino masses/mixings.

 

like gravity....i know its a force, but besides that why does it propegate..and why isn't there anything faster than light...since it's a wave...and sound is also..why wouldn't it make sence that there is a faster type of wave?

 

We think gravity is mediated by the graviton. This would be a massless particle which would travel at the speed of light. Light is the fastest thing out there because it have no mass. We understand why it has no mass - it is due to the imposition of a particular symmetry in the universe. Anything with no mass will go at the same speed, and anything with mass will go slower.

[Daecon]

the baryon asymmetry problem' date='

[/quote']

 

I've not heard of that, do you have any more info about what that problem is?

 

Although I'm still not convinced that the graviton really exists...

[Severian]

I've not heard of that' date=' do you have any more info about what that problem is?

[/quote']

 

If everything was created in the Big Bang you would expect there to be as much antimatter as matter. So where has all the antimatter gone? (Baryon asymmetry because protons, neutrons etc are baryons.)

 

Incidentally, if the creationist nuts want a good argument against the Big Bang, this is it (but they are too stupid to know that).

[Daecon]

Ah, of course. I should have remembered that, I was confusing Baryons with Bosons. (How silly of me.)

 

It could be something as mundane as that there are equal numbers of each, it's just that the weight difference between the two has meant that they've become distributed at differnt areas of the Universe. (Think of what happens when you put two substances in a centrifuge.)

[Severian]

An antiparticle has the same mass as the particle.

[mezarashi]

Physicists and engineers engage in alot of experimental verification of well-known or not so well-known theories. This usually leads to a better understanding of certain phenomena and may lead to a technological application. There are also scientists who work on the analytical aspect of physical theories, such as proving relationships or deriving some of their own. Although it is not common to see absolutely new theories like back in the day of Einstein, there are certainly some. To make you understand what is in the field of graduate studies and beyond, why not try reading the American Journal of Physics.

 

The abstracts should not require much knowledge of mathematics to understand.

http://scitation.aip.org/dbt/dbt.jsp?KEY=AJPIAS&Volume=CURVOL&Issue=CURISS#MAJOR1

[[Tycho?]]

Dont forget about the Pioneer anomoly!

[Locrian]

I would like to know what scientists are searching for, and what about

 

You've recieved several answers to this question in this thread. However, I don't think any of them are nearly complete, and might even be misleading.

 

Condensed matter scientists make up a large group of all physicists, and I've read reports that suggested condensed matter and materials physicists make up more than two thirds of all physicists. No one has mentioned anything that they work on in this thread; neither have they mentioned modern studies in decoherence, electromagnetism, quantum logic or other useful areas of physics. Basically, almost no scientists are searching for anything that has been listed here.

 

One great way to see what physicists are exploring is to go to university web pages and look to see what research is being done. You'll find that only the biggest universities have the time and money they can spend on high energy physics, and even then this is only a minority of physicists at the facility.

 

Here is my take on one of the biggest questions in physics right now (which, of course, is composed of myriad smaller questions):

How can we best predict the properties that emerge when matter is condensed and/or strongly correlated and placed in various conditions?

[swansont]

Condensed matter scientists make up a large group of all physicists, and I've read reports that suggested condensed matter and materials physicists make up more than two thirds of all physicists.

 

 

Which is itself unexplained...

[Severian]

You've recieved several answers to this question in this thread. However' date=' I don't think any of them are nearly complete, and might even be misleading.

[/quote']

 

Your criterion for what are the most interesting questions in physics seems to be that it must be interesting if lots of people work on it. This is a flawed argument. The reason not many universities can work on particle physics is because it is extremely expensive to build the experiments, so a department has to be above a critical size in order to contribute.

[Locrian]

And your interpretation of the questions

 

1) So..what are the problems in physics exactly? (from the title) and

2) I would like to know what scientists are searching for, and what about (from the OP)

 

as "what are the most interesting questions in physics" (my emphasis) is also exceptionally flawed. That is simply not one of the questions raised, although it may be related.

 

The poster wanted to know what the problems are in physics and what scientists are searching for. He recieved some answers, but the vast majority of scientists working in physics don't work in those areas. Therefore the answers he recieved weren't wrong, but were incomplete.

 

I also mentioned they may be misleading. Some members of the public have taken lists such as were given to him originally (where all problems listed are HEP, gavity or theoretically related) as to mean those are the most important questions or issues in physics. There is no good argument to be made that this is true. Therefore, I worried that he may also be mislead, even if it were in a topic that wasn't his direct question.

[Locrian]

I would like to know what scientists are searching for, and what about

 

If you find yourself still interested in this topic, I'd like to highlight my suggestion to go look at different laboratories and see what they are studying. Here are some links, just for fun:

 

North Carolina

Chicago

Berkeley

U of Central Florida

Iowa

Auburn

 

I just did a search on yahoo for "physics departments" and tried to mix in some smaller places with bigger ones. Click the link and go to "research." Most have some information on why they are studying what they are and lists of papers you can read to further explore the topics.

[Severian]

And your interpretation of the questions

 

1) So..what are the problems in physics exactly? (from the title) and

2) I would like to know what scientists are searching for' date=' and what about[/i'] (from the OP)

 

as "what are the most interesting questions in physics" (my emphasis) is also exceptionally flawed. That is simply not one of the questions raised, although it may be related.

 

The poster wanted to know what the problems are in physics and what scientists are searching for. He recieved some answers, but the vast majority of scientists working in physics don't work in those areas. Therefore the answers he recieved weren't wrong, but were incomplete.

 

I also mentioned they may be misleading. Some members of the public have taken lists such as were given to him originally (where all problems listed are HEP, gavity or theoretically related) as to mean those are the most important questions or issues in physics. There is no good argument to be made that this is true. Therefore, I worried that he may also be mislead, even if it were in a topic that wasn't his direct question.

 

Since I prefaced my answer with "As far as fundamental physics which is currently being probed is concerned..." I think my answer was not at all misleading. Condensed matter is certainly not fundamental physics.

 

And if you are such an advocate of condensed matter, why do you not explain to us what the burning issues are?