|
We all know that some theoretical ideas lack experimental evidence while in other cases there's a lack of a suitable theory for known phenomena and established facts and concepts. But what problem in physics, according to you, deserves a mention? And why you think solving that particular problem is of utmost importance and/or how far-reaching its effects/repercussions would be. One unsolved problem per post. |
|||||||||
|
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or specific expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, see the FAQ for guidance.
|
Non-perturbatively coupling a charge and its quantized electromagnetic field. It is a better initial approximation for QED. It may prevent the theory from UV and IR infinities at one stroke and provide correct physical description even in the first Born approximation. The perturbative series will become quite different - with numerically small terms. If successful, this formulation of QED may serve as a model to other phenomena (interactions) in particle physics. |
|||||||||
|
|
The atom is invariant thru time? NO - The atom is invariant thru time: This answer is naturally the expected one. It is 'common sense'. The physics building is rooted upon this answer, but this question has not being asked, nor answered, nor discussed. And Physics continues as usual. YES - The atom is NOT invariant thru time: It is NOT the expected answer. If it happens to be the valid answer then Physics continues as usual, after a revolution. How sure we are that the atom is 'invariant'? How to decide that the space expansion model is better than a shrinking or 'evanescent matter' model ? Without further reasoning one can say that one model appears to be the dual of the other, like an image in a mirror. If we can not assert that the atom is invariable then the consequences can be dramatic:
We must be conscient that a long future awaits the Humanity and the Physics must evolve. Under a closer scrutiny several fundamental notions, our present believes, can peril. I tried to persuade our community, whith the above lines, that there exists merit in this quest and it is of the utmost importance, and surely it is an unsettled question. This subject of a possible 'atom evanescence' was already studied in the arxiv paper linked bellow, and it was never criticized nor discussed. In there is presented a model that conforms to the Universe evolution and the experimental barionic data, with only one parameter - the Hubble Constant. The equations of the model can be written in the back of an envelope, somewhat ironically. As any model it was constructed upon one hypothesis, as above described, and applying it upon data. The paper includes a comparison between the SM and the new model. |
||||
|
|
|
Given a small ball sitting on top of a large ball, when the small ball falls off the large ball, at what point on the large ball does the small ball depart? It was a long time ago, but neither us students nor the prof in an undergraduate dynamics course could figure it out. The question sought a general equation for the departure point as a function of the two radii and the mass of the smaller ball, and assumed no friction. A bonus was to be given if one could do the same for the frictional case with a ball that rolled as it fell off, thus having to include the moment of inertia of the ball. Perhaps it is a triviality and we were just blind, but I would love to see the answer. |
||||
|
|
This question is protected to prevent "thanks!", "me too!", or spam answers by new users. To answer it, you must have earned at least 10 reputation on this site.
