Answer The Mystery!

[TruthSeeker]

Here's a fun game. Try to come up with an explanation for the following mysteries. The explanation can either be serious or silly. Or it can sound true but be pure balloney! :D

Take your pick! :D

List of Mysteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics)
Phenomena in search of an explanation

Accretion disc jets: Why do the accretion discs surrounding certain astronomical objects, such as the nuclei of active galaxies, emit relativistic jets along their polar axes?
Accelerating universe: Why is the expansion of the universe accelerating, as we have observed? What is the nature of the dark energy driving this acceleration? If it is due to a cosmological constant, why is the constant so small, yet non-zero? Why isn't it huge, as predicted by most quantum field theories, or zero for some yet unknown symmetry reason? What is the ultimate fate of the universe?
Amorphous solids: What is the nature of the transition between a fluid or regular solid and a glassy phase? What are the physical processes giving rise to the general properties of glasses?
Arrow of time: Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, resulting in the distinction between past and future and the second law of thermodynamics? Why does time flow in one direction at all, on macroscopic scales, when there does not seem to be an arrow of time on the scale of fundamental interactions?
Ball lightning: Are these glowing, floating objects real? How to explain them?
Baryon asymmetry: Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the universe?
Cold Fusion: What is the theoretical explanation for the apparent production of excess heat and helium in palladium metal when it is saturated with deuterium?
Cosmological constant: Why doesn't the zero-point energy of vacuum cause a large cosmological constant? What cancels it out?
Dark matter: What is dark matter? How is it generated? Is it related to supersymmetry?
Electroweak symmetry breaking: What is the mechanism responsible for breaking the electroweak gauge symmetry, giving mass to the W and Z? Is it the simple Higgs mechanism of the Standard Model?
Fundamental physical constants: Why do we observe these values, and not others? Have the values of the so called "fundamental physical constants" varied at all over time?
Gamma ray bursts: What is the nature of these extraordinarily energetic astronomical objects?
High energy cosmic rays: Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are impossibly high (so called Oh-My-God particle), given that there are no sufficiently energetic cosmic ray sources near the Earth? Why is it that (apparently) some cosmic rays emitted by distant sources have energies above the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit?
General: What are the origins of asymmetries in general in the Universe?
High-temperature superconductors: Why do certain materials exhibit superconductivity at temperatures much higher than around 50 kelvins?
Large scale structure of the cosmos: Are there any aspects of the topology or structure of the universe at a large scale not yet observed?
Mass: What causes anything to have mass?
Neutrino mass: What is the mechanism responsible for generating neutrino masses? Is the neutrino its own antiparticle?
Pioneer anomaly: What causes the apparent residual sunward acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft?
Solar physics: Why is the Sun's Corona (atmosphere layer) so much hotter than the Sun's surface?
Turbulence: Is it possible to make a theoretical model to describe the behavior of a turbulent fluid (in particular, its internal structures)?

Theoretical ideas in search of experimental evidence

Axions: Is the Peccei-Quinn theory (i.e. mechanism) the solution to the strong CP problem? What are the properties of the predicted axion?
Cosmic inflation: Is the theory of cosmic inflation correct, and if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton field giving rise to inflation?
Emergent phenomena: Are there physical laws important at a particular scale of phenomena, which are impossible to deduce or derive from fundamental laws of physics as small and great scales such as quantum mechanics and general relativity?
Extra dimensions: Does Nature have more than four spacetime dimensions?
Faster-than-light: Is it possible to go faster than the speed of light? Is it possible to transmit information faster than the speed of light?
Gravity: Is our universe filled with gravitational radiation from the big bang? From astrophysical sources, such as inspiralling neutron stars? What can this tell us about quantum gravity and general relativity? Does gravity behave as predicted at very small distance scales?
Information: Do physical phenomena irrevocably destroy information about their prior states?
Magnetic monopoles: Are there any particles that carry "magnetic charge", and if so, why are they so difficult to detect?
Proton decay: Many theories beyond the Standard Model predict proton decay. Do protons decay? If so, then what is their half-life?
Quantum chromodynamics (QCD) in the non-perturbative regime: The equations of QCD remain unsolved at energy scales relevant for describing atomic nuclei. How does QCD give rise to the physics of nuclei and nuclear constituents?
Quantum gravity: How can the theory of quantum mechanics be merged with the theory of general relativity to produce a so-called "theory of everything"? Is string theory the correct step on the road to quantum gravity, or a blind alley? Is there any way to extract experimental information about the nature of physics at the Planck scale?
Quantum mechanics in the correspondence limit: Is there a preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics? How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse, give rise to the reality we perceive?
Size of the Universe: Is there anything beyond the limits of the theoretical boundaries of the observable universe?
Standard Model Higgs mechanism: Does the Standard Model Higgs particle exist? More generally, does inertial mass have a basis or mechanism separate from gravitational mass?
Supersymmetry: Is supersymmetry a symmetry of Nature? If so, what is the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking?
Technicolor: Does Nature make use of strong dynamics in breaking electroweak symmetry?

Engineering challenges

Fusion power: Is it possible to construct a practical nuclear reactor that is powered by nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission?
Quantum computers: Is it possible to construct a practical computer that performs calculations on qubits (quantum bits)? Is there a practical limit to the speed of a quantum computer?
Oldest Star: How old an object in space is it possible to observe (i.e. how greatly can light be redshifted and still observed)?




The TruthSeeker :tao:

[sonrisa]

Fascinating puzzles, Truthseeker.
I'm going to address the one about the universe having more matter than anti-matter:
don't matter & anti-matter cancel each other out? So if the universe had equal amts of both, then wouldn't it go poof? So in order for the universe to exist it would have to contain more of one & less of the other, correct?
Here's a thought: in an anti-matter universe- where there is more anti-matter than matter- would those inhabitants would call the anti-matter "matter", since anti-matter would be the norm in that universe?

[scameter]

Why doesn't the zero-point energy of vacuum cause a large cosmological constant? What cancels it out?

Hmm...curvature of space/gravity perhaps?

What causes anything to have mass?

Gravity.

Why is the Sun's Corona (atmosphere layer) so much hotter than the Sun's surface?

Possibly because of rising heat from it's surface constantly rising and yet not always leaving the sun, thus forming a hotter atmosphere than surface.

Does Nature have more than four spacetime dimensions?

Many theories say it has more, such as I believe string theory says it has 11 dimensions, something like 6 time and 5 space.

Do physical phenomena irrevocably destroy information about their prior states?

I would say not. Why would they, or perhaps how could they? Even black holes's original form can be deduced.

Do protons decay? If so, then what is their half-life?

And, if so, how, and why? Perhaps mass is important to decay. Things such as light that are massless never decay, and things with much more mass decay more rapidly.

Is string theory the correct step on the road to quantum gravity, or a blind alley?

I'm curious how branes and gravity would play into string theory, as well as deducing exactly what strings are, whether particles or singularities, or simply cosmological constants. I also wonder if gravity isn't a cosmological constant.

How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse, give rise to the reality we perceive?

"Give rise"? Isn't superposition and wavefunction apart of the reality we perceive? Or did I interpret your question inaccurately?

Is there anything beyond the limits of the theoretical boundaries of the observable universe?

Possibly, such as parallel universes, or perhaps extremely small, other dimension galaxies/universes.

More generally, does inertial mass have a basis or mechanism separate from gravitational mass?

Possibly. I would say that it depends on the velocity one is traveling, and how much gravitational force is upon them, if any.

Is it possible to construct a practical nuclear reactor that is powered by nuclear fusion rather than nuclear fission?

I would say so, perhaps by implosive mechanisms/processes.

How old an object in space is it possible to observe (i.e. how greatly can light be redshifted and still observed)?

I think that depends on the position of the observer.

I'd just like to say, thank you truthseeker. For a short time I have been discouraged towards scientists because of their opinions, and so I avoided their profession too. This was wrong of me to do, mainly because I love science, and have loved it for a long time, and just because I dislike the opinions of those professing in it doesn't mean I should dislike something that I actually do like, if you follow me. Now, from reading your topic after avoiding it for a while, I am envigorated with a new excitement for science; not the dogmatic, limited, opinionated version of many scientists and atheists, but science it's self. I thank you for this. :)

[sonrisa]

Q- what causes anything to have mass?

Scam- gravity

-- I started to say that to Scam, until I remembered that the astronauts in 0g's still have mass. Gravity is, at best a partial answer.

[TruthSeeker]

Mass is a form of energy. Starts there... :lol:

[scameter]

I started to say that to Scam, until I remembered that the astronauts in 0g's still have mass. Gravity is, at best a partial answer.

I'm not sure of what "og's" is, but I assume is zero gravity environments. But, they may appear to have mass to us when measured on earth, but in zero-g environments, they have no mass, which is partially why aging is extremely lower in space than on earth.

[sonrisa]

so are you saying that the astronauts are inert? :D

[Oli]

In zero gravity people have no weight, which in the mechanics of Mathematics is the force of gravity times by the object's mass. They still have a mass as they are still an object made up of particles which are all determined to have a specific mass. Them being able to float shows that they have no weight, and them still being an object of mass means they must still have a mass.

[sahyo]

Try to come up with an explanation for the following mysteries.



cannot why mysterying
silent singing
listening

[sonrisa]

Oli-- in zero gravity people have no weight

--exactly. Scam was confusing mass with weight. In addition to the above definition of mass, inertia also figures into it. The astronauts are not inert, ie just floating helplessly around in 0g's. They exert- perform experiments, do maintenance & other work both inside & outside the shuttle. In order to move around in the 0g environment they must have some mass.

hmmm.... after re-reading thru this topic, it occurs to me that the objects the astronauts work with in space would also have some mass. Also I remember reading somewhere that Saturn has a mass approxmately the same as water. So inert obects also have mass in a 0g environment. Perhaps solidity has something to do with it?

[scameter]

I'm not confusing that sonrisa. I quite well know the difference. Perhaps this will assist, from wikipedia:

Inertial mass is a measure of an object's resistance to changing its state of motion when a force is applied. An object with small inertial mass changes its motion more readily, and an object with large inertial mass does so less readily.
Passive gravitational mass is a measure of the strength of an object's interaction with the gravitational field. Within the same gravitational field, an object with a smaller passive gravitational mass experiences a smaller force than an object with a larger passive gravitational mass. (This force is called the weight of the object. In informal usage, the word "weight" is often used synonymously with "mass", because the strength of the gravitational field is roughly constant everywhere on the surface of the Earth. In physics, the two terms are distinct: an object will have a larger weight if it is placed in a stronger gravitational field, but its passive gravitational mass remains unchanged.)
Active gravitational mass is a measure of the strength of the gravitational field due to a particular object. For example, the gravitational field that one experiences on the Moon is weaker than that of the Earth because the Moon has less active gravitational mass.

[sonrisa]

then why did you say that the astronauts have no mass when they actually have no weight in 0g's?

[scameter]

Because when no force is applied, and there is no gravity, a mass, which is a property of a physical object that quantifies the amount of matter and energy it contains, would be much more relative and less than, I think, what could be qualified as mass in our earthly terms. It would have mass, and yes I was mistaken I didn't know the exact definition of mass, but I still support what I said. When no gravity or resisting force, or force at all, is applied to something, it's mass would be quite different than when forces and gravity are applied in regular environments.

[Thomas Knierim]

scameter: I'm not confusing that sonrisa.

Come on... You said that mass is caused by gravity, which is exactly the opposite of what Newton and Einstein had found out, namely that gravity is caused by mass.

We don't know what causes mass. It's a mystery.

Many of your answers are unfortunately wrong. The above questions are not mere "brain teasers" as Truthseeker has (perhaps somewhat slyly) called them, but they are very deep and fundamental questions. They are all unsolved.

Answer any of these and you can look forward to a palmy career in science... good luck!

Cheers, Thomas

[TruthSeeker]

I never said they are brain teasers...

But of course, thinking about then and coming up with possible answers is always an interesting exercise... ;)

[scameter]

Should I have even tried to answer them then Thomas? lol

[Thomas Knierim]

Truthseeker: I never said they are brain teasers...

Okay, granted. You called it a "fun game" though, which veers towards the same meaning.

Scameter: Should I have even tried to answer them then Thomas?

No, that was definitely a mistake. In view of nescience, silence is always golden. :badgrin:

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

Hmm...yes, I suppose science is much more definite than philosophy. You either know something or you don't. Philosophy is much more human, much more bendable and adaptable. But, that's perfectly fine. Thanks for telling me Thomas. :)

[sonrisa]

danke Thomas! I suspected that some of Truthseeker's brain teasers are chicken-egg type questions, you confirmed it. However some of them we just don't have the capabilty of proving, one way or the other at this time. For instance, just becuz we can't travel faster than light now, doesn't mean it won't happen some time in the future. People also said we couldn't travel faster than the speed of sound, & before that, that we couldn't fly at all. I was watching a show about Leonardo & his machines the other nite & they said that the reason his flying machines didn't work is becuz Leonardo didn't know about internal combustion engines. Around Leonardo's time somebody (I forget who, this was a different show) said that the Earth couldn't be round becuz the people on the lower half would all fall into the void. This was, of course, before Sir Isaac discovered gravity. And once he discovered it, he had to invent calculus to explain it. It may be that the math that would explain faster than light travel hasn't been invented yet.

[TruthSeeker]

Okay, granted. You called it a "fun game" though, which veers towards the same meaning.
Life is a fun game too... no matter how serious it is... ;)

[scameter]

It isn't fun to everyone.

[TruthSeeker]

Yes, I suppose it isn't... :(

But sometimes we have to treat it as if it was a game... or it can be pretty overwhelming... <_<

[scameter]

The conditions for a game to begin must exist for the possibility of a game to exist, and that can only happen when one makes life able to be a game, otherwise, it's just life.

[Thomas Knierim]

Sonrisa: For instance, just becuz we can't travel faster than light now, doesn't mean it won't happen some time in the future. People also said we couldn't travel faster than the speed of sound, & before that, that we couldn't fly at all.

The light speed barrier is a tough one. Compared to near-lightspeed-travel, supersonic flight is a no-brainer. The engineering challenges are tremendous and our current technology is no way near. Superluminal travel is not a practical but a theoretical limit. If Einstein is right, superluminal travel is indeed impossible. Maybe Einstein was wrong, and superluminal travel is somehow possible. Perhaps we find that information can travel at superluminal speeds and find a way to convert physical bodies into information. Sort of the "beaming" idea of Star Trek. But that is really very speculative. It will probably not happen in this century.

Cheers, Thomas

[TruthSeeker]

The conditions for a game to begin must exist for the possibility of a game to exist, and that can only happen when one makes life able to be a game, otherwise, it's just life.
It's just a metaphor, scam.... :rolleyes: :lol:

[sonrisa]

Of course breaking the light speed barrier is tough, if it were easy, we'd have done it by now :D As I said, the math we need to do it probably hasn't been discovered yet.

Beaming technology would be cool. Some years back I read something about some university, I forget which one, was conducting research into transporting things on a particle beam. I did a search to see if I could find an online version of this article. Didn't find the article, but I did find this (click here) (http://www.aliensurgeon.com/goralien.htm) :)
I haven't read this very carefully yet, so I don't know how much of this is true or if the whole thing's a joke. However, apparantly Prof Zeilinger truly believes you can teleport buckyballs. Just key - Anton Zeilinger buckyballs- into a search engine & see what comes up.