Talk:List of unsolved problems in physics

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Physics Top‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Science

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Lists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Science

Unsolved problems in : Note: Use the unsolved tag: {{unsolved|F|X}}, where "F" is any field in the sciences: and "X" is a concise "explanation" with or without links. The appropriate category tag will automatically be added.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Indirect Detection of Gravitational Waves[edit]

I have deleted the entry claiming that gravitational waves have been directly detected for the first time, as this is untrue. BICEP2 did not directly detect gravitational waves; it measured their influence on CMB polarization. The only prospect of a direct detection of gravitational waves is through interferometric methods, e.g. LIGO. Journalists this week are really skewering the science, but The Guardian gets it more right than "I Fucking Love Science", which is what was referenced for that claim. See: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/23/primordial-gravitational-waves-tantalising-cosmic-birth-big-bang— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:f470:24:2:cc05:415f:b4d7:8728 (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2014

Calculating Band-gaps[edit]

The reasoning behind accurate calculations of band-gaps and problems associated with this are not necessarily unknown and vary widely from system to system. To pose such a general question is ridiculous and exaggerated. Reasons for inaccuracies between theory and experiment can be multitudinous in scope and include such things as: stronger than anticipated coupling between layers, inconsistencies in lattice constants, low number of k-points in the calculations, possible doping in the experimental material, inconsistent assumptions as compared to the real system and really the list goes on and ultimately depends on the material you're working with. If the question is directed at a specific material and with good reasoning, it'd be much more appropriate. Otherwise, there are many materials where bandgaps can be reasonably calculated and compared with experiment.

Hubble tension[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Quantum gravity: Problem of time.[edit]

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)[reply]

Some of These Might Not be Updated[edit]

I don't know about all the areas in this article, but at least for fluid mechanics, upstream contamination can be explained by the decreased surface tension of contaminated fluids, which allows the contaminant to flow upwards toward the container with stronger surface tension. Nknka (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. As the upstream contamination article does not say anything about the open problem and this item in the list has no reference, I took the liberty of removing it from the list.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]