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 may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Indirect Detection of Gravitational Waves
editI 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
editThe 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.
QM + gravity
editThis source has a section "B. Summary of challenges" at the intersection of QM and relativity.
- Bose, S., Fuentes, I., Geraci, A. A., Khan, S. M., Qvarfort, S., Rademacher, M., ... & Wanjura, C. C. (2025). Massive quantum systems as interfaces of quantum mechanics and gravity. Reviews of Modern Physics, 97(1), 015003.
Should there be a section for other lists?
editI have covered the Ginzburg problems and the list of millenium problems by the Strings (conference) should a section be created about notable lists of open problems? ReyHahn (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- This would be a good fit in the article. But the Ginzburg problems will need to be clarified. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- We don't have to add the whole list but to mention them.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- List of unsolved problems in mathematics starts by listing famous lists (Millennium Prize problems, etc.). Stepwise Continuous Dysfunction (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
- We don't have to add the whole list but to mention them.--ReyHahn (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)
