https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics

Well hurry up.

SCIENCE said:

Well hurry up.

I thought that was your job?

The Rev Dodgson said:

SCIENCE said:

We’ll hurry up.

I thought that was your job?

Sorry, fixed, you may copy paste our quoted above here into a text editor.

All I’ll say at this stage is that the use of the word “problems” in this context can be a bit problematic.

Some of the “problems” listed are really a matter of inadequate data due to observational constraints, some of which may be overcome by further research efforts, and some of which we may be stuck with forever.

Bubblecar said:

All I’ll say at this stage is that the use of the word “problems” in this context can be a bit problematic.

Some of the “problems” listed are really a matter of inadequate data due to observational constraints, some of which may be overcome by further research efforts, and some of which we may be stuck with forever.

For example, the “fine-tuning problem”. For a living being with a limited perspective of the extent of the cosmos, apparent “fine-tuning” of that limited realm might be an inevitable but illusory consequence of observational constraints. So in reality we don’t know if there is a “fine-tuning problem”, so it’s not necessarily a problem at all.

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

All I’ll say at this stage is that the use of the word “problems” in this context can be a bit problematic.

Some of the “problems” listed are really a matter of inadequate data due to observational constraints, some of which may be overcome by further research efforts, and some of which we may be stuck with forever.

For example, the “fine-tuning problem”. For a living being with a limited perspective of the extent of the cosmos, apparent “fine-tuning” of that limited realm might be an inevitable but illusory consequence of observational constraints. So in reality we don’t know if there is a “fine-tuning problem”, so it’s not necessarily a problem at all.

Agreed; they are unanswered questions, not unsolved problems, although I suppose a “problem” can be just a question, in some contexts.

As for fine-tuning, it is entirely answered by the anthropic principle, so it isn’t unsolved, or even unanswered.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Bubblecar said:

All I’ll say at this stage is that the use of the word “problems” in this context can be a bit problematic.

Some of the “problems” listed are really a matter of inadequate data due to observational constraints, some of which may be overcome by further research efforts, and some of which we may be stuck with forever.

For example, the “fine-tuning problem”. For a living being with a limited perspective of the extent of the cosmos, apparent “fine-tuning” of that limited realm might be an inevitable but illusory consequence of observational constraints. So in reality we don’t know if there is a “fine-tuning problem”, so it’s not necessarily a problem at all.

Agreed; they are unanswered questions, not unsolved problems, although I suppose a “problem” can be just a question, in some contexts.

As for fine-tuning, it is entirely answered by the anthropic principle, so it isn’t unsolved, or even unanswered.

There are various different formulations of the anthropic principle but they don’t necessarily say anything very meaningful about fine-tuning.

The usual weak formulation is that observers should expect to find that properties and constraints of their observable universe are necessarily compatible with their existence.

But this would be the case whether or not there are (non-anthropic) “fine-tuning” selection effects involved in the existence of those characteristics.

Not being surprised to find that you live “here” doesn’t necessarily mean you shouldn’t be surprised that you live at all.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

For example, the “fine-tuning problem”. For a living being with a limited perspective of the extent of the cosmos, apparent “fine-tuning” of that limited realm might be an inevitable but illusory consequence of observational constraints. So in reality we don’t know if there is a “fine-tuning problem”, so it’s not necessarily a problem at all.

Agreed; they are unanswered questions, not unsolved problems, although I suppose a “problem” can be just a question, in some contexts.

As for fine-tuning, it is entirely answered by the anthropic principle, so it isn’t unsolved, or even unanswered.

There are various different formulations of the anthropic principle but they don’t necessarily say anything very meaningful about fine-tuning.

The usual weak formulation is that observers should expect to find that properties and constraints of their observable universe are necessarily compatible with their existence.

But this would be the case whether or not there are (non-anthropic) “fine-tuning” selection effects involved in the existence of those characteristics.

Not being surprised to find that you live “here” doesn’t necessarily mean you shouldn’t be surprised that you live at all.

Firstly there is only one anthropic principle. The so-called “strong” anthropic principle is just total nonsense and has nothing to do with it.

Secondly the fact that there could be “fine-tuning” selection effects is not evidence that there are such effects. The anthropic principle just makes it unnecessary to suppose they are a requirement to explain our existence.

I don’t get your point about “doesn’t necessarily mean you shouldn’t be surprised that you live at all.”

Perhaps all unsolved problems in physics are due to the fact we live in a simulation and its not that fine tuned.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Agreed; they are unanswered questions, not unsolved problems, although I suppose a “problem” can be just a question, in some contexts.

As for fine-tuning, it is entirely answered by the anthropic principle, so it isn’t unsolved, or even unanswered.

There are various different formulations of the anthropic principle but they don’t necessarily say anything very meaningful about fine-tuning.

The usual weak formulation is that observers should expect to find that properties and constraints of their observable universe are necessarily compatible with their existence.

But this would be the case whether or not there are (non-anthropic) “fine-tuning” selection effects involved in the existence of those characteristics.

Not being surprised to find that you live “here” doesn’t necessarily mean you shouldn’t be surprised that you live at all.

Firstly there is only one anthropic principle. The so-called “strong” anthropic principle is just total nonsense and has nothing to do with it.

Secondly the fact that there could be “fine-tuning” selection effects is not evidence that there are such effects. The anthropic principle just makes it unnecessary to suppose they are a requirement to explain our existence.

I don’t get your point about “doesn’t necessarily mean you shouldn’t be surprised that you live at all.”

According to “Wiki”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

>There are many different formulations of the anthropic principle. Philosopher Nick Bostrom counts them at thirty, but the underlying principles can be divided into “weak” and “strong” forms, depending on the types of cosmological claims they entail.<

As I said, my position is that we don’t have enough data to tell whether there is any “fine-tuning” going on or not, and what that could entail, so it’s not worth worrying about :)

Cusp presumably disagrees, since he wrote a book on the subject (which I haven’t read).

All I meant by the last comment is that the anthropic principle is too tautological to tell us anything much about the likelihood of our existence in the wider cosmos.

Just reading a question about tachyons
and wondered if it was inluded in TATE’s list of “unsolved problems”.

It isn’t.

Why not?

Shouldn’t tachyons be included?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Just reading a question about tachyons
and wondered if it was inluded in TATE’s list of “unsolved problems”.

It isn’t.

Why not?

Shouldn’t tachyons be included?

Well, slow down¡

SCIENCE said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Just reading a question about tachyons
and wondered if it was inluded in TATE’s list of “unsolved problems”.

It isn’t.

Why not?

Shouldn’t tachyons be included?

Well, slow down¡

Surely you know that all we tachyons are incapable of travelling at less than the speed of light.