Talk:List of unsolved problems in physics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.

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:— 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.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of unsolved problems in physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Wow! signal may be solved[edit]

We believe it was caused by the comet called 266/P Christensen.[1] This view appears to be espoused with some confidence.[2] I just don't want to make an edit to the list without confirming with people. Penrose Delta (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Paris, Antonio. "HYDROGEN LINE OBSERVATIONS OF COMETARY SPECTRA AT 1420 MHZ" (PDF). Washington Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 9 June 2017.  External link in |website= (help)
  2. ^ Irving, Michael. "Has the 40-year old mystery of the "Wow!" signal been solved?". Retrieved 9 June 2017. 
Good stuff, thanks. This may indeed be sufficient to consider the mystery solved. -Jordgette [talk] 19:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Here's a refutation: -Jordgette [talk] 20:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Not that this is an RS, but it's looking dodgy. -Jordgette [talk] 21:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate entries[edit]

The entries "Axis of evil (cosmology)" in "Cosmology and general relativity" and "Large scale anisotropies" in "Astronomy and astrophysics" are about the same problem(s). IMO the latter should be merged to the former. Thoughts? Paradoctor (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Not an expert on this, but I agree that, unlike, say, the Wow! signal, the curiosity of this entry lies in its cosmological implications. DaßWölf 00:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)