# Are there any physical or chemical laws science doesn't know? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 7, 2001, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176 "2001-04-07T19:49:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2001, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/41 "2001-04-10T18:54:10Z")
> [@](#): > > It would help to have some phenomenon which were unexplained by which one could discover such laws. Like, say…_consciousness?_ (You appear to be simultaneously arguing that we understand everything, that we don’t understand everything but the things we don’t understand aren’t important, that everything is explained, that consciousness is not explained but since everything is explained it must not be explained but everything is explained so …oh, fuck, let’s say it’s spirit. Who knows how, but that explains it. Because everything is explained. Except for the stuff that isn’t. And all those unknown things that clearly cannot possibly exist because we don’t know what they are yet.) ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2001, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/42 "2001-04-10T19:56:52Z")
Please, don’t torture us anymore! You asked for an example of something that we didn’t know “the fundamentals” of, and others including myself proffered quantum gravity. _It is something fundamental that we don’t know about_. If you are willing to brush that off by stating that we have a _macro_ understanding of gravity (and that this is as fundamental as quantum theories about particles even though they completely are at odds with each other), then I will state this: you are correct. We understood the universe enough in ancient Greece, then, and surely enough by the time of Newton. The rest has just been working out the details. You win. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2001, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/43 "2001-04-10T20:02:51Z")
> [@](#): > > oh, fuck, let’s say it’s spirit Let’s not, okay? 😉 Spirit is not something that is unexplained or mysterious. It is the vital essence of Life. It is the corporeal consciousness. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2001, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/44 "2001-04-10T20:40:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > > > [@](#): > > > > It would help to have some phenomenon which were unexplained by which one could discover such laws. > > Like, say…_consciousness?_ If conscious obeyed laws, it would cease being consciousness anymore. It would have to be fundamental or it is “turtles all the way down” again. I must apologize for not taken quantum gravity and other mass-related issues into account, perhaps in a footnote, in those other threads. I apparently deserved the resulting incredulity. That is what I get for never studying. But perhaps some other issues will pop up? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2001, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/45 "2001-04-10T20:42:35Z")
**Britt:** _Although I must admit I always thought of all geocentric models as being modifications t the fundamental system Aristotle set out, thanks for the clarification_ Actually, **Britt** , you’re righter than you think. The basic **physics** of the ancient/medieval universe—geocentric, with concentric sublunar spheres of earth/water/air/fire, superlunar ether, “natural” motion being circular above the sublunar spheres, etc. etc.—is generally referred to as “Aristotelian”. **tracer** ’s right that when it came to the **kinematics** , Aristotle’s principles demanded uniform circular motion and homocentric spheres, which at first glance would seem to rule out such devices as the epicycles and eccentrics and equants of the Ptolemaic system. (Ptolemy wasn’t the first to invent those devices, by the way, but he was the one who combined them into a reasonably coherent single model that was adequately predictive for all the planets known at that time.) The task of working out the **mechanics** of Ptolemaic motions so that they could be reconciled with Aristotelian physical principles fell mostly to the medieval Islamic astronomers like al-Tusi, who developed some rather cool mechanisms such as the “Tusi couple” that seem to have made their way (via Renaissance translations from the Arabic) into Copernicus’s theories before he eventually took the step of abandoning the geocentric model! Ain’t ancient science fun? 🙂 All right, no more hijack from me. ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2001, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/46 "2001-04-10T22:43:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by emarkp \* > > :eek: Severe pain due to fallacious reasoning… > > > > jm, you definately can’t conclude that from your observations. > > Well, that wheel-chair guy, not to mention that one guy with the bad hair cut and the german accent (last seen doing pepsi commercials) agree with me. I’m guessing that the “wheel-chair guy” is Hawking, right? (Not exactly a stellar–no pun intended–reference.) Can you show us that they agree with you instead of simply asserting it? > [@](#): > > This is part and parcel of the big bang theory. When you look into space, you are looking back into time. Since, accoring to the big bang theory, there is an exact moment in time when space/time came into existence (it sounds odd, but follow me on this one) no matter what direction you look into space, if you could see far enough you’d see back to that point. No, you can’t see back to that point. You can see back to _near_ that point. But _how_ near is unknown. It is more correct to say that a certain time has elapsed since the singularity we call the “Big Bang”. The night sky is not a time machine. We receive light from X years ago. Given the fact that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, we’re not going to see back to the beginning of the universe. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Light energy dissipates at a rate that is inversely proportional to the distance from the source. > > It spreads out, but I’m fairly sure photons themselves don’t decay. I might be wrong. Yes, it spreads out. Hence the same energy is spread over a larger and larger area, and it gets dimmer and dimmer. Hence the amount of energy flux through a constant area decreases as the distance from the source increases. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > To simplify, a closed universe would mean (roughly) that if you started moving in a straight line, you’d eventually come back to where you started (like moving on the surface of the earth). > > Since you can’t travel faster than the speed of light, you wouldn’t unless the universe is collapsing. I made an exception for that unknown case in the OP. Technically, you don’t move at all anyway – the rest of the universe moves relative to you and you always remain in the exact center. You did note the use of “roughly” in what I said, right? A better description might be to imagine the universe as a whole at some moment, and extend a ray in a straight line from a given point in any direction. In a closed universe, the ray would eventually come back to its starting point (or very nearly if you account for chaotic perterbations). The point is that the topological space is closed, just like the 2D surface of a 3D sphere is closed. Also, there’s no such thing as the “exact center” of the universe in the inflationary model, just like there is no “exact center” of the surfact of a sphere. It’s meaningless. > [@](#): > > Well, I don’t have a cite for this, but I heard on the radio on Saturday (on “Wait, Wait – Don’t Tell Me” on NPR) that NASA figured this out last week. Essentially, there are a lot more black holes than previously thought, or something. Ones near the edge of the universe are pulling the rest of the universe towards them, causing the acceleration. I flat out question the auhenticity of the quote. There’s nothing on [http://www.space.com](http://www.space.com), [http://www.nasa.gov](http://www.nasa.gov), [http://www.science.com](http://www.science.com), [http://www.sciencenews.org](http://www.sciencenews.org) about it. There might be **speculation** , but that’s not nearly the same thing as a theory backed up by observation. There are plenty of people postulating “dark matter” as a solution, but there’s no hard data to back it up (and this has little to do with black holes). The point is that a few years ago, there was nothing to even suggest this behavior. And we still don’t understanding it. All of the laws of physics pointed away from the conclusion. Had you asked the same question three years ago (with the hindsight of today), we could respond with, "yeah, the inflation rate of the universe is _increasing_ not decreasing. It’s clear then that it would be utterly stupid to think we’ve got it all straight now. ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/47 "2001-04-11T01:43:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > **1) All atoms are in some minimal way “conscious”, hence a collection of them can be conscious. This seems to violate Ockham’s razor as we have no evidence of atoms acting in a conscious fashion outside of the brain.** Then it’s not a possibility, is it? It’s not the atoms that are conscious, it’s the brain they compose that is conscious. Why would you think consciousness is a substance or a force that can be added to or increased or strengthened? ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/48 "2001-04-11T01:47:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > **If conscious(ness) obeyed laws, it would cease being consciousness anymore.** Maybe it obeys “physical or chemical laws science doesn’t know?” 😃 ---
**Author:** ![jab1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee7513/32.png) [@jab1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jab1)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/49 "2001-04-11T01:57:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emarkp \* > **Given the fact that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, we’re not going to see back to the beginning of the universe.** What does the age of the Earth have to do with it? What could stop us from seeing stars older than the Earth? > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Well, I don’t have a cite for this, but I heard on the radio on Saturday (on “Wait, Wait – Don’t Tell Me” on NPR) that NASA figured this out last week. Essentially, there are a lot more black holes than previously thought, or something. Ones near the edge of the universe are pulling the rest of the universe towards them, causing the acceleration. > > **I flat out question the auhenticity of the quote.** He may be referring to [this story](http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/03/13/chandra.deepfields/index.html) I found on [CNN.com](http://CNN.com) about the Chandra X-Ray telescope finding the early universe apparently was teeming with black holes. It doesn’t say they are accelerating the expansion of the universe, though. More black holes would actually SLOW expansion by their accumulated gravity. ---
**Author:** ![JasonFin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/4af34b/32.png) [@JasonFin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JasonFin)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/50 "2001-04-11T04:53:20Z")
jmullaney, are you aware of the convulsions that have been taking place in the last few years in the field of cosmology as a result of the observation that the expansion of the universe is accelerating? This was a completely unexpected discovery that appears to reveal the existence of entirely new factors at play in the universe. > [@](#): > > Re: Outcome of the Unverse > > > [@](#): > > > > It now appears that the inflation of the universe is accelerating. This has no known explanation. So this would definately qualify as something we don’t know. > > Well, I don’t have a cite for this, but I heard on the radio on Saturday (on “Wait, Wait – Don’t Tell Me” on NPR) that NASA figured this out last week. Essentially, there are a lot more black holes than previously thought, or something. Ones near the edge of the universe are pulling the rest of the universe towards them, causing the acceleration. Did anyone else run across this story? The number of black holes in the universe has nothing to do with this phenomenon. Ordinary attractive gravity clearly cannot produce a repulsive force. “Edge of the universe” indeed! If you wish to learn something about this matter, a search on “quintessence” and “inflation” should return some useful results. [http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/quintessence.html](http://www.astronomytoday.com/cosmology/quintessence.html) should contain some insights to start you off with. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/51 "2001-04-11T05:47:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by emarkp \* > Can you show us that they agree with you instead of simply asserting it? Well, Einstein is easy. Poke around [what Britannica says about space-time](http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=117758&tocid=27591#27591.toc) under their entry on the Cosmos: > [@](#): > > In Einstein’s 1917 model of the universe, the curvature occurs only in space, with the graph paper being rolled up into a cylinder on its side, a loop around the cylinder at constant time having a circumference of 2pR—the total spatial extent of the universe. Notice that the “radius of the universe” is measured in a “direction” perpendicular to the space-time surface of the graph paper. Since the ringed space axis corresponds to one of three dimensions of the actual world (any will do since all directions are equivalent in an isotropic model), the radius of the universe exists in a fourth spatial dimension (not time) which is not part of the real world. Right? I mean this is sort of off topic, but I’m bearing with it. > [@](#): > > The night sky is not a time machine. We receive light from X years ago. Given the fact that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, we’re not going to see back to the beginning of the universe. OK, I’m a little fuzzy on all this, but, I’ll try: The center of the universe is the same age as the universe, and again, due to the relative nature of space-time, every observer is at the center of the universe. You are this much right – there is a cosmic event horizon, ever expanding, beyond which we can’t see. Still, the event horizon is spherical, and the radiation which enters our horizon from opposite sides have the same temperature from any direction (isotropic) which suggests the radiation came from the same point – or what was the same shell of something in the past. Like any singularity, the Big Bang would have to have an event horizon, and it is become ours. Maybe 😛 > [@](#): > > A better description might be to imagine the universe as a whole at some moment, and extend a ray in a straight line from a given point in any direction. In a closed universe, the ray would eventually come back to its starting point OK. Let me type my way through this… Case 1: Theoretical ray moves “faster than light” hence effectively backwards in time (e.g. it could get to the light reaching us tommorow from alpha centaui that left there two years ago in a second, thus intersecting Alpha Centauri in 700 seconds, at the same time as light from the would be leaving which would not get here for two years, thus traveling 2 years, minus 700 seconds into the “past” except it could of course be moving even faster.) In that case, it would eventually hit the Big Bang, and yes, it would end up at the point it started. Case 2: It is traveling at the speed of light. Aim it at a star at the very edge of visible space. By the time it catches get there, the light which left that star is now at a further edge of space. It would be an endless race which our ray could not win. But since us, the ray, and the star’s photon are all relativistically the center of the universe… Well, I see your point. My head is starting to hurt! > [@](#): > > \*\*I flat out question the auhenticity of the quote If you have real player, which you can download for free, go [here.](http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/waitwait/20010407.waitwait.05.rmm)\*\*. If you haven’t the means of hearing this, and it really bugs you, order a transcipt of the 4/7 show through the link [here](http://www.npr.org/programs/waitwait/rundowns/2001/current.html). This is a humorous quiz show, but it is also NPR’s attempt to make this kind of news palatable for the masses (like me). I’ve never heard of them making anything up. I was partly wrong – it was supernovae not black holes. > [@](#): > > It’s clear then that it would be utterly stupid to think we’ve got it all straight now. Well, it does seem to turn out it was gravity all along. A red herring – so perhaps we’ve really had it all straight for a while (again, excepting quantum gravity.) ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/52 "2001-04-11T08:25:00Z")
**Old Business** 1. Yes, under Feynman’s model a positron is an electron travelling backwards in time. 2. **It is difficult to prove a negative.**??? Excuse me? Are you arguing with my statement that reality has no obligation to confor to the hope of physicists? Do you really wish to contest the point, or are you merely trying to divert attention from your misrepresentation of Cecil’s column. 3. **We don’t know the fundamentals of Minoan. We know the fundamentals of matter.** We know the fundamentals of language. Minoan is simply a particular arrangement of those elements. The brain is simply a particular arrangement of matter. There is meaning located in Minoan script. There is a consciousness located in the brain. The parallel is not perfect. No analogy is. But I think it serves to shed light on the special standard which you reserve for the question of consciousness alone. 4. **Which ones?** Which ones were you pointing at for abiogenesis? Standard one, meet standard two. **Newer Business.** > [@](#): > > I never said it was. What I postulated, with a few exceptions, is that science has uncovered all laws which govern the material universe. I never intended to imply all the implications of those laws have been worked out. Then you should refrain from drawing conclusions from the lack of complete explanations for some phenomena. > [@](#): > > I obliquely asked for examples of phenomena which science can’t explain with current laws. Some examples have been lacking. From my perspective, what has been lacking is a uniform standard for determining which phenomena count as unexplained and which can be reduced (without detail) to “chemistry” or “physics”. So far, it seems that anything inconvenient to your desire to find consciousness unique and insoluble gets put in the “reduce” bin. > [@](#): > > Theorists haven’t worried alot about gravity because on the quantum scale it is comparatively weak along side the other forces. It isn’t fair to say they have ignored it It isn’t to say that they have explained it, either. So, do you argue that quantum gravity **must** have a non-material component as you do for consciousness? > [@](#): > > Well, that wheel-chair guy, not to mention that one guy with the bad hair cut and the german accent (last seen doing pepsi commercials) agree with me [that the Universe is a sphere]. Please provide a quote from Hawking that states his unambiguous conclusion as to the topology of the Universe. Really, though, you seem to be conspicuously missing the point. Universal topology is generally expressed in terms of a fourth spatial dimension. Hence the sphere, saddle, flat models. The passage you quoted from Einstein even specifically mentions this. Nevertheless you continue to focus on the internal spatial dimensions. > [@](#): > > When you look into space, you are looking back into time. Since, accoring to the big bang theory, there is an exact moment in time when space/time came into existence (it sounds odd, but follow me on this one) no matter what direction you look into space, if you could see far enough you’d see back to that point. I do not think this is incorrect. The “back through time” aspect is solely a function of distance and the speed of light. Seeing back to the Big Bang would require the “edge material” to have been travelling at exactly the speed of light ever since the event. (hmmmm, you might be able to get around that in the inflationary model, but it depends upon rates of expansion which, as others have noted, we do not understand nearly as well as we thought.) Your requirement for faster than light travel in order to “cricle” a spherical Universe also relies upon an expansion rate that eternally keeps pace with _c_. Do you have a justification for this? [quote] Still, if the Higgs particle doesn’t obey the standard model, I’d expect there to be some unexplained phenomena which resulted from this apart from the behavior of the particle itself. [quote] Again, your answer to a hole in the “fundamental knowledge” of physics is to minimize it. Since your position that consciousness necesarily defies physical explanation depends upon the completeness of our physical model, this is understandable. Not particularly rigorous, but understandable. > [@](#): > > That is the flaw in CalMeachem’s point – science at the end of last century did know they didn’t know the reasons for the perihelion of the planet Mercury. Flaw? There are details about the current world which science cannot fully model. You have repeatedly dismissed mention of them with “physics” or “chemistry”. Nineteenth century mullaney probably sneered a similar “gravity” when discussing Mercury. **Cal’s** point was not flawed. It nicely encapsulated the fallacy of drawing sweeping conclusions from a present state of knowledge. > [@](#): > > I’m still unsure exactly what phenomena aren’t explained by quantum theory There is more than one quantum theory. Surely you don’t imagine the question of which one best represents reality is trivial. > [@](#): > > Under conditions X, Y occurs or does not occur, and there is no law governing why or why not, or the why or why not is an exception to current laws Goodness, under that definition nearly every probability function qualifies as a potential “proof” that laws remain to be discovered. But, of course, you dismiss the “why or why not” of probability as “just the way things are”, don’t you. Like virtual particle materialization. Well, it is the way things are. That doesn’t mean there are not laws governing it which remain to be discovered. > [@](#): > > True, but the unexpected behavior [from emergent properties] never violates the basic rules. Of course they do. If they didn’t, then we would already have a grand Unified Theory. The “emerging properties” of the transition from teh quantum scal to the macroscopic scale **do** break the rules **as we presently understand them**. > [@](#): > > Yes, but we are left with the following possible conclusions: > > 1. All atoms are in some minimal way “conscious”, hence a collection of them can be conscious. This seems to violate Ockham’s razor as we have no evidence of atoms acting in a conscious fashion outside of the brain. > 2. There is a principal, beyond matter, at play. > 3. Consciousness is caused by the Higgs particle and/or quantum gravitation, and I shouldn’t cavelierly dismiss such a possibility? > 4. Humans aren’t conscious. You forgot: 5) Consciousness is an emergent property of matter is certain configurations. (You know, like life and heat and elemental identity) 6) Human knowledge is incomplete, so arguments of necessity based upon the limits of human knowledge are unjustified. ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/53 "2001-04-11T08:29:03Z")
A quanta ate my /quote. (and some textual response, it seems. Shouldn’t try to C&P at 0430. Little help from a mod? ---
**Author:** ![Bobort](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac8455/32.png) [@Bobort](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bobort)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/54 "2001-04-11T09:54:42Z")
**Spiritus** , I have to disagree with you about positrons being electrons moving backward through time. That’s how you draw a positron on a Feynmann diagram, but it doesn’t represent physical reality–it’s just notation. Formally, electrons and positrons are related by the charge conjugation operator (C takes one into the other). Time reversal is represented by a different operator, and it does not take electrons into positrons (it takes them into electrons-moving-backwards-in-time, which have the same charge as regular electrons). ---
**Author:** ![dixiechiq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@dixiechiq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dixiechiq)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/55 "2001-04-11T10:19:02Z")
photons are pretty fundamental. are they particles or waves?? if they are waves what is the medium that transmits them in a vacuum. if they are particles why do they exhibit interference patterns?? ---
**Author:** ![FriendRob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecc23a/32.png) [@FriendRob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriendRob)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/56 "2001-04-11T14:34:42Z")
Let’s summarize the discussion (I’m sticking to physics here bc it’s my field): 1)Quantum gravity is not understood. This is not related to observed phenomena that we can’t explain, but to a conflict between 2 theories that both work in different realms of application. 2)Several aspects of particle physics aren’t understood a)Neutrino masses: speculation on this is due to the neutrino deficit - not as many neutrinos coming from the sun as expected according to known physical laws. Neutrino mass is a possible explanation, but there is NO resolution of this that is accepted by all. b)Higgs particle: jmull is right, this should have observable consequences other than the behavior of the particle itself. In fact, very recent experiments seem to show that the magnetic moment of the muon is very slightly off from what the standard model predicts - if these hold up, a clear exception to the claim of the OP. 3)Expansion of the Universe: Recent observations (mostly of distant supernovas) indicate the expansion is accelerating - cause unknown. It COULD be due to a cosmological constant, but other possiblilities (e.g. quintessence) exist. 4)Dark matter: When you add up the apparent mass of a galaxy (by looking at the light emitted from its stars, dust clouds, etc.), you get a smaller value than the actual mass of the galaxy (which can be found from looking at the interactions with other galaxies, among other methods). Presumably this means there is missing, or “dark” matter in the galaxy. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THIS IS. There are very good reasons it can’t be “normal” matter - protons, neutrons, and electrons. This dark matter is (probably) at least 90% of the mass in the universe. WE DON’T KNOW WHAT 90% OF THE UNIVERSE IS MADE OF! If this doesn’t qualify as “something science doesn’t know” then I don’t know what does. Even if we stipulate that emergent phenomena can be reduced to underlying physics, chemistry, and biology, here are 5 completely unexplained problems. How many do you require, Jmullany? ---
**Author:** ![by-tor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/by-tor/32/266_2.png) [@by-tor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/by-tor)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/57 "2001-04-11T16:19:15Z")
Here are some interesting links for you jmullaney: [http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/space/20010410/sc/astrophysics\_challenged\_by\_dark\_energy\_finding\_1.html](http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/space/20010410/sc/astrophysics_challenged_by_dark_energy_finding_1.html) [http://physicsweb.org/article/world/14/3/8/1](http://physicsweb.org/article/world/14/3/8/1) ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/58 "2001-04-11T16:34:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Spiritus, I have to disagree with you about positrons being electrons moving backward through time. That’s how you draw a positron on a Feynmann diagram, but it doesn’t represent physical reality–it’s just notation. Are you certain the situation is so clear-cut? [http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~bugel/fineman.html](http://www-e815.fnal.gov/~bugel/fineman.html) > [@](#): > > The calculations underlying each of these diagrams would be identical, even though by rotating I have in a sense exchanged space for time. Also, something funny is going on with the electric charge – I would no longer see any antiparticles, since charge must be conserved. This has led physicists to sometimes describe an antiparticle as a particle going backwards in time. [http://www.netlabs.net/hp/tremor/twarps.html](http://www.netlabs.net/hp/tremor/twarps.html) > [@](#): > > When an electron/positron pair is made out of gamma radiation, the positron may annihilate with a different electron, leaving it’s original partner free. Feynman pointed out that this is exactly equivalent to a single electron bouncing off a gamma ray and traveling backward in time before bouncing off a second gamma ray and continuing it’s path into the future. Got it? [http://www.physics.hku.hk/modern\_physics/spacetime/spacetime10.html](http://www.physics.hku.hk/modern_physics/spacetime/spacetime10.html) > [@](#): > > But the mathematics of quantum field theory offers an interesting alternative explanation of this diagram. It says that ratherthan viewing it as a positron-photon interaction with the positron going forwards in time, it can be regarded as an electron-photon interaction with the electron goingbackwards in time. [http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Quantum/localepr.html](http://spot.colorado.edu/~vstenger/Quantum/localepr.html) > [@](#): > > Feynman’s idea grew out of his earlier work at Princeton as a graduate student of John Wheeler. Together they had developed a theory of electromagnetic waves involving solutions of Maxwell’s equations that travel both ways in time, the so called retarded and advanced waves. The advanced waves travelled backward in time, that is, they arrived at the detector before they left their source. Despite their presence as valid solutions to Maxwell’s equations, advanced waves had been previously ignored by less bold thinkers . . . Feynman later extended the idea to quantum field theory, in which waves are particles and vice versa, associating antiparticles with the advanced waves ---
**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/59 "2001-04-11T18:37:27Z")
Here’s one more to add to the list: the good old wave-particle duality of light. Which is ok, because these are just _models_ which we use to explain things–one model works for some stuff, the other for other stuff; we don’t really have any more fundamental understanding than your average simian. Honestly, can anyone really explain some of the most basic things: like fields? What the heck is a field? Faraday defined it as “a condition of space” (whatever that means), and we’ve just kept using them because they work. Everything we “know” is just silly little models that work so far, but could be completely revised tomorrow. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2001, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176/60 "2001-04-11T19:33:10Z")
**Old Business** > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > under Feynman’s model a positron is an electron travelling backwards in time. As someone already pointed out, that is more of a conceit than an actuality. > [@](#): > > 1. **It is difficult to prove a negative.**??? > Excuse me? Are you arguing with my statement that reality has no obligation to confor to the hope of physicists? Do you really wish to contest the point, or are you merely trying to divert attention from your misrepresentation of Cecil’s column. I don’t feel I really misrepresented Cecil’s column. Suffice it to say: physicists who believe time travel into the past is possible are out of the mainstream. All the mainstream can suggest is that there is no evidence to support the idea. > [@](#): > > 1. We know the fundamentals of language. Minoan is simply a particular arrangement of those elements. The brain is simply a particular arrangement of matter. There is meaning located in Minoan script. There is a consciousness located in the brain. The parallel is not perfect. No analogy is. But I think it serves to shed light on the special standard which you reserve for the question of consciousness alone. Take the set of all understood languages. Minoan falls outside of that set. Take the set of all known laws governing matter. Consciousness falls outside of that set. Now, a law might be discovered which allows Minoan to be understood, but only if the law (e.g. a rosetta stone) itself links back to the set of understood languages. A law might be discovered which explains consciousness in terms of matter, BUT only if that law links back to the set of known laws. Otherwise the explanation doesn’t intersect. Minoan had meaning. It doesn’t have meaning anymore. > [@](#): > > 1. **Which [chemical laws does consciousness obey]?** Which ones were you pointing at for abiogenesis? The ones we know about. > [@](#): > > Standard one, meet standard two. :rolleyes: **Newer Business.** > [@](#): > > you should refrain from drawing conclusions from the lack of complete explanations for some phenomena. > [@](#): > > From my perspective, what has been lacking is a uniform standard for determining which phenomena count as unexplained and which can be reduced (without detail) to “chemistry” or “physics”. So far, it seems that anything inconvenient to your desire to find consciousness unique and insoluble gets put in the “reduce” bin. I have reduced those for which you haven’t been able to provide an explanation why something outside of the known laws of physics and chemistry would be needed to explain the phenomena. I have not reduced those for which something beyond the laws of physics and chemistry would be required to explain. Is this uniform enough? > [@](#): > > do you argue that quantum gravity **must** have a non-material component as you do for consciousness? In some sense, yes. Once you get an explanation, you need an explanation for the explanation, which then requires and explanation. At some point, everything is the way it is, and there ceases to be a further why. > [@](#): > > Please provide a quote from Hawking that states his unambiguous conclusion as to the topology of the Universe. A cite is proving difficult to find. > [@](#): > > Universal topology is generally expressed in terms of a fourth spatial dimension. Hence the sphere, saddle, flat models. The passage you quoted from Einstein even specifically mentions this. Nevertheless you continue to focus on the internal spatial dimensions. I thought that was the question. I did mention the cosmic event horizon, which is the effective “border” of our universe. WAG… If space/time is infinitely curved at that horizon, a photon would follow that infinite curvature. Since the horizon is expanding, from our perpective it would appear to be spiralling outwards. From it’s perspective, it would remain in the center of the universe. Objects it is moving away from would seem to curve around its own event horizon, and it would pass them again on a slightly different heading. But in an expanding universe, it wouldn’t intersect them again. > [@](#): > > There are details about the current world which science cannot fully model. You have repeatedly dismissed mention of them with “physics” or “chemistry”. Please, give me an example of a phenomenon which can’t be explained using known laws for which I’ve made such a dismissal. > [@](#): > > There is more than one quantum theory. Surely you don’t imagine the question of which one best represents reality is trivial. Quantum mechanics is a fairly unified field. There are various models to explain the implications of the theory, but the theory itself is based on experimental data where there is little argument – Higgs particles and neutrino masses not withstanding. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Under conditions X, Y occurs or does not occur, and there is no law governing why or why not, or the why or why not is an exception to current laws > > Goodness, under that definition nearly every probability function qualifies as a potential “proof” that laws remain to be discovered. But, of course, you dismiss the “why or why not” of probability as “just the way things are”, don’t you. Like virtual particle materialization. Otherwise there’s always another turtle. [wuote]Well, it is the way things are. That doesn’t mean there are not laws governing it which remain to be discovered. [/quote] Doesn’t mean there are either, after a point, quantum graviation not withstanding. > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > True, but the unexpected behavior [from emergent properties] never violates the basic rules. > > Of course they do. If they didn’t, then we would already have a grand Unified Theory. The “emerging properties” of the transition from teh quantum scal to the macroscopic scale **do** break the rules **as we presently understand them**. Not really, unless you want to cite an example. Take for example the drunk and the lamppost. The drunk wanders away from the lamppost in a random direction for a random, finite distance, turns a random angle, and repeats. The emergent property is that, sooner or later, the drunk always will end up back at the lamppost. Viewed from far enough away over a long enough period of time, we can, for all practical purposes, say that the drunk never actually leaves the lamppost. However, a drunk passed out at the lamppost, or a collection of drunks passed out at a lamppost, or several lampposts will never have the emergent property of leaving the lamppost(s) on any scale. Hence: > [@](#): > > 1. Consciousness is an emergent property of matter is certain configurations. doesn’t work. > [@](#): > > 1. Human knowledge is incomplete, so arguments of necessity based upon the limits of human knowledge are unjustified. Like your Minoan example, I believe we’ll have to conclude that consciousness is intractibly a separate entity. **FriendofRob** - I have _repeatedly_ conceded that a set of laws which predicts the effects of quantum gravity is an outstanding issue in the realm of physics. Your other four issues are merely related issues (e.g. a neutrino has mass depending on how/whether it interacts with the Higgs particle which is a the carrier of quantuum mass in such an interaction which also produces quantum gravity and if neutrinoes have mass that answers many questions regarding the missing mass of the universe), a few of which I actually covered in the OP. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-any-physical-or-chemical-laws-science-doesnt-know/61176.md?page=4)