# What physical phenomena can science not explain? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 19, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055 "2006-11-19T19:07:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![cranston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@cranston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cranston)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/1 "2006-11-19T19:07:52Z")
The question is in the title. What physical phenomena can science not explain? (Yet? - I should add optimistically). Standard of proof for this thread: sufficient to satisfy me. I am not a scientist though I am reasonably educated layman. I am a christian though I fully accept Darwin’s theory of evolution (yes, it is possible to do both; no, let’s not discuss it in tbis thread). There are scientific theories out there which - while not yet quite proven - are so adequately convincing that, to me, they certainly ‘explain’ this or that phenomenon. However, there are other theories that are so incomplete that they do not prove anything to me. I am thinking of the current status of the unified field theory which - so I believe - reconciles Newtonian physics with Einsteinian physics. So - what verified and commonly observable physical phenomena can science currently not explain? ---
**Author:** ![ReggieB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/3e96dc/32.png) [@ReggieB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ReggieB)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/2 "2006-11-19T19:20:57Z")
I don’t think science has explained how there could have been a first cause at the start of the universe without a prior cause. ---
**Author:** ![cranston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@cranston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cranston)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/3 "2006-11-19T19:25:21Z")
[QUOTE=ReggieB] I don’t think science has explained how there could have been a first cause at the start of the universe without a prior cause. [/QUOTE] Yes, that is true. Or, at least, they have not yet explained it in such a way that I understand. I do understand that electrons - apparently - can appear and disappear into and out of nothing - but I don’t understand how. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/4 "2006-11-19T19:35:45Z")
Here’s a whole book on the subject. [What We Believe but Cannot Prove: Today’s Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty, by John Brockman](http://www.amazon.com/What-Believe-but-Cannot-Prove/dp/0060841818/sr=8-1/qid=1163964820/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0008264-1810515?ie=UTF8&s=books). > [@](#): > > From Publishers Weekly > The title’s question was posed on [Edge.org](http://Edge.org) (an online intellectual clearing house), challenging more than 100 intellectuals of every stripe—from Richard Dawkins to Ian McEwan—to confess the personal theories they cannot demonstrate with certainty. The results, gathered by literary agent and editor Brockman, is a stimulating collection of micro-essays (mainly by scientists) divulging many of today’s big unanswered questions reaching across the plane of human existence. Susan Blackmore, a lecturer on evolutionary theory, believes “it is possible to live happily and morally without believing in free will,” and Daniel Goleman believes children today are “unintended victims of economic and technological progress.” Other beliefs are more mundane and one is highly mathematically specific. Many contributors open with their discomfort at being asked to discuss unproven beliefs, which itself is an interesting reflection of the state of science. The similarity in form and tone of the responses makes this collection most enjoyable in small doses, which allow the answers to spark new questions and ideas in the reader’s mind. It’s unfortunate that the tone of most contributions isn’t livelier and that there aren’t explanations of some of the more esoteric concepts discussed; those limitations will keep these adroit musings from finding a wider audience. (Mar.) > Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. > > From Booklist > In this informative and often surprising book, more than 100 notable scientists and scholars answer the question, “What do you believe even though you cannot prove it?” The responses range from the thought-provoking to seemingly trivial (or just plain silly). Professor of cosmology and astrophysics Martin Rees, for example, admits that he believes intelligent life is unique to our world (in sharp contrast to many of his fellow contributors). Alun Anderson, senior consultant to New Scientist magazine, believes cockroaches are conscious. Mathematician and science-fiction novelist Rudy Rucker believes in a multiplicity of universes. Susan Blackmore, who has written widely on the subject of consciousness, appears to believe that she doesn’t exist. The contributors touch on a broad spectrum of subjects, from religion to science and many points in between. Although some of the responses are arrogant or nitpicky, the majority are thoughtful, honest, and revelatory of the contributors’ own intellectual and philosophical biases. And the book certainly gets us thinking about our own deeply held, if entirely unprovable, beliefs. David Pitt > Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved ---
**Author:** ![Khadaji](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/5 "2006-11-19T20:38:21Z")
Here is an interesting [site](http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524911.600) 13 things that do not make sense. I got the link from a previous thread. I don’t know how well-respected [newscientist.com](http://newscientist.com) is, so I can’t vouch for what is there, but I thought it was interesting enough at the time to bookmark it. ---
**Author:** ![diggleblop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ac91a4/32.png) [@diggleblop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/diggleblop)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/6 "2006-11-19T20:40:07Z")
Something from nothing = evolution _and/or_ creationism. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/7 "2006-11-19T20:45:34Z")
[QUOTE=diggleblop] Something from nothing = evolution _and/or_ creationism. [/QUOTE] Oh really? Where did you learn about evolution? No theories of evolution I’ve ever heard, propose that something came from nothing. ---
**Author:** ![cranston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@cranston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cranston)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/8 "2006-11-19T20:46:58Z")
[QUOTE=Khadaji] Here is an interesting [site](http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524911.600) 13 things that do not make sense. I got the link from a previous thread. I don’t know how well-respected [newscientist.com](http://newscientist.com) is, so I can’t vouch for what is there, but I thought it was interesting enough at the time to bookmark it. [/QUOTE] That’s an excellent link - and just the kind of thing I was looking for. The New Scientist is a trustworthy and well-circulated magazine in the Uk - rather like the Scientific American in the US, I imagine. ---
**Author:** ![jimmmy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@jimmmy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimmmy)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/9 "2006-11-19T21:10:16Z")
[Ball lightning](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040917.html) says Cecil, and [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning) meets the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/10 "2006-11-19T21:14:05Z")
From what I’ve heard, we still don’t really have any idea how tape really works, past “sticky stuff is sticky”. ---
**Author:** ![cranston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f07891/32.png) [@cranston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cranston)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/11 "2006-11-19T21:19:20Z")
[QUOTE=jimmmy] [Ball lightning](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040917.html) says Cecil, and [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_lightning) meets the OP. [/QUOTE] I am no scientist - as this entire post will prove - but I can certainly explain ball lightning; it’s the emanation of static electricity around tiny, weightless motes of dust that are consumed when the electricity is released in contact with some earthed object. There. Explained. I can also explain cancer. Cancer: it’s some kind of ultra-severe allergy to something we haven’t identified yet. Boy, I’m on a roll tonight. Give me a hard one. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/12 "2006-11-19T21:21:20Z")
Consciousness cannot come close to being explained by science. I went to graduate school in behavioral neuroscience. I naively thought that people there would have some insights on how in arises. Nope, the work in neuroscience is way more primitive than that and there is no indication that an answer is on the horizon. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/13 "2006-11-19T21:28:04Z")
Women. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/14 "2006-11-19T21:32:14Z")
I recently read (Slashdot, maybe?) that scientists finally explained how bumblebees are capable of flight, but I can’t find a link at the moment. I mention this because bumblebee flight is the old standby answer to the question posed by the OP. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/15 "2006-11-19T21:33:03Z")
[QUOTE=Khadaji] Here is an interesting [site](http://space.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18524911.600) [/QUOTE] !!! Cold fusion?! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/16 "2006-11-19T21:40:43Z")
Isn’t there something called _The Encyclopedia of Ignorance_ which is a general compendium of questions scientists consider important but can’t answer yet? I did an Amazon search but the only [entry](http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Ignorance-Ronald-Duncan/dp/0671790870/sr=1-2/qid=1163972278/ref=sr_1_2/103-1819181-9310206?ie=UTF8&s=books) I could find dates from 1978. Surely it’s been updated since then? ---
**Author:** ![yelimS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/54ee81/32.png) [@yelimS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yelimS)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/17 "2006-11-19T21:48:03Z")
[QUOTE=Cisco] I recently read (Slashdot, maybe?) that scientists finally explained how bumblebees are capable of flight, but I can’t find a link at the moment. I mention this because bumblebee flight is the old standby answer to the question posed by the OP. [/QUOTE] [Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Flight) to the rescue! Oh, yeah, and crop circles. WHOAH. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/18 "2006-11-19T21:55:42Z")
[QUOTE=yelimS] Oh, yeah, and crop circles. WHOAH. [/QUOTE] On the offchance you’re being serious, the answer is that the best ones are created by very clever and artistic people with boards on ropes, 1930s grass rollers, sometimes wearing stilts, and other stuff, in the middle of the night. ---
**Author:** ![yelimS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/54ee81/32.png) [@yelimS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yelimS)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/19 "2006-11-19T22:00:14Z")
I’m profoundly insulted. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JimOfAllTrades](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@JimOfAllTrades](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JimOfAllTrades)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055/20 "2006-11-19T22:02:46Z")
I think there are many physical processes that we can describe very well on a large scale basis, but don’t know all the details way down at the sub-atomic level. Gravity is one that fascinates me. And although I’m sure much of the mystery is due to my lack of knowledge, it’s an almost magical thing. Two objects are attracted to each other by virtue of nothing more than they both exist. Fairly cool! Is there a “graviton” particle? I don’t think it’s been proven one way or the other yet. And if we find one, what is the mechanism by which a particle makes two objects fall toward each other? [QUOTE=diggleblop] Something from nothing = evolution _and/or_ creationism. [/QUOTE] Although **x-ray vision** has already addressed this, I’ll expand a little. While creationism might be seen as ‘something from nothing” (depending on the particular version of creationism), evolution definitely is not. You make a fairly common mistake. This mistake is to assume that evolution addresses the beginnings of life. I’m not a biologist, but my understanding is that when used correctly in regards to biology, the word “evolution” refers to one of two things: 1. The fact that there are changes in the relative frequencies of genetically controlled traits in populations that can accumulate over time, and that these changes can accumulate enough so that not only do new physical traits appear, but that one population can be become two populations which can no longer interbreed. or 1. The collective theories that explain the above facts. Neither of these address the beginning of life in any way. You are confusing “evolution” with “abiogenesis”, the idea that the first living organisms came from non-living material through some as yet unknown process. Really though, abiogenesis isn’t ‘something from nothing” either, since it isn’t thought that life came from nothing, just from some mix of non-living material. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-physical-phenomena-can-science-not-explain/381055.md?page=2)