Unexplained Nature Phenomenon: Do You Know Some?

[quddusaliquddus]

We all know there are a lot of unexplained phenomenon out there - do you know some? I don't mean historical mysteries, UFO's, ESP, Miraculous Healing, etc ... I do mean things that can seen again and again e.g. I was told by a teacher that photosynthesis not fully explained yet, the flip of the magnetic poles of the Earth (?), etc ...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Although a lot of progress has been made in recent years, lightning still sparks many questions for atmospheric scientists. On a related note, ball lightning is now generally considered to be real but [mostly] unexplained.

Dark matter, dark energy, and though many schools of thought are found that seek to resolve this issue, "the measurement problem" is still a core problem in physics; just to name a few.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Didn't know that about lightning ... interesting.

Whats "the measurement problem"? ... (If it's not too complicated) ...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Didn't know that about lightning ... interesting.

Whats "the measurement problem"? ... (If it's not too complicated) ...

It is complicated. In short, it turns out that the question of what exactly constitutes a measurement is now an 80 year old problem in physics. Do you know the old problem of Schrodinger's Cat from Quantum Mechanics?

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Erm...sounds familiar...think i read it somewhere ... forgot it

What I'm surprised at is the lack of attention to unsolved mysteries ... or is it just me? (not being any sort of scientist) ... I guess its just that teachers are trying to get us to learn as much as possible before we start to explain mysteries

... But its fun ... :D

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Until only recently insect flight could not be explained in some cases. The fact that bumble bee flight could not be exlained was once a favorite paradox to consider, many years ago.

The mother of all unknowns in physics is physics. We can never know if physics produces a genuine description of nature [existence], that is to say a literal description of what's really "there", or if physics only produces models by which we can describe and accurately predict nature, but a description that in no way captures natures true essence.

 

[tribdog]

some things have been explained, but nobody listens to the explination. Old wives tales die hard.
the bumble bee paradox is just such an example. "It is aerodynamically impossible for a bumble bee to fly." is ridiculous because we see them fly all the time. The original disscussion was about it being possible to build an airplane that flew the same way, or if a bumble bee was human size could it still fly.
another one
"Humans only use 20% of their brain." This is bull, we use all of our brains, just in different ways. If 100% of our neurons fired we would electrocute ourselves. Instead 20% of the neurons fire and 80% of the neurons insulate. Electrical cords only use the metal wires inside to carry electricity. No electricity is conducted in the plastic covering. Does that mean only 20% of a cord is used? Try stripping the plastic covering away and plug it into the wall.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was not alluding to wives tales. The bumble bee problem was a problem of lift, weight, and power.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Open Questions in Physics
While for the most part a FAQ covers the answers to frequently asked questions whose answers are known, in physics there are also plenty of simple and interesting questions whose answers are not known. Here we list some of these. We could have called this section Frequently Unanswered Questions, but the resulting acronym would have been rather rude.

Before you set about answering these questions on your own, it's worth noting that while nobody knows what the answers are, a great deal of of work has already been done on most of these subjects. So, do plenty of research and ask around before you try to cook up a theory that'll answer one of these and win you the Nobel prize! You'll probably need to really know physics inside and out before you make any progress on these.

The following partial list of open questions is divided into five groups:

Condensed Matter and Nonlinear Dynamics
Quantum Mechanics
Cosmology and Astrophysics
Particle Physics
The Big Question™

However, given the implications of particle physics and nonlinear dynamics on cosmology, and other connections between the groups, the division is somewhat artificial, so the classification here is somewhat arbitrary.

There are many other interesting and fundamental questions in other fields, and many more in these fields besides those listed here. Their omission is not a judgement about importance, but merely a decision about the scope of this article.

Since this article was last updated in 1997, a lot of progress has been made in answering some big open questions in physics. We include references on some of these questions. There is also a lot to read about the other open questions - especially the last one, which we call The Big Question™. But, we haven't had the energy to list it.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/open_questions.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Freak waves

Freak waves up to 30 metres high (100 feet) that rise up from calm seas to destroy ships do exist, researchers argue.
For centuries sailors have blamed mysterious surges of water for unexplainable sinkings but the claims have always attracted plenty of scepticism.

However, there is now growing evidence, including satellite imagery, which suggests the massive waves may be more than just maritime myth. [continued]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2450407.stm

Finding the formula for freak waves

Freak waves are a major threat to ships and offshore structures such as oilrigs, but they are notoriously difficult to predict. This could be set to change following simulations of water wave dynamics by physicists at the University of Torino in Italy. Miguel Onorato and colleagues adapted the Schrödinger equation - which usually describes the wave-like properties of quantum particles - to establish the sea conditions that give rise to rogue waves (M Onorato et al 2001 Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 5831). [continued]

http://www.physicsweb.org/article/news/05/6/10

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Electric Pickle

The last I heard this is still a bit of a mystery.

See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/pickle.html

Warning

I can confirm that this experiment can produce large quantities of really nasty pickle smoke.

 

[zoobyshoe]

If 100% of our neurons fired we would electrocute ourselves. Instead 20% of the neurons fire and 80% of the neurons insulate. Electrical cords only use the metal wires inside to carry electricity. No electricity is conducted in the plastic covering. Does that mean only 20% of a cord is used? Try stripping the plastic covering away and plug it into the wall.

Sorry, Tribdog. 80% of neurons are not acting as insulation. Every neuron has its own insulation, the myelin sheath. It is the breakdown of this insulation that causes multiple sclerosis.

Neurons don't conduct electrons like electrical wire. They are electrical in the sense that charges are moving but it is positively charged mineral ions that move, not electrons.
There is no possibility of electrocuting ourselves or anything else with the action of neurons.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

The butterfly is also meant to be a mystery in flight (?) The last time I heard anything about this was when they found some super-springy mascle or something to that effect on the butterfly that can help explain it's massive wings...although I think it's still not fully explained.

OK. What about this? Because we cannot predict - say, the shape of the water coming from a tap, does it mean it's still a mystery? ... jus a thot

 

[Ivan Seeking]

OK. What about this? Because we cannot predict - say, the shape of the water coming from a tap, does it mean it's still a mystery? ... jus a thot

I am a little fuzzy on the facts here so please forgive any potential misstatements, but I think that Chaos Theory tries to explain this problem of shape. I don't know that state of the explanation. I believe also that the point at which a nozzle discharge flow goes from laminar to chaotic is still undetermined; it cannot be theoretically predicted. What I mean, using the bathroom sink for example, is that if you turn on the water and slowly increase the flow, a point is reached where the flow turns from a smooth [laminar] to turbulent flow. The exact moment that this happens [as I remember] has no known solution.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What I mean, using the bathroom sink for example, is that if you turn on the water and slowly increase the flow, a point is reached where the flow turns from a smooth [laminar] to turbulent flow. The exact moment that this happens [as I remember] has no known solution.

If I recall correctly from what I read in Chaos by James Gleick, the point at which this happens is repeatable in any given system. So, given the same pipe diameter, temperature, etc. it will happen at the same velocity each time. The mystery is non-repeating, unpredictable patterns of the turbulence that result. No one has been able to determine what variables account for this. It could, theoretically, be dependent on factors as small and unmeasurable as the exact position of every electron in every atom of the system when the turbulence starts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

You may be right; I read about all of this long ago in several sources including the one that you mention, but repeatable does not mean explained. What I remember was that no one has figured out a solution that predicts this moment.

Edit: We can get a forced solution by using curve fitting techniques. This is not the same as having a model that explains the curve by using one or more of the conservation laws.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I have to say. You know Much more than me on this - thanks for your input (I'll try and understand what you have said :D).

 

[selfAdjoint]

You may be right; I read about all of this long ago in several sources including the one that you mention, but repeatable does not mean explained. What I remember was that no one has figured out a solution that predicts this moment.

There has been much recent progress on actual prediction. See this technical power point presentation on the 2003 Dirac Medal research. I don't believe they did the sink faucet problem but they did predict onset of turbulence in some interesting cases.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The shower curtain problem

Another old favorite, this one was only recently solved.

Why does the shower curtain move toward the water?
P. Wood,
Philadelphia, PA

David Schmidt, an assistant professor at the University of Massachusetts—Amherst, provides the following explanation:
...

SHOWER SIMULATION shows how a vortex forms, creating a pressure drop and sucking the curtain toward the water.

Maybe it happened to you this morning: you entered the shower and the curtain moved into engulf you. I have recently discovered a new explanation for this common phenomenon, thanks to modern fluid-simulation technology.
[continued]

http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?articleID=0003302E-388B-1C71-84A9809EC588EF21

 

[quddusaliquddus]

I heard about the shower-curtain mystery. It's about time it got a proper explanation!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I am posting another link for The Electric Pickle since the first one seems to have a problem.

http://www.discoverchemistry.com/dcv2-docroot/student/fun_stuff/electric_pickle/default.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

"Like the bumblebee, they said it could never fly."

I ran across this and thought I should post it, however I am sticking to my guns on this point. Only recently I have seen a fairly complete explanation of this problem and the final solution on either PBS or on the Discovery Channel. Now, I don't think anyone seriously considered this problem as a threat to the principles of aerodynamics, but no one had been able to explain how flight was possible. As I remember, the actual problem attacked recently was that of dragonfly flight.

"Like the bumblebee, they said it could never fly."

This statement appears in a recent issue of Popular Science, starting off an article about drag racing.

Indeed, the venerable line about scientists having proved that a bumblebee can't fly appears regularly in magazine and newspaper stories. It's also the kind of item that's bound to come up in a cocktail party conversation when the subject turns to science or technology.

Often, the statement is made in a distinctly disparaging tone aimed at putting down those know-it-all scientists and engineers who are so smart yet can't manage to understand something that's apparent to everyone else.

Obviously, bumblebees can fly. On the average, a bumblebee travels at a rate of 3 meters per second, beating its wings 130 times per second. Quite respectable for the insect world.

So, how did this business of proving that a bumblebee can't fly originate? Who started the story? [continued]

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/3_29_97/mathland.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The [Mystery of the] Tamarack Mines Mystery

I had heard of this and now you know much more than I did...I think...

In the fall of 1901 J.B. Watson, Chief Engineer at the Tamarack copper mine (S. of Calumet, Mich.) suspended 4250 foot long plumb lines down mineshafts. Measurements showed that the plumb lines were farther apart at the bottom than at the top, contrary to expectations. Thus arose one of the long-standing mysteries of science. [continued]

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/hollow/tamarack.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, and maybe SA or other can help here, I don't believe we can model a spark gap so as to predict when an "electric wind" becomes spark.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

Sum1 once told me no-one knows why a duck's quack has no echo. I don't even know if a duck's quack has an echo or not ... tried listening to the local ducks - got nuffin. Does anyone know anything more about this?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is just another malicious rumor about those poor, unappreciated ducks!

Please see

Science 'quacks' urban duck myth

LONDON, England -- A British study has debunked an urban myth -- that a duck's quack does not echo [continued]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/TECH/science/09/08/duck.quack/story.microphone.cnni.jpg

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/09/08/duck.quack/index.html

BTW, In Oregon they are called web footed chickens.

 

[quddusaliquddus]

...Lol...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On a related note: Is science a fluke?

The Mystery of Science

Is the emergence of Science something that happened naturally along the path of human civilization ? Or was it something so extraordinary that it evolved only once - in Greece, more than 2,500 years ago ?

A surprising argument has been made that if the discovery of science had not happened in Greece, it would not have happened at all, that scientific thinking is not essential for human culture, and that most cultures did not have it. [continued]

http://www.hyperhistory.com/online_n2/connections_n2/science_essay.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Mystery in a Cup of [Zero G] Tea

... What you need is a kitchen in space. Without gravity dragging everything down, spinning rings of honey in water could hang suspended for hours. Honey-ribbons would have more time to twist and turn, developing into … no one knows what.

"How fluids mix in weightlessness is not well understood," explains chemistry professor John Pojman of the University of Southern Mississippi. Here on Earth, he says, the physics is dominated by gravity. Dense fluids sink and light fluids rise; everything else is a side effect of that basic motion. [continued]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2004/09apr_tea.htm

 

[zoobyshoe]

I ran across this and thought I should post it, however I am sticking to my guns on this point. Only recently I have seen a fairly complete explanation of this problem and the final solution on either PBS or on the Discovery Channel. Now, I don't think anyone seriously considered this problem as a threat to the principles of aerodynamics, but no one had been able to explain how flight was possible.

What guns are you sticking to?

I read a book about flight a few years ago that went into a lot of detail about insects and birds. It didn't menion anything about insect flight being inexplicable, or that it ever had been. Insect wings are relatively flat when not in flight. When insects fly their wings take on a camber, just like the old, early aeroplanes. They are curved on top, and hollow beneath. The same thing happens to sails on a sailboat. Slow motion film of insects in flight shows this.

I think sometimes scientists research the answers to questions that have already been answered by other researchers they're unaware of.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Also, and maybe SA or other can help here, I don't believe we can model a spark gap so as to predict when an "electric wind" becomes spark.

I have a little book called The Electric Arc which deals with this. If you know all the variables it can be predicted. The current actually goes through several phases before becoming an arc: 1.Townsend dark discharge, 2. transition, 3. Normal Glow Discharge, 4. Abnormal Glow, 5. Transition, 6 Arc

Some of the variables are obvious. This book does a lot of study of discharge through non-air gasses at non-atmospheric pressure. It is packed with tedious formulas. It's by J.M. Sommerville, Professor of Physics, University of New England, N.S.W. Australia (I guess they have a New England as well) Methuen & Co. LTD., London. 1959

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have a little book called The Electric Arc which deals with this. If you know all the variables it can be predicted. The current actually goes through several phases before becoming an arc: 1.Townsend dark discharge, 2. transition, 3. Normal Glow Discharge, 4. Abnormal Glow, 5. Transition, 6 Arc

Some of the variables are obvious. This book does a lot of study of discharge through non-air gasses at non-atmospheric pressure. It is packed with tedious formulas. It's by J.M. Sommerville, Professor of Physics, University of New England, N.S.W. Australia (I guess they have a New England as well) Methuen & Co. LTD., London. 1959

Are you sure that these are predictive models and not curve fitting techniques? The date makes me really suspicious. Can you cite some of the formulas used?

I'm not really disagreeing with you since I'm not even sure where I read about this, but it is easy to mistake formulas based on emperical data with predictive, fundamental, purely theoretical models; models that are in principle void of emperical data in their derivations.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What guns are you sticking to?

I read a book about flight a few years ago that went into a lot of detail about insects and birds. It didn't menion anything about insect flight being inexplicable, or that it ever had been. Insect wings are relatively flat when not in flight. When insects fly their wings take on a camber, just like the old, early aeroplanes. They are curved on top, and hollow beneath. The same thing happens to sails on a sailboat. Slow motion film of insects in flight shows this.

I think sometimes scientists research the answers to questions that have already been answered by other researchers they're unaware of.

I saw a one hour show about the first person to replicate insect flight. According to that and past discussions, no one could explain the lift or the power needed for some of the large insects. They key was found in I think some complex motion of the wing... The defense department wants robotic, spy insects so that you can be a fly on the wall!

I would say that several possibilities exist. First, as you suggested maybe some people had figured this out and others simply did not know, or perhaps the author had a theory that never passed the mustard of peer review, or it was never tested, or when tested it failed to produce the expected results. Also, your book may have been written after this was all figured out.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Are you sure that these are predictive models and not curve fitting techniques?

No, since I don't know what a "curve fitting technique" is.

The date makes me really suspicious.

I'm not sure why, but assuming you mean it is too old for them to have been able to study it accurately by todays standards, that may or may not be true. On the other hand, the newer a topic of study is in science, the more minds are on it, and all kinds of effects are found and data gathered, that eventually becomes obscure since no one has any particular use for it. Take conics. No one studies conics anymore in any detail.

Can you cite some of the formulas used?

Not unless I master the LaTeX. It is Greek to me. (See my recent thread "Weird Physics Symbols" in General Physics. The formulas in this book are pretty complex and full of all those symbols.

I'm not really disagreeing with you since I'm not even sure where I read about this, but it is easy to mistake formulas based on emperical data with predictive, fundamental, purely theoretical models; models that are in principle void of emperical data in their derivations.

From skimming through it, it is clear that everything is based on both experiment and theory. He cites a lot of studies done by others on specific gasses under specific conditions, the use of schlieren photography, and other experimental setups.

It is clear that the variables are manifold. If you're talking about a spark through air at atmospheric pressure in an uncontrolled environment, the variables will be changing moment by moment: air pressure, moisture content, particulate matter floating in the air, temperature, etc. If you had no way to monitor these, of course the result would be unpredictable. The statement may have been made concerning this type of uncontrolled condition.

I would suppose that if you googled you would find this has been studied in excruciating detail, and is as predictable as any electrical phenomenon. I don't think it is on a par with fluid turbulence, it seems to be much more predictable.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I saw a one hour show about the first person to replicate insect flight. According to that and past discussions, no one could explain the lift or the power needed for some of the large insects.

On the question of lift, the knowledge that their wings take on a camber when they are flapping isn't a theory, but an observation made from high speed photography and slow motion film. So the only lift problem I can imagine is that the wing area must appear to be too small for the weight of the bug.
The book I read didn't address this, or the problem of power. It simply stated that the wings, which are flat like boards at rest, take on a camber when in flight. The question being answered with this is how an insect can fly with what appear to be flat wings.

If, even with cambered wings, it is determined the insect shouldn't have the power or wing area to fly, that is a different problem. I'm glad they discovered how the dragonfly obviates these limits.