Biggest Questions for Science

GuanYin

Inspired by a New Scientist review a few months ago, what do people think the most important questions yet to be answered suffiently by science are.

List your questions and reasons and if there is a particularly good post by Feb 1st, they may win a prize!

Mine would be:

How did life begin?

Its a basic question that would lead on to answer alot of other big questions out there...not least of all my other question....

Is there extra terrestial life?
I guess its the biggie, I'll probably never know mind you

dudara

To me, it would not be how did life begin, but instead, what is life?

What chemical, electrical proceess in the brain makes us who we are? Basically, how does the brain work? and why is it more than the sum of its parts?

simu

Explaining how consciousness works. (same as Dudara, then )

Finding out if it's possible to create consciousness in robots/other human-made things. That would be quite a feat to achieve!

John

dudara wrote:

What chemical, electrical proceess in the brain makes us who we are? Basically, how does the brain work? and why is it more than the sum of its parts?

This is what interests me most. I'm currently doing neuroscience and today I started work on dissecting a human brain. It is the single most amazing thing, having in your hands a huge lump of tissue that holds everything that person ever was.

Capt'n Midnight

The grand unified theory of everything - though I'd expect this to raise as many questions as answers.

A better understanding of the moment of creation/big bang - so far the equations only work out if you use imaginary time.

No mystery to why life evolved, its a case that if it did evolve then either it has to take over the whole planet or die off.

Consciousness, why can't we interact with our subconcious, and would this explain how/if animals feel and could it be used to classify levels of animal intelligence etc.

Flukey

Well it can be asked do we really know anything? To every answer you could ask why or how? We know how things work. We can prove that things do happen and work, but if you keep asking why or how does something happen and question the answer in the same manner, you will eventually come to a point where we don't know. At that stage, we know something does happen and the fact that it happens is our only proof, though we don't know exactly how or why. I know that is all a bit long-winded and a bit deep, but I think you see the point I am making. Do we really know the hows and whys of anything if you go right back and question it? At some point is our knowledge without any foundation and just accepted as fact, if you see what I mean?

Moriarty

The biggies have already been asked above.. explaining consciousness and existance (- of both us and the uni/multi/whateververse). There are no bigger questions that we as a species can think of at the moment because they're truely all-pervasive to our reality.

Marginally more humble questions I would suggest..

The true extent of climate change. We still know far less than we need to about the whole problem and because of this it isn't being taken as seriously as it should be.

How to defend against all forms of bacterial and viral infection of the human body. I reckon that it's only a matter of time until a universal form of defence is found, but I naturally only have a very limited idea if any about how it'll be achieved.

Son Goku

To Flukey:

Yes, one can keep asking the question why and I've seen people do it, but eventually you hit a wall where "why" doesn't apply.
Also if we knew the whys to everything there would be no more science.
Alot of people point this out, it basically boils down to the fact that we don't know the fundamentals.
Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean we know nothing is the answer I would give.

elivsvonchiaing

For me this would have to be: How do we maintain our standard of living without making most of our planet uninhabitable in 100 years? :eek:

This one needs a galaxy of meteorologists, geologists, chemists, physicists, political analysts, economosits, biologists, all fed by chaoticians and other branches of math...
... before there is any hope of an answer!

Sangre

Why don't the basic laws of physics (seemingly) apply to quantam phyiscs and what are the fundamental principles of QP?

But for me the biggest one is are we alone?

CerebralCortex

Why am I only capable of using 9.3% of my brain's maximum processing and memory abilities?

galactus

Is there life on other planets.

More interesting would be the reaction on this planet if life were found. Conclusive proof could lead to utopia or chaos.

Then again, I'm sure the creationists would find a way to move the goalposts

Earthhorse

How did the universe begin?

How big is the uinverse?

When I was growing up it was largely accepted, or it seemed to me it was, that the universe was infinite. Since then scientists have revised their positions. We may live in a bubble universe with other bubble universes around us and so forth. The truth is they don't really seem to know and I think when they answer questions about how bit our universe is and, as a result, how old it is it will eventually lead to a full explanation of how it began and answer a whole load of other questions.

Personally I believe the question, "What is life?" is best answered by philosophy, though science can, and should, inform such answers.

solas

saw this the other day and thought it was interesting and relevant..
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/14/science.mind.reut/index.html

Can there be a predisposition for fundamentalism? Do the faithful cope more easily with pain? Are they faster to recover from illness?

Such are the questions scientists and theologians will attempt to answer at a new study center which starts experiments into human consciousness in the next few months.

looks like scientists are starting to ask the questions for me..

galactus

Earthhorse wrote:

How did the universe begin?

How big is the uinverse?

When I was growing up it was largely accepted, or it seemed to me it was, that the universe was infinite. Since then scientists have revised their positions. We may live in a bubble universe with other bubble universes around us and so forth. The truth is they don't really seem to know and I think when they answer questions about how bit our universe is and, as a result, how old it is it will eventually lead to a full explanation of how it began and answer a whole load of other questions.

Personally I believe the question, "What is life?" is best answered by philosophy, though science can, and should, inform such answers.

Big bang has been the accepted theory for a number of years now rather than "Steady State" as proposed by Fred Hoyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle).

Earthhorse

I just read the Big Bang entry over on wikipedia. The last paragraph states:

"In current physical models, the universe 13.7 billion years ago would have had the form of a gravitational singularity, at which all time and distance measurements become meaningless and temperatures and pressures become infinite. As there are no models for the regimes on this scale, in particular, the lack of a theory of quantum gravity, this period of the universe's history remains an unsolved problem in physics."

This is what I'm getting at. I'm not saying Big Bang is wrong but that the data we have pertaining to it is incomplete.

Peace

How can we make cold fushion viable would be high on my list...

galactus

Earthhorse wrote:

I just read the Big Bang entry over on wikipedia. The last paragraph states:

"In current physical models, the universe 13.7 billion years ago would have had the form of a gravitational singularity, at which all time and distance measurements become meaningless and temperatures and pressures become infinite. As there are no models for the regimes on this scale, in particular, the lack of a theory of quantum gravity, this period of the universe's history remains an unsolved problem in physics."

This is what I'm getting at. I'm not saying Big Bang is wrong but that the data we have pertaining to it is incomplete.

That's why its the "accepted theory" Seriously, you're right. There's still dispute as to whether this universe is an offshoot of a previous one.

You might be intrersted in an upcoming lecture:
http://ireland.iop.org/program.html

CerebralCortex

Peace wrote:

How can we make cold fushion viable would be high on my list...

Yes that would probably change the face of the earth scientificly, socially, economilcally i can't think of anything that would have a bigger effect.

Gone West

Is the mind or soul seperate from the body's chemical/neurological processes?

If this was answered then many other non-scientific questions would be answered.

elivsvonchiaing

galactus wrote:

Is there life on other planets.

More interesting would be the reaction on this planet if life were found. Conclusive proof could lead to utopia or chaos.

Then again, I'm sure the creationists would find a way to move the goalposts

How about "It's just radio signals sent by God to test our faith!"

John

CerebralCortex wrote:

Why am I only capable of using 9.3% of my brain's maximum processing and memory abilities?

This is a myth that you only use a small portion of your brain. Here's a thing aimed at schoolkids but it has some more links at the bottom. You use pretty much all of your brain. The work is subdivided into different areas generally but there is a lot of overlap of function.

FuzzyLogic wrote:

Is the mind or soul seperate from the body's chemical/neurological processes?

If this was answered then many other non-scientific questions would be answered.

Depends what your definition of soul is. It's medical fact that brain damage can completely change a person's behaviour and their personality. The most famous case of this is Phineas Gage who was a railroad worker who lost a huge chunk of his frontal lobe. Before the accident he was described as being a kind, upstanding citizen but after the accident he became a nasty, lying cheat. His entire personality was altered and the person he was was no more. A real Jackyll and Hyde case. Personally I think the 'soul' can be explained in terms of science and while some people think that is a crime against their humanity, I think it's far more awe-inspiring that tiny little charged particles make the differences between me, you and everyone else.

John

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

How about "It's just radio signals sent by God to test our faith!"

Just like those damn dinosaur bones

CerebralCortex

What does "IN GIRUM IMUS NOCTE ET CONSUMIMUR IGNI" mean?

bcKay

I'd like to know what the potential of humans is. Also the UTOE is high on my list...
what really happend about 2000 years ago...

oh...and why can I never find my keys?

John

CerebralCortex wrote:

What does "IN GIRUM IMUS NOCTE ET CONSUMIMUR IGNI" mean?

It roughly translates as: "at night we circle and are consumed by fire"

It's from a song called "Salamandrina" by Einstuerzende Neubauten. There's a sample here. It's only 30sec long so it doesn't have that line in the sample.

CerebralCortex

bcKay wrote:

I'd like to know what the potential of humans is. Also the UTOE is high on my list...
what really happend about 2000 years ago...

oh...and why can I never find my keys?

Would you please explain to me what UTOE is thanks?

bcKay

sorry...Unified Theory of Everything...finding the connection between all the forces. ie. electric force and magnetic force have been unified in electromagnetic theory. So it would explain the connection between the strong, weak, gravitational, electric and magnetic forces (I think I got them all)

Moriarty

There are only four.. 1) strong nuclear 2) weak nuclear 3) electromagnetic 4) gravity.

galactus

Moriarty wrote:

There are only four.. 1) strong nuclear 2) weak nuclear 3) electromagnetic 4) gravity.

No there are three. Or is it five:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force

toiletduck

galactus wrote:

Is there life on other planets.

More interesting would be the reaction on this planet if life were found. Conclusive proof could lead to utopia or chaos.

id love to know are we alone aswell but honestly i dont think it would alter our world as much as you think.

galactus

toiletduck wrote:

id love to know are we alone aswell but honestly i dont think it would alter our world as much as you think.

A fair point and to be honest I've been wondering if the discovery of ETs would create pandemonium. On reflection, I've changed my mind. I agree with you - I don't think it would make a huge difference. If you have faith, you have faith etc.

Plus I'd love to see how Richard Dawkins (a well-known atheist, "selfish gene" etc.) would react to the news that the creationists are still hanging in there with their belief set.

GuanYin

toiletduck wrote:

id love to know are we alone aswell but honestly i dont think it would alter our world as much as you think.

Curious, why do you say that.

Surely it depends on the type of life found?

toiletduck

i suppose it does depend on what type of life e.g. when it was announced in 1996 that bacterial fossils were found on Mars (yes i know its still disputed) it made headlines but it was hardly earth shattering stuff to most people, i was very excited but everyone else seemed to be "ooh, thats nice. i wonder what else is on the tv." I mean discovery of alien life isnt gona change the world as we know it, unless we meet them face to face which is a different story all together from hearing radio waves from them.

Doper Than U

A question I often ponder on is animal intelligence and emotionality...

I find it so strange that animals cannot be happy or sad, or feel love according to science, as this is anthropomorphisising. They prefer the use of less emotionally-loaded terms such as "pair-bonded" etc etc... It's as though science has accepted the process (of the sensation of a condition) but not the internal, subjective "feeling" of the animal.

For example, lets look at a horse. A mare. This mare has a baby. She experiences a very strong maternal bond with her young foal. Who is to say that the "sensation" she feels in her body when with her foal does not present itself as that lovely warm protective feeling known as "love" in the human world. After all, maternal love in humans can easily be referred to as mere "maternal bonding"... but as humans we KNOW what it "feels" like in our bodies to experience love, even though it is nothing more than a series of impulses in our brain and nervous system. So why is the "sensation" in the horse not the same as that of the human (assuming the brain and nervous system function in the same way), and as such, why is it wrong to refer to this sensation as "love" in the animal, but ok to refer to it as "love" in a human? Why have that distinction if not to maintain our superiority complex over animals?

I'm not referring to intelligence and conscious thought, as humans are superior in these attributes, but to basic "feeling" and "emotion" (eg, love, happiness, sadness, grumpiness, anger, fear etc etc). It's just something that bugs me, sometimes I think science, in an effort to completely detach itself from bias, ignores common sense... Animal emotionality cannot be "proved" any more than it can be "disproved", so why the absolute insistence that the feelings in animals are not experienced in the same way as human feelings. After all, humans don't require consciousness to feel, would anyone suggest a baby incapable of emotion?

Sorry for the long post, I rambled a bit...

John

It's not that they don't feel what you'd class as emotion, it's that we can't be sure that they feel it in the same way. Brains function in the same way but the structures are different. Emotion is mainly processed in the amygdala, you'd have to see what activity is like in this part of the brain in animals under experimental conditions which sounds like a pretty difficult experiment. And even then you can't be sure, we have pretty much all the same proteins and biochemical processes as mice yet not all treatments that work on mice work in humans.

Kevin_rc_ie

amy who?

John

ba-doom-tish!

elivsvonchiaing

Doper Than U wrote:

A question I often ponder on is animal intelligence and emotionality...

I find it so strange that animals cannot be happy or sad, or feel love according to science, as this is anthropomorphisising. They prefer the use of less emotionally-loaded terms such as "pair-bonded" etc etc... It's as though science has accepted the process (of the sensation of a condition) but not the internal, subjective "feeling" of the animal.
...

Totally agree!

John2 wrote:

It's not that they don't feel what you'd class as emotion, it's that we can't be sure that they feel it in the same way. Brains function in the same way but the structures are different. Emotion is mainly processed in the amygdala, you'd have to see what activity is like in this part of the brain in animals under experimental conditions which sounds like a pretty difficult experiment. And even then you can't be sure, we have pretty much all the same proteins and biochemical processes as mice yet not all treatments that work on mice work in humans.

The best example I can think of to illustrate emotions in animals is when an elephant calf dies. The mother will stand by the corpse for hours, even days on end scaring-off vultures etc. until she has to seek water - or die. Some species eat their young - but I think elephants definitely feel emotion, and probably also most primates, canines and felines. Felines would probably be the most worthy of study as they are wired very like us. (REM sleep etc).

John

I think a lot of scientists are scared of this topic because it might make ethical issues more of a problem in their eyes. Animal testing is already such a testy topic that proving that animals feel emotion in a similar way to humans could be a major hindrance. Although, I don't see many people doing cancer research on elephants, they're pretty hard to fit on the microtome when you need to slice the tissue.

popinfresh

Is it possible for humans to travel to other planets

Moriarty

Why would it not be?

John

Just back to emotion, had a lecture today on this topic and apparently the reason why most animals do not feel emotion like we do is due to the fact that there is a brain structure called the insular cortex that is only found in higher primates and even then it is only developed "properly" in humans, it is here that the emotional aspects of environmental and homeostatic conditions are processed. So most animals don't have the hardware to process the likes of pain and hunger emotionally.

elivsvonchiaing

John2 wrote:

Just back to emotion, had a lecture today on this topic and apparently the reason why most animals do not feel emotion like we do is due to the fact that there is a brain structure called the insular cortex that is only found in higher primates and even then it is only developed "properly" in humans, it is here that the emotional aspects of environmental and homeostatic conditions are processed. So most animals don't have the hardware to process the likes of pain and hunger emotionally.

Really think this is up there with "fish don't feel pain!" thinking - as an ex-fisherman I know they do- as a diver I know they do.


Very simple (and cheap experiment) give a dog a bone - day 1 - same day 2 - day 3 -kick the dog - day 4 present bone to dog - walks away - the dog may not be using the same messaging chemicals within its brain to recognize threat, or even same areas - but ffs this is emotion in animals imho!

When I was a kid we had a cat that scratched wallpaper - I was the 7 y/o who noticed it was the wallpaper directly behind the fridge in the other room!
The cat had spatially worked out where the back of the fridge was!

Animals are underestimated imho!

While they may not be on a seratonin trip - the idea that animals don't feel emotion is ridiculous - but probably needs to be kept so.

"Animals feel pain - we'll bomb that clinic!"

I feel most of the animal-rights "nutters" just have no holistic understanding of our world whatsoever. They are egged-on by nihilists who do; and want to see man - gone.

Just watch a Bill Hick's video you'll know what I mean when I say : Let these people live, give 'em their space, let them pet cattle, swim with dolphins, pet felines, swim with sharks and crocodiles!" in scripture fairly sure it was wolf and lamb, but I'm prepared let them swim with sharks and crocodiles! Sure it will be all right

galactus

popinfresh wrote:

Is it possible for humans to travel to other planets

Interesting Q but I believe that this is more of a matter of technology than a science.

Overcoming long-term zero G, limiting exposure to cosmic radiation are two of the main issues initially. Propulsion and cryogenic storage (or near light speed travel) feature of course.

On the other hand, the technical hurdles will no doubt throw up questions to science.

Ciaran

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

When I was a kid we had a cat that scratched wallpaper - I was the 7 y/o who noticed it was the wallpaper directly behind the fridge in the other room!
The cat had spatially worked out where the back of the fridge was!

Could just be that the wall was warmer!

Doper Than U

Just back to emotion, had a lecture today on this topic and apparently the reason why most animals do not feel emotion like we do is due to the fact that there is a brain structure called the insular cortex that is only found in higher primates and even then it is only developed "properly" in humans, it is here that the emotional aspects of environmental and homeostatic conditions are processed. So most animals don't have the hardware to process the likes of pain and hunger emotionally.

Interesting post. I was aware of this, but am not entirely convinced. We don't know enough about the brain to know the true function of either the amygdala or the insular cortex. The recent study of theory of mind in chimps has proved to be very interesting, as it appears theory of mind does exist outside of humanity, when that was thought to be impossible.

I am talking about basic emotions here, i.e. that animals "appear" to react in a similar way to similar stimuli as humans. Their nervous systems appear to react the same way, their "expressions" are easily read and understood by humans (ever see a terrified animal being hunted by lions? I'lll bet you recognised the look of panic and fear in it's face). My point is that the sensation created by their instinctive response to a stimuli (being hunted, bonding with a child) probably feels the same as "fear" and "love", and indeed, that's how the animal "knows" to protect it's baby (etc). While it may be evolutionary strategy and instinct to do this (as it is in humans), the sensation within the animal must *feel* good or bad in order for it to register with the animal... Emotions are just responses to certain stimuli to ensure survival of the species, created by the brain and nervous system (over simplified, I know)... how could they not exist, even in a basic form, in the animal world?

Meh, it's just me thinking out loud, I don't purport to be right about this, it just makes more sense to me...

John

I'm not denying the fact that emotion exists outside of humans, all I'm saying is that in humans emotion has much more brain pushing it and that the emotions we feel are likely far more finely detailed. Emotion is a huge part of sex in humans and as such natural selection will mould emotion. Arg, I'm tired but this is a good conversation.

Oh and do you have any links for that chimp theory of mind study? I'd be interested in reading that.

elivsvonchiaing

Ciaran wrote:

Could just be that the wall was warmer!

Could have been - but same cat was first to poke head in fridge whenever he heard it opening. Remember scratching on fridge door too...

Don't think this was an exceptional cat tbh... had another cat that used to piss in the bath, then kitty paw marks appeared on the bog seat - she used to use a fúckin toilet.

Never met the cat (had died) but a landlord of mine had a cat that would sneak into a shower when in use - this was of course a hot country - cat's traditionally hate water - but this cat had learned a use for it.

Guess cats are as flexible as we are psychologically. Would love more science on this tbh!

Would love to know if domestic cats only exhibit this - as opposed to wild (predator felines). With just 10,000 years or so, have they evolved that quickly?

elivsvonchiaing

galactus wrote:

Interesting Q but I believe that this is more of a matter of technology than a science.

Overcoming long-term zero G, limiting exposure to cosmic radiation are two of the main issues initially. Propulsion and cryogenic storage (or near light speed travel) feature of course.

On the other hand, the technical hurdles will no doubt throw up questions to science.

Travelling at 99.?% C (forgotten the equation to work this out) - where 2 years relative = 100 elapsed years. Given that you are mainly travelling at vast distances from a star, think cosmic radiation would be reduced - still think 2 years relative would net you enough high-energy particles to match 10 years in earth orbit - you would probably age at least 50 years. Asleep or not no-one will have the luxury of lead-shielded craft! There's a lot to be worked out here...

Think a magnetic shield might work - but duracell's won't power this. Think we should not consider ourselves too far removed from the apes that first discovered fire! We have a long way to go yet... - OR a very short way to go...
(See my original post).

Doper Than U

Oh and do you have any links for that chimp theory of mind study? I'd be interested in reading that.

No links, but I'll look. I saw it on a Chimp documentary, Jane Goodall was on it, it's quite recent. I'll keep an eye out for it and see if I can get the details of the research.

And I do agree that humans emotional capabilities are far more refined... but that was kind of what I was getting at when I said "Basic Emotions". I really am referring to core feelings, to primal reactions, which we know animals have (as do humans). I'm just wondering if those reactions present themselves physiologically the same way as basic human ones (like in a very young child; too young to understand deep, complex emotions, but definitely capable of basic emotion). I see no reason why not, as at this stage brain and nervous system capabilities are *basically* the same. (Ok, again, an oversimplification... my psych books are put away, lol)