10 Questions Science Still Can’t Answer

Today, in the era of rapid technological development, we can think that science has an answer for everything. However, this is not always true. There are questions that scientists are not only unable to answer, but there are always new data being discovered that end up refuting previous theories and hypotheses.

O awesome.club always tries to keep up with the news from the world of science, which is why we decided to share with you some of the latest studies carried out by experts in order to find evidence for a number of assumptions.

Since the beginning of its existence, humanity has been trying to understand the true nature of things around it. As technology and science are developing rapidly these days, this question has acquired a more concrete expression: can our reality be just a virtual simulation? There are many hypotheses on this subject, and the renowned astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, from Princeton University (USA) decided to organize a debate on the subject involving several researchers. The video of the meeting can be seen here.

For now, there are arguments both for and against the claim that reality is a simulation. Swedish researcher Nick Bostrom of the London School of Economics has proposed 3 versions of humanity’s existence (as proof of the simulation):

Civilizations become extinct before reaching the post-human stage where they can surpass human biological capabilities with the help of technological inventions and build artificial models of consciousness Civilizations that reach the level where they can shape artificial reality at will for some reason they are not interested in doing so If the above statements are incorrect then there is practically no doubt that we live in a virtual simulation

But the Italian philosopher Riccardo Manzotti set out his arguments against this hypothesis:

A simulation always presupposes objects from the material world, which exist in reality A simulation indistinguishable from reality is no longer a simulation Any simulation needs an observer. A simulation is inseparable from the consciousness that perceives it.

This question, somewhat philosophical and at the same time technological, remains open, and you decide whether or not to consider reality to be a simulation.

Each of us has thought at least once in our lives: why am I me? How do I become aware of being what I am? In psychology, this is called self-awareness. So what is consciousness? Is it our brain, a part of it, or something else? Neuroscientist Christof Koch and his team of researchers at the Allen Institute for Brain Science in the US believe they have made progress in understanding this question. They came to the conclusion that consciousness can be generated by the cloister, a substance in the brain. The study results were presented in the journal Nature. However, many experts do not agree with Koch’s conclusions, and it is still too early to state categorically that the source of consciousness has been found.

Many scientists believe that consciousness is a set of brain functions and the human psyche. A certain connection of neural pathways allows people to perceive and evaluate the world around them. And a person’s personality, which is formed depending on education and environmental factors (financial possibilities, family emotional background, etc.), makes the perception of the world unique to each of us. But at least for now, there is no confirmed hypothesis about what consciousness is. There is also no understanding of which areas of the brain are responsible for the formation and functioning of this consciousness.

Sooner or later, everyone ends up wondering: what will happen when I die? Recently, neuroscientists made a discovery that gives a chance to answer this age-old question from a science point of view. They obtained interesting results during the experiments they carried out with people who were on the verge of death: the researchers recorded strong electrical activity in the brain in each of the individuals after cardiac arrest and also after the delivery of oxygen to the brain. Of course, this has an explanation: due to the lack of oxygen, neurons lose the ability to maintain their electrical potential and discharge, emitting an avalanche of electrical impulses.

But it is possible that these results, and the statement by Professor Stuart Hameroff, from the Department of Anesthesiology and Psychology at the University of Arizona (USA), give us the opportunity to answer this question in the near future. The essence of his statement lies in the fact that a person’s consciousness does not disappear without a trace after death. It would literally be absorbed into the fabric of the universe, and possibly the mechanism for carrying out this process is built into our nervous system.

Many people consider this question to be a matter of faith and we respect each one’s position. But what do scientists have to say about it? British astrophysicist Martin John Rees, from the University of Cambridge, has already officially declared that the latest scientific discoveries have led him to reflect on the fact that it would be necessary to abandon an atheistic worldview. Rees explains his position as follows: God exists, only in this way could the emergence of the first system of reproduction be explained.

To date, despite numerous discoveries, science has not been able to decipher the peculiarities of DNA molecules: this complex mechanism contains so much information that it simply could not have come out of nowhere. And from the perspective of the theory of evolution and the hierarchy of intelligence of living beings, after us there should be a next stage of intelligence: a god, a creator, an architect, a great programmer, who was able to think and execute his own project. , which would be our universe.

It is easy to find people who are enchanted by mystical stories: after all, they guarantee an adrenaline rush and bring a small fraction of the inexplicable to our lives. But are ghosts real? Researchers have not yet found any evidence attesting to the existence of spirits, and they explain all mystical stories and events through different psychosomatic and neurobiological mechanisms: our consciousness sometimes deceives us about what we see and what we feel.

It is a fact that practically everyone has thought about death and how to avoid it. Or, at least, how to postpone it. The truth is that it is unlikely that we will survive until the moment when technological evolution allows the emergence of immortal human beings – which even leads to discussions of an ethical nature. After all, do we really want to live forever?

But would there be a way to ‘advance’ time by 50 or 200 years by entering, for example, a cryogenic sleep state, only to wake up when this ‘immortality formula’ was invented? Or, for example, when we discover that we have an incurable disease, being frozen to return only when the cure for that disease is discovered?

Unfortunately not. Experts have not yet found a way to freeze the human body so that all the liquid present in the cells does not rupture these structures after freezing. Obviously, scientists have been trying to understand and solve this problem, but so far, the only possible solution would be the genetic modification of our body, which would include the characteristics of the physiology of reptiles and amphibians, beings capable of entering a state of suspended animation. (through the natural freezing of the body) without harming the organism. If genetic engineering gets to that point, then yes, our bodies could be frozen.

A new hypothesis about the formation of the Moon says that Earth’s satellite was formed inside a synestia: a cloud of gas and molten rock. This theory was developed by scientists from the universities of California and Harvard, based on theoretical modeling results. The existence of synestia as a new species of celestial bodies was suggested in 2017 by American physicists Simon Lock and Sarah Stewart.

“In the new work, features of the Moon, which were difficult to understand with modern ideas, are explained. Chemically, the Moon is almost the same as Earth, but with some differences. This is the first model that can fit the lunar composition model,” says Sarah Stewart, professor of planetary science at the University of California. Experts believe that planets can exist in synestia form for several hundred years. After that, they begin to adopt a spherical shape; but other celestial bodies can also be formed within it.

Researchers continue to argue about how life on Earth came about, as the 3 main theories on the subject cannot be combined into one. But researcher Armen Mulkidjanian, from the area of ​​Genetics and Molecular Evolution at Moscow University (Russia) suggested an alternative: what if life arose in water, but not in an ocean, but on land, in a place of accumulation of water born of volcanic activity? Mulkidjanian reflected on the chemical composition of cells and, in particular, on the substances these cells accept and which they reject. It turned out that the cells of any organism contain a large amount of potassium phosphate and other metals, with the exception of sodium.

This immediately eliminates the oceans from the list of possible ‘cradles of life’: living cells contain much more potassium phosphate and much less sodium than the ocean. Geothermal sources close to volcanoes are best suited for this role, especially in regions with active volcanic activity, such as Yellowstone in the US. Such sites have the same mixture of metals as cells.

The debate, it seems, will still go on, and researchers will not reach a single opinion in the short term. The final decision will be made based on experiments with chemical reactions and protocells. Which means that, for the first time in history, we are on the cusp of a more complete explanation of how life on Earth came about.

The discussion about the supposed existence of the risk that the Earth will suffer the consequences of an overpopulation usually…