These 13 conundrums or problems were printed by New Scientist in 2005, which seems kind of old now. Whether New Scientist has a new list is unknown to me.
But I thought it fun to go through the list and see if Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics dismisses each and every one of these conundrums. Let us have a look. --- quoting in various parts from New Scientist, 2005 list of 13 problems ---
> New Scientist > 19 March 2005 by Michael Brooks > Magazine issue 2491. > > Read more: 13 more things that don't make sense > > 1 The placebo effect
This is a mistake by New Scientist where we have no clear cut definition in science of "take away the pain". The Placebo effect is not well defined in biology. It is like saying "I feel good but not great" has any scientific basis. If you cannot yet quantify something, then it is not yet science we are talking about.
> 2 The horizon problem > Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, so there is no way heat radiation > could have travelled between the two horizons to even out the hot and cold spots > created in the big bang and leave the thermal equilibrium we see now.
Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics solves this easily, in that the Steady State is demolished by a Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, CMBR, leaving only the Big Bang and Atom Totality theory. Because the CMBR is blackbody radiation, implying the Cosmos is the interior cavity of a gigantic atom, demolishes the Big Bang theory leaving only the Atom Totality theory. When the Maxwell Equations are the axioms over all of physics, means the Universe itself must be an atom.
> 3 Ultra-energetic cosmic rays > However, astronomers can find no source for these cosmic rays in our galaxy. So >what is going on?
In an Atom Totality with Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics, the Universe grows from Dirac New-Radioactivities as outlined by Dirac. There is no upper limit to the newly appearing energy for the 231Pu Atom Totality could have a "cosmic electron born" which is the equivalent of the total energy of our observable universe at this moment.
> 4 Belfast homeopathy results > homeopathic solutions - so dilute that they probably didn't contain a single > histamine molecule - worked just like histamine.
Another case of where New Scientist is including nonscience with actual science anomalies. Define what it means for medicine to "work" in the case of homeopathy or in the case of placebo effect above.
> 5 Dark matter > TAKE our best understanding of gravity, apply it to the way galaxies spin, and > you'll quickly see the problem: the galaxies should be falling apart.
When the Maxwell Equations are seen as the axioms over all of physics, then gravity is a EM force and where we can have solid body rotation of galaxies or even our Rings of Saturn. So the problem of solid body rotation is not to conjure up a fakery of dark matter or dark energy, but to realize we never had a proper force of gravity until we had gravity come out of the Maxwell Equations. Magnetic Monopoles have attraction only and are proportional in numbers to the mass content of an object. In the case of solid body rotation we have "more gravity" due to the added EM components of polar molecules of ice in the case of Saturn's Ring or the imbalance of charge in star plasmas contribute to there being additional attractive forces.
> 6 Viking's methane > JULY 20, 1976. Gilbert Levin is on the edge of his seat. Millions of kilometres > away on Mars, the Viking landers have scooped up some soil and mixed it with > carbon-14-labelled nutrients.
Now this should be included for it is real biology science unlike the above two non science issues. There is actual quantity and measurement here. But I would not have included this item in this list, because it was a matter of insufficient testing or experimentation and not a science conundrum or anomaly of science. So the author/s of this list of 13 really needs to sharpen up on what a logical list of conundrums should be, and check up on logic.
> 7 Tetraneutrons > FOUR years ago, a particle accelerator in France detected six particles that should > not exist (see Ghost in the atom). They are called tetraneutrons: four neutrons that > are bound together in a way that defies the laws of physics.
Now this is a valid conundrum of science for it is contradictory to the Standard Model and deserves being listed. But, the Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics easily dismisses this conundrum because the Strong Nuclear force is merely a chemical bonding of protons with nuclear-electrons, since a neutron is composed of a proton, nuclear-electron, neutrino. So when you have 4 neutrons together, you in a sense can have a atom of beryllium.
> 8 The Pioneer anomaly > That's because something has been pulling - or pushing - on them, causing them > to speed up. The resulting acceleration is tiny, less than a nanometre per second > per second.
Easily explained. Look, we failed to admit to ourselves until 2012 that the Rings of Saturn are solid body rotation and thus Newtonian gravity is a fakery and General Relativity is a fakery. Real gravity is magnetic monopoles constituting all mass and is attractive force only. So that real gravity is a EM force and so we can expect extra pulls depending on position in the Solar Systems EM field.
> 9 Dark energy > IT IS one of the most famous, and most embarrassing, problems in physics. In > 1998, astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at ever faster > speeds.
Well, the solution to this is like that of dark-matter. That when we stop thinking in terms of gravity as Newtonian gravity or General Relativity, but that all gravity is a EM force from Maxwell Equations do we stop the silliness and crankery of dark-matter, dark-energy.
> 10 The Kuiper cliff > IF YOU travel out to the far edge of the solar system, into the frigid wastes beyond > Pluto, you'll see something strange. Suddenly, after passing through the Kuiper > belt, a region of space teeming with icy rocks, there's nothing.
This one and the tetra-neutron are new to me. Of course, it has a easy solution in that the Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics has EM-gravity and in electromagnetism you have ridges and troughs of energy. Just as you would expect most of the mass of the solar system to be in the plane of ecliptic and few mass outside that plane, so also, in the Kuiper belt we can expect a ridge concentration of matter and then a trough of almost no matter at all. And we should not expect a new large undiscovered planet. > 11 The Wow signal > IT WAS 37 seconds long and came from outer space. On 15 August 1977 it > caused astronomer Jerry Ehman, then of Ohio State University in Columbus, to > scrawl "Wow!" on the printout from Big Ear, Ohio State's radio telescope in > Delaware.
Again, this is not really a conundrum of science but rather insufficient testing or data collection.
> 12 Not-so-constant constants > IN 1997 astronomer John Webb and his team at the University of New South > Wales in Sydney analysed the light reaching Earth from distant quasars. On its 12-> billion-year journey, the light had passed through interstellar clouds of metals such > as iron, nickel and chromium, and the researchers found these atoms had > absorbed some of the photons of quasar light - but not the ones they were > expecting.
When the Maxwell Equations are taken as the axioms over all of physics, then Webb's above conundrum fades away as mere nonsense. As I wrote so many times before, that astronomy is one of the most horrible sciences because it has perhaps 100 assumptions going into a single conclusion and any one of those 100 assumptions, if in error, would automatically alter the conclusion. Webb believes quasars are 12 billion light years away, but what if they were only 300 million light years away. Webb believes light can be Doppler redshifted, but according to the Maxwell Equations, light can never experience a Doppler shifting. So all these reports about alpha being not a constant are just hooey-pooey.
> 13 Cold fusion > That doesn't matter, according to David Nagel, an engineer at George Washington > University in Washington DC. Superconductors took 40 years to explain, he points > out, so there's no reason to dismiss cold fusion. "The experimental case is > bulletproof," he says. "You can't make it go away."
You cannot repeat it, either !!
Now here is a excellent case of where scientists who have no axiom system to control themselves in thinking, continue to make ignorant statements and ignorant claims. When you have the Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics, you realize that fusion is the overcoming of the Gauss's law of electricity by either the Faraday law or the Ampere/Maxwell law. And then you realize that the surface area of a sphere is always 2/3 or less than the surface area of the enclosing cylinder. The reason we do not have "Controlled Fusion-- more energy out than put in" is because we break the Maxwell Equations if we did have that. We have examples of fusion all the time-- the Sun, the hydrogen bomb, the muon catalyzed fusion, the laser fusion, but none of those are where you have energy out is more than 2/3 energy input and still be controlled. The hydrogen bomb exceeds 2/3 the barrier, but it is no longer a controlled device. The Sun is a controlled device and its fusion energy output is something about 20% of the energy inputs that keep the Sun a controlled machine. A Supernova is close to being 2/3 fusion energy output but it breaks apart into a explosion before it reaches the limit of 2/3. The energy input into muon catalyzed fusion and the energy input in laser fusion far exceeds the meagre energy output. Scientists are poor at logical reasoning, because they never seem to get their heads around the idea that the amount of energy input to keep a device together permits fusion machines to reach only 2/3 energy output. As for the silly comment on it taking 40 years to find a fakery theory of superconductivity. Well, if Onnes had realized the Maxwell Equations were the axioms over all of physics in 1911 when he discovered superconductivity, then Onnes would have realized that the Malus law substituted for resistance in the equation Voltage = current X Resistance (Ohm's law). That such a Malus law substitution would have gained Onnes the correct theory of superconductivity in the same year he discovered superconductivity. When it comes to fusion physics, too many scientists are following their deluded dreams and wishes when instead they should be following the Maxwell Equations as a axiom set and believe only what those equations can produce.
Google's (and Bing's) searches and archives are top-heavy in hate- spew ?generated by search-engine-bombing. And the Google archive stopped ?functioning properly by about May 2012 to accomodate Google's New-Newsgroups. And recently Niuz.biz (Docendi.org) threatens to harm your ?computer if opening a post of mine.
The solution to the sci. newsgroups is to have the sciences hosted by colleges and universities such as Drexel University doing sci.math, not by corporations like Google out to make money. Science belongs in education, not in money motivated corporations. Do I hear a?University doing sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.biology, sci.geology, etc ?etc
Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here: