Which of the Basic Assumptions of Modern Physics are Wrong? Announcing the 4th Foundational Questions Institute Essay Contest

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


There's something unnerving about unifying physics. The two theories that need to be unified, quantum field theory and Einstein's general theory of relativity, are both highly successful. Both make predictions good to as many decimal places as experimentalists can manage. Both are grounded in compelling principles. Both do have flaws -- including an unfortunate tendency to produce the number ∞ -- but those flaws remain safely behind the scenes, never undermining the theories' empirical successes.

And yet, if the theories are incompatible, something has to give. That is what makes unification so hard. In conferences, I see physicists go down the list of assumptions that underpin their theories. Each, it seems, is rock solid. But they can't all be right. Maybe one will, on closer inspection, prove to be not like the others. Or maybe physicists have left the culprit off their list because it is so deeply embedded in their way of thinking that they don't even recognize as an assumption. As economist John Maynard Keynes wrote, "The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify... into every corner of our minds."

So, for its latest essay contest, the Foundational Questions Institute is asking entrants to ferret out these mental interlopers: "Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?"Scientific American is a co-sponsor of the contest, which, in practical terms, means that I'll serve as one of the judges and my colleagues and I will consider the top-placed winners for publication. The previous contest, on the question of "Is Reality Digital or Analog?", drew lots of mind-opening, Zeitgeist-challenging entries. I summarized my favorites here, and one will appear in the magazine this fall.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The contest will remain open through August 31st. The fun part is that you don't need to submit an essay to participate. All the essays are available for reading, remarking, and rating. The community rankings factor into the judging decision, which we'll announce in early December.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe