Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Essential Paradoxes



At 8:15 PM -0500 10/28/02, John S. Denker wrote:
Robert Cohen wrote:

... I'm confused over what the "paradox" is.

As I said before, so-called "paradoxes" only arise if/when
somebody mis-states the laws of physics.
1) The mis-stated laws of physics are full of paradoxes.
2) The correctly-stated laws of physics are not.
3) There may be some situations where we don't know
the correct laws of physics, but this isn't one
of them. Timekeeping for travelling twins is very
well understood.

This an excellent summary of 'paradox'. Earlier emails had excluded
situation 3)

Using the word paradox is appropriate and I would suggest that an
individual should be encouraged to USE the word paradox if they have
not sorted things out in their own mind.
One can certainly differ with this suggestion.

As far as I KNOW - the Banach-Tarsky Paradox has not been 'explained'
by any current mathematical physicist.

e.g.

http://www.math.uga.edu/~chadm/balls.html many other sites are available

Perhaps the Bell Inequality results aren't 'paradoxical' to the
cognoscenti, but I am not one of them.

Richared Feynmann is said to have quipped - anybody who is not
bothered by quantum mechanics, doesn't understand it.

Let's clear up the Twin Phenomenon and NOT call it a paradox - but
let's keep the word handy.

This posting is the position of the writer, not that of SUNY-BSC, NAU or the AAPT.