From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wave/Particle paradox[edit]

- I removed this because it is not a paradox in the strictest sense of the word. A particle has a wave like nature until it is viewed/observed/recorded. Then the wave collapses into a particle with a definative state. This has been observed and predicted by quantum mechanics and therefore is not a paradox as such. Further comments welcome. Ace McWickedRevolt 15:51, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Perhaps it is a series of particles moving in a wave? I gave that about two seconds thought. It isn't a theory, just a thought. --"CURtalk 15:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)
No its a single particle. Its the uncertainty principle at work. Ace McWickedRevolt 15:56, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Than a particle moving as a wave? I mean, a wave itself, on the ocean, is made up of particles. --"CURtalk 15:57, 9 February 2009 (EST)
I have neither the time nor the patience to explain Quantum Mechanics to you so perhaps you could read up on it at wikipdia. Ace McWickedRevolt 15:59, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Part of the difficult aspect of understanding wave/particle duality is the tendency to impose macroscopic concepts on elementary particles. Picture them as little vibrating blobs (or strings, or membranes...) that stiffen into fixed shapes under certain circumstances and it might help. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:54, 9 February 2009 (EST)
You mean like tiny blobs of non-Newtonian fluid? --"CURtalk 21:07, 9 February 2009 (EST)

(reset) Would this be one way of visualising the wave/particle duality for those of us who are not quantum mechanicals? Anna Livia (talk) 20:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

YouTube embedding[edit]

OK, Chris Fanshaw, why do we need seven copies of a music video in this article? WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:58, 9 February 2009 (EST)

No reason at all! Which is a paradox. Which is of course a reason, thus another paradox! Paradox2! Chris Fanshaw 21:03, 9 February 2009 (EST)
Fail. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:07, 9 February 2009 (EST)
lognoob9000. Chris Fanshaw 21:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)

Zeno's paradoxes[edit]

May be interesting thought exercises - but will not stop the proverbial time's arrow (and Ouch-heel-es will beat the tortious fractionating plodder) (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Deredded, doesn't look like likely article. Or were you going to write it? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Another variant of the grandfather paradox[edit]

You invent a time machine.

You go back and kill your previous incarnation.

Said 'pre-incarnation' is reincarnated as 'someone else' (as not all the activities influencing reincarnation were undertaken).

Present-You become someone else (and Genghis Khan is reincarnated as a Pope rather than the Baron). Anna Livia (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The train-stopping fly[edit]

I realise this is not intended to be an exhaustive list but should the train-stopping fly be here?

A train moving in one direction hits a fly moving in the opposite direction. After the two meet, the fly is moving the same direction as the train. In-between the fly moving towards the train and the fly moving away from the train, the fly must not be moving in either direction, and as the train and fly are in contact the train must not be moving either.

Similar to Zeno I guessRoleybob (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that the fly would be stopped for any realistically measurable period of time. This is simply stated, not demonstrated.
Secondly, even if we accept that the fly was infinitesimally stopped, neither the fly nor the train are solid solid inelastic objects. So even if the fly (or a series of elements within the fly) did spend a period of time totally motionless then this would only impact a relatively small number of atoms at the front of the train, and this would result in a "dent" which would probably be beyond our ability to measure. The entire "train" would be infinitesimally slowed, but it doesn't seem to me that it could be said to be "stopped" at any point.
(But maybe the mathematicians among us will have other ideas.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The barber[edit]

Could be in the category of 'men who do not grow beards' (various reasons).

Is the fire alarm paradox actually one - you convince yourself the practice will not happen so when it does it is unexpected. Anna Livia (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)