Basically, how can we accept a theory as mainstream when examples of paradoxes make theories contradict themselves or simply just don't make sense?

__________________
Obedience brings victory
Victory is life
That is the order of things

No theory applies to everything. Quantum mechanics does not apply to things the size of galaxies; does that mean it should be trashed? Same thing with relativity: it is a theory that operates on a large scale. Should relativity be expected to work where it was not made to work, e.g. for a black hole's singularity?

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Any particular paradoxes you want people to address?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

Ok, as an example, I once read in a physics book about a time paradox. I can't remember exactly how it goes, but I'm sure someone can fill in the blanks.

We have 2 people traveling in space ships at the speed of light towards each other, and each person is holding a clock out the window, and each of them see the time on the clock as they pass by each other. Now I can't remember if the clocks are supposed to be stopped or going faster/slower, but I know it's a paradox of relativity.

I didn't mean anything along the lines of 1 theory being used in a completely different area such as quantum mechanics being used to explain relativity.

I'm just wondering here, that's all.

__________________
Obedience brings victory
Victory is life
That is the order of things

How is that a paradox?

__________________
Hwæt! We Gardena in geardagum,
þeodcyninga, þrym gefrunon,
hu ða æþelingas ellen fremedon.

We don't generally accept a theory as mainstream until the internal problems are consistent. I was just reading about Quantum Electrodynamics and there were a bunch of problems with infinities, like when certain quantum mechanical principles of the electron worked out by Dirac were applied to entire atoms, it gave nonsensical answers like the atom has infinite energy. Once a theory came along that got rid of these problems, it was accepted, especially since it was in accordance with experimental observations.

Fill in the blanks. As I said I don't remember how it ends, and I don't have enough of a grasp on relativity to give the answer, but it was a paradox. It didn't add up somehow and they even said it was a paradox in the book, so I'm looking for someone else that can maybe answer.

I think it may have been along the lines of, both travelers would appear to be frozen in time, but in their own POV the clock is still ticking.

__________________
Obedience brings victory
Victory is life
That is the order of things

dvb, at least in regards to Relativity, there are no real paradoxes. There are some things that appear to be paradoxes at first glance, but once you understand the entire theory, you can see that they are not.

Yes, under Special Relativity, two observers who are moving relative to each other will each see the other's clock as ticking more slowly than their own clock - in fact, each clock is ticking more slowly than the other clock. But that's not a paradox (although it is a pair o' clocks).

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

#-o

__________________
"Most editorials are written by people that love to argue but got kicked off debate team for not making any sense." -Seanbaby

1 Paradox concerning Quantum mechanics involiving the decay of a particle.
a stationary spinless particle decays into two others with equal mass (the daughters have equal mass) that are traveling in opposite directions at the velocity of light. Now thats the conservation laws covered... except that of spin.
in the later frame the total spin must be zero.... BUT by quantum mechanics Spin is a property that does not exist untill you try to measure it. (this is comming from lecture notes and not thin air before you lot try and flame me)
SO... if you measure the spin of one of the particles and it is spin up, then at that point in time the other particle (which is two times the speed of light multiplyed by time away) instantly takes spin down to create a system of spin zero.
It is known as the Teleportation Paradox.

"Spooky action at a distance", some call it

__________________
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Bears repeating: there are no actual paradoxes, just apparent paradoxes. They are apparent paradoxes because if you approach (for example) an SR problem with Newtonian logic, you will see a paradox. The purpose of using the paradox as an example is to show how the theory resolves the apparent paradox..

Thank you everyone for helping me out. Especially SeanF and russ_watters. I think you guys hit the nail right on the head there with the apparent paradox thing. Since it was so long ago that I read this book, it may have been explaining how something appears to be a paradox at first, but goes into more detail explaining how really it isn't.

good one

__________________
Obedience brings victory
Victory is life
That is the order of things

Just for completeness the Merriam-Webster entry for paradox:

a statement that is seemingly contradictory or opposed to common sense and yet is perhaps true b : a self-contradictory statement that at first seems true c : an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Actually Quantum Mechanics cn be applied to galaxies, and other large objects, it's just that the effects are generally un-noticable. Consider Hisenberg's Uncertainty pinciple. When applied to a moon the distance of uncertainty is much less that the size of the moon and so we ignore it. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

__________________
Howling from the Shadows

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. --- JayUtah

You can't reason an irrational person out of an irrational belief. --- Noclevername

Apollo: The History and the Hoax
Enter the World of Athran

I should say it's less than the size of the moon. Perhaps much smaller than atomic widths?

Yes, you are right. This is the standard version of quantum theory that is in most textbooks.

I'd just add that more recent developments suggest that the spins seemingly matching instantaneously when one particle is measured is actually just the result of using a mathematical shortcut called "wave function collapse" and this is not a physical effect, and that the spins match from the moment of the initial split.

[There are technical issues here that I'd rather not get into right now about particles not possessing x and z spins simultaneously.]

The standard textbook version works fine and gives the exact same results, though, despite its slight hiccups with special relativity if the spins matching instantaneously is interpreted as a physical effect.

Ah, but how do you know that the spins match without measuring them? And how do you know that it's not the act of measuring that makes them match?

(I love QM! It's so... Zen.)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Because they always match when we measure them. :P

We don't know for sure but with this standard, measurement-orientated way of thinking about it we get effects travelling faster-than-light, effects visually travelling backwards in time, effects which precede their causes and even effects without causes. Which is nice.

But if we get rid of this "wave function collapse" then things settle down nicely. 8)

With the more recent developments of quantum theory, the theory is not so Zen anymore, it's more a case of following everything carefully otherwise Schrodinger's Cat sneaks up from behind and smacks us around the head until we see paradoxes everywhere.

Poor, Ives, Dingle, Beckmann, Lynch, Sachs, Essen, Zappfe, Phipps, Marinov, Aspden, and Hayden claimed that Relativity involves circular logic, violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, is riddled with anomalies and paradoxes such as the Ehrenfest Paradox, the Paradox of Self-Reference, the Curvature of Space Paradox, the Ruler Paradox, the Clock Paradox, the Simultaneity Paradox etc. and as formulated cannot be correct.

I'm happy for them. Mind providing more than a list of names?

__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"

Yet, every time it's been tested, it works. Go figure.

(I guess it's a good thing that science isn't decided by vote, but by results.)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Well put. It's funny, I'm reading Steven Weinberg's Dreams of a Final Theory where he mentions the fact that essentially no mainstream scientific theory has been completely disproven in quite some time. Sure, there have been experiments that show that a theory's original scope is too wide, and that it is only applicable in certain places (Newton's gravitation, for example), but nothing has really destroyed a mainstream view.

OK, Yannox, I'll see your Poor, Ives, Dingle, Beckmann, Lynch, Sachs, Essen, Zappfe, Phipps, Marinov, Aspden, and Hayden and raise you a Feynman, Weinberg, Fermi, Oppenheimner, Pauli, Heisenberg, Einstein, Wheeler, Misner, Thorne, Hawking, Gell-Mann, Penzias, Wilson, Alpher, Bethe, and Gamov, Landau (and Lifschitz), Drell, Tomonaga, and just because I like them, Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Excuse me, but in this modern world, full of inquiring and skeptical youth, that is not good enough. You need to explain the paradox away, not just say, “There is no real paradox.” That is just your opinion. Other opinions may differ. If there is no paradox, then explain why there is no paradox, because all you have said so far is, “Trust me, there is no paradox.”

Then why did Mr. E have to add acceleration and gravity effects during his own attempted “resolution” in 1918, since there are no acceleration or gravity effects in the SR theory?

Don't do this again. I don't think anyone has any energy left for it.

What am I supposed to do, just sit back and let you guys have all the fun??!

How can you call 50 odd pages of you not understanding what people have typed to you fun?

SeanF, and others (many others), have explained to you why there is no paradox. They've done so with words, they've done so with math. You disputed the words because you thought different things were being said, and the math you couldn't understand. That doesn't mean the paradox is unexplained, or real in any way. It just means you don't understand the explanation.
Besides, whoever said "Trust me?" The math is there, if you care to do it yourself.

Because SR doesn't include those effects...

Another example would be Special Relativity.

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

Oh, come on! Didn't you have fun too?

Ha! Exactly!

He couldn’t solve the SR clock paradox with SR theory alone, so he had to go outside the theory, and when he did that, he didn’t solve the SR clock paradox, he presented a GR case in which there is no paradox. He, himself, could not solve the SR clock paradox.