Physical paradoxes

Paul Chambadal

Карпенко Иван Александрович

The article discusses the new approaches to the four Zeno’s Paradoxes: “The Ar­row”, “The Achilles”, “The Dichotomy” and “The Moving Rows”. Paradoxes are analyzed in relation to the current research in the field of elementary particle Physics and promising areas of the quantum theory of gravity development. Pro­vided with the necessary philosophical interpretation Physics concepts are used to clarify Zeno’s Paradoxes and to search for answers to them. The involvement of modern approaches is shown to be ineffective in solving the paradoxes due to their scope losses when analyzed by the microworld Physics on ultra-small scales. The work’s main part is devoted to demonstrating this circumstance – the questions posed by paradoxes are deprived of the possibility of getting the answers (at least, in their classical interpretation). As a possible explanation stands the ground of mixing the properties of the macroworld and the microworld in the paradoxes statements (which is historically justified given the intuitive homogeneity of big and small, and the origin of non-classical Physics – quantum mechanics – only in the 20th century), meaning the transition from observation of the large physical objects to the infinitely small in terms of discreteness and continuity. However, the principles of space organization on ultra-small scales are beginning to be clarified in general terms only now, and, perhaps, these prin­ciples may turn out to be quite far from classical ideas on fundamental physical reality.

A. A. Ross-Bonney

F. J. Duarte

Ever since Schrödinger envisioned the possibility of quantum entanglement, in 1935, by contemplating the implications of the meaning of ‘not complete’ emitted by Einstein and colleagues towards quantum mechanics the word paradox has been brought forth. Paradox was again invoked by Bohm in the 1950s and of course the creation of Bell's theorem was motivated by it. Paradox has been a trademark of the philosophical path towards quantum entanglement. And yet, the physics tells us that quantum entanglement is not afflicted at all by any paradox whatsoever. That this was the case was first silently implied by the physics of Dirac, Wheeler, and Pryce and Ward (1930–1947) and directly articulated by Feynman in 1965. Here we transparently show that, from the quantum interference perspective, the physics of quantum entanglement is completely and utterly free of paradoxes.

Richard Webb

Lauri Elias Rainio

Six famous paradoxes across physics, philosophy, and cosmology — Fermi’s paradox, the black hole information paradox, Zeno’s paradox, Newcomb’s paradox, the Boltzmann brain problem, and Wigner’s friend — have resisted resolution for decades or millennia. This paper proposes that all six share a common origin: each arises when a decoder (physical law or conceptual framework) is applied beyond its domain of validity, producing an internal contradiction. In the autoencoder framework, paradoxes are reconstruction losses — points where the decoder’s output is inconsistent with itself because the latent code contains structure the decoder cannot represent. The resolution in every case: recognize the paradox as a decoder artifact and access the latent code (1=1, V(K)) where the contradiction does not exist. Fermi: intelligence is latent, not spatial. Information: horizon is decoder boundary, not code boundary. Zeno: code is discrete. Newcomb: code is simultaneous. Boltzmann: universe is fixed point, not fluctuation. Wigner: multiple coherent branches, not one objective state. Paradox Dissolution Theorem: no paradox is a property of reality. Every paradox is a reconstruction loss. Part of the Spektre research corpus.