CONFIGURE UP RESEARCH PROFILE ON ALL THE BEST POSSIBLE PARADOXES IN ASTROPHYSICS AND QUANTUM MECHANICS
Answers
Answered by
9
Introduction: Certain problems in physics, biology, astrophysics, or other sciences have often been in some contexts called paradoxes. Instead of the term paradox modern physicists sometimes use the term puzzle, although that term is more suitable for a problem task that needs to be solved. In its structure a paradox contains a problem which is probably the cause of this synonym identification. A paradox is not only a problem that needs to be solved; it contains a contraintuitive element at odds with the existent explanation, which is the basis of its incongruity.
A serious study of the phenomenon of paradox began at the end of the last century, even though the phenomenon had been present as early as in the works of ancient Greek authors. Many definitions of paradox can be found in the literature. Richard Mark Sainsbury, one of the acclaimed quoted authors who work on the phenomenon of paradox, called it an unacceptable conclusion resulting from an acceptable model of inference and from acceptable initial presuppositions. A paradox is a form of contraintuitive perspective. The Facts are obtained by the analysis of electromagnetic waves and subatomic particles coming from space. Nature of perspective taking is manifold: theoretical, experimental, visual (observational), semantic. A paradox is a rightly established dilemma, the rightness of which is based on valid previous knowledge. According to the manner of establishing a paradox, and the reasons why a certain phenomenon in physics is called paradoxical, the following paradoxes in astrophysics (physics) are differentiated:
1. Pseudo paradox, (Not a real paradox. A precise analysis can establish that no actual physical incongruity exists; that a "so-called incongruity" comes from superficial examination.)
2. Paradox of idealization, (Formed when a physical process is idealized and when the likelihood of the physical event is extremely small.)
3. Hierarchical paradox, (This type of paradox is characterized by the absence of explanation why a change of principle occurs in different, hierarchically differentiated, physical states.)
4. Transitions paradox, (Formed in the process of solving a formulated idea. It is a problem step in the explanation of a theoretic or physically possible phenomenon.)
5. Paradox of assumption, (The paradox in which the initial supposition in the process of explaining a physical phenomenon is inaccurate within the framework of the same paradigm. Deductive analysis is based upon the assumption leading to the conclusion contradictory to the actual condition of the physical system.)
6. Paradox of paradigm, (This type of paradox exists within the framework of a paradigm. When the paradigm is changed the paradox is gone.)
1. GZK paradox (Cosmic ray paradox)
There is a computed energy upper limit for the measurement of radiation
originating from distant objects in the Universe. When cosmic ray energy is
above this limit there is no interaction between EM radiation originating from
distant objects and photons of the cosmic microwave background radiation. The
paradox is that there is evidence of cosmic rays originating from distant sources
with energy above the established limit.
GZK paradox is based upon a predefined GZK cutoff that was independently calculated in
1966 by an English scientist Kenneth Greisen, from Cornell University, and at
the same time the Russians Vadim A. Kuzmin and Georgiy T. Zatsepin, whose initials were
used to name this paradox. They theoretically determined the threshold of cosmic radiation
energy from distant sources for interacting with photons of the cosmic microwave background
radiation.
This paradox can otherwise be found as Cosmic ray paradox, and GZK prediction. GZK
paradox is based upon the difference between a theoretical perspective and the results of an
actual experiment. It is probably a paradox of assumption. If the reasons for the established
difference are so great that the basic paradigmatic theoretic principles of the phenomenon
explanation will have to be changed then it is a paradox of paradigm.
This paradox originates in a real phenomenon, accessible to human sensory perception, and it
is not a thought experiment but a real sensory observation.
GZK cutoff is a theoretically formulated reaction limit; observation results show disagreement
with the theory. There are a number of suppositions about the causes of the GZK paradox:
-The AGASA observation results could be due to an instrument error,
-An incorrect interpretation of the AGASA observation experiment,
-Cosmic rays come from distant local sources of fairly vague origin,
-Heavier nuclei could possibly circumvent the GZK limit.
There is no definite solution of the GZK paradox, and this paradox is considered one of the
current problems that the astrophysicist and physicist are yet to solve.
A serious study of the phenomenon of paradox began at the end of the last century, even though the phenomenon had been present as early as in the works of ancient Greek authors. Many definitions of paradox can be found in the literature. Richard Mark Sainsbury, one of the acclaimed quoted authors who work on the phenomenon of paradox, called it an unacceptable conclusion resulting from an acceptable model of inference and from acceptable initial presuppositions. A paradox is a form of contraintuitive perspective. The Facts are obtained by the analysis of electromagnetic waves and subatomic particles coming from space. Nature of perspective taking is manifold: theoretical, experimental, visual (observational), semantic. A paradox is a rightly established dilemma, the rightness of which is based on valid previous knowledge. According to the manner of establishing a paradox, and the reasons why a certain phenomenon in physics is called paradoxical, the following paradoxes in astrophysics (physics) are differentiated:
1. Pseudo paradox, (Not a real paradox. A precise analysis can establish that no actual physical incongruity exists; that a "so-called incongruity" comes from superficial examination.)
2. Paradox of idealization, (Formed when a physical process is idealized and when the likelihood of the physical event is extremely small.)
3. Hierarchical paradox, (This type of paradox is characterized by the absence of explanation why a change of principle occurs in different, hierarchically differentiated, physical states.)
4. Transitions paradox, (Formed in the process of solving a formulated idea. It is a problem step in the explanation of a theoretic or physically possible phenomenon.)
5. Paradox of assumption, (The paradox in which the initial supposition in the process of explaining a physical phenomenon is inaccurate within the framework of the same paradigm. Deductive analysis is based upon the assumption leading to the conclusion contradictory to the actual condition of the physical system.)
6. Paradox of paradigm, (This type of paradox exists within the framework of a paradigm. When the paradigm is changed the paradox is gone.)
1. GZK paradox (Cosmic ray paradox)
There is a computed energy upper limit for the measurement of radiation
originating from distant objects in the Universe. When cosmic ray energy is
above this limit there is no interaction between EM radiation originating from
distant objects and photons of the cosmic microwave background radiation. The
paradox is that there is evidence of cosmic rays originating from distant sources
with energy above the established limit.
GZK paradox is based upon a predefined GZK cutoff that was independently calculated in
1966 by an English scientist Kenneth Greisen, from Cornell University, and at
the same time the Russians Vadim A. Kuzmin and Georgiy T. Zatsepin, whose initials were
used to name this paradox. They theoretically determined the threshold of cosmic radiation
energy from distant sources for interacting with photons of the cosmic microwave background
radiation.
This paradox can otherwise be found as Cosmic ray paradox, and GZK prediction. GZK
paradox is based upon the difference between a theoretical perspective and the results of an
actual experiment. It is probably a paradox of assumption. If the reasons for the established
difference are so great that the basic paradigmatic theoretic principles of the phenomenon
explanation will have to be changed then it is a paradox of paradigm.
This paradox originates in a real phenomenon, accessible to human sensory perception, and it
is not a thought experiment but a real sensory observation.
GZK cutoff is a theoretically formulated reaction limit; observation results show disagreement
with the theory. There are a number of suppositions about the causes of the GZK paradox:
-The AGASA observation results could be due to an instrument error,
-An incorrect interpretation of the AGASA observation experiment,
-Cosmic rays come from distant local sources of fairly vague origin,
-Heavier nuclei could possibly circumvent the GZK limit.
There is no definite solution of the GZK paradox, and this paradox is considered one of the
current problems that the astrophysicist and physicist are yet to solve.
Answered by
11
2.Loschmidt’s reversibility paradox
A vessel with perfectly reflecting walls contains gas in non-equilibrium state (having
a non-Maxwellian speed distribution). The state of the system can be described by
Boltzmann’s H-function. In time the gas will reach Maxwellian distribution. System
state change can be described by H1, H2... HH progression, which is decreasing
according to Boltzmann’s H-theorem. After the system equilibrium is reached all
particle speed directions change. At first the new state corresponds to the second
Boltzmann function HH’, which is as probable as HH. Reversing the molecule speed
direction should cause the gas to go through states of increasing character: HH,
HH-1, ... H2, H1, which is in contrast to Botlzmann’s H-theorem stating that H-function
is decreasing. This refutes the Second principle of thermodynamics and shakes the
foundations of thermodynamics.
Joseph Loschmidt (1821–1895) published an article in 1876 in which he tried to prove that
system equilibrium is possible without equalizing the temperatures of the elements that make up
the system. This paradox, like the Zermelo’s paradox, is based on the criticism of Boltzmann’s
H-theorem, and is one of a number of discussions that lead to the definition of statistical nature of
the Second principle of thermodynamics. Like Lord Kelvin two years earlier, Loschmidt
proposed an abstract situation of the reversal of system molecules speed direction.
The Loschmidt paradox is based on the principle of Newton’s mechanics equations stating that
they do not change with the time direction change (time change initiates reversibility), and
according to the classical thermodynamics principle all real processes are irreversible.
There is obvious contradiction between the law of entropy increase and the principle of Newton’s
classical mechanics, since it does not distinguish between past and future. This is the so-called
paradox of reversibility that was formulated as Loschmidt’s objection to Boltzmann’s theory.
This paradox does not originate from a real phenomenon, accessible to human senses. It is
speculative and originates from a phenomenon formulated by thought. This paradox is a thought
experiment. Also, it could be said that the nature of the paradox is theoretical since the paradox
is based on the conflict between formulated theoretical concepts.
Considering that the paradox came up during the process of formulating the statistical model of
thermodynamical phenomenon it can be classified as a transitional paradox.
The solution was found even before the paradox was defined, by Lord Kelvin in his 1874 work
Kinetic theory of energy dissipation. Kelvin supposed that it was possible from temperature
system equilibrium, by reversing system molecules direction, to reach the initial state of the
system with uneven distribution of system temperature. His conclusion was that if there were a
greater number of molecules in a system the time to reach the initial state is shorter. If the
system’s number of molecules tends to infinity, reaching non-equilibrium is considered
impossible.
In 1877, Boltzmann replied to Loschmidt that gas molecules after H’ state, if enough time had
passed, would cross to the H state, and reach equilibrium by decreasing H-function, since the
number of possible state distributions is far greater in equilibrium than non-equilibrium.
A vessel with perfectly reflecting walls contains gas in non-equilibrium state (having
a non-Maxwellian speed distribution). The state of the system can be described by
Boltzmann’s H-function. In time the gas will reach Maxwellian distribution. System
state change can be described by H1, H2... HH progression, which is decreasing
according to Boltzmann’s H-theorem. After the system equilibrium is reached all
particle speed directions change. At first the new state corresponds to the second
Boltzmann function HH’, which is as probable as HH. Reversing the molecule speed
direction should cause the gas to go through states of increasing character: HH,
HH-1, ... H2, H1, which is in contrast to Botlzmann’s H-theorem stating that H-function
is decreasing. This refutes the Second principle of thermodynamics and shakes the
foundations of thermodynamics.
Joseph Loschmidt (1821–1895) published an article in 1876 in which he tried to prove that
system equilibrium is possible without equalizing the temperatures of the elements that make up
the system. This paradox, like the Zermelo’s paradox, is based on the criticism of Boltzmann’s
H-theorem, and is one of a number of discussions that lead to the definition of statistical nature of
the Second principle of thermodynamics. Like Lord Kelvin two years earlier, Loschmidt
proposed an abstract situation of the reversal of system molecules speed direction.
The Loschmidt paradox is based on the principle of Newton’s mechanics equations stating that
they do not change with the time direction change (time change initiates reversibility), and
according to the classical thermodynamics principle all real processes are irreversible.
There is obvious contradiction between the law of entropy increase and the principle of Newton’s
classical mechanics, since it does not distinguish between past and future. This is the so-called
paradox of reversibility that was formulated as Loschmidt’s objection to Boltzmann’s theory.
This paradox does not originate from a real phenomenon, accessible to human senses. It is
speculative and originates from a phenomenon formulated by thought. This paradox is a thought
experiment. Also, it could be said that the nature of the paradox is theoretical since the paradox
is based on the conflict between formulated theoretical concepts.
Considering that the paradox came up during the process of formulating the statistical model of
thermodynamical phenomenon it can be classified as a transitional paradox.
The solution was found even before the paradox was defined, by Lord Kelvin in his 1874 work
Kinetic theory of energy dissipation. Kelvin supposed that it was possible from temperature
system equilibrium, by reversing system molecules direction, to reach the initial state of the
system with uneven distribution of system temperature. His conclusion was that if there were a
greater number of molecules in a system the time to reach the initial state is shorter. If the
system’s number of molecules tends to infinity, reaching non-equilibrium is considered
impossible.
In 1877, Boltzmann replied to Loschmidt that gas molecules after H’ state, if enough time had
passed, would cross to the H state, and reach equilibrium by decreasing H-function, since the
number of possible state distributions is far greater in equilibrium than non-equilibrium.
Similar questions