Talk:Physical paradox

Physical paradox was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 28, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
February 15, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 12, 2005.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that a physical paradox is thought to be either an artifact of error or incompleteness because reality is assumed to be completely consistent?

Current status: Delisted good article

Archives: Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Afraid of saying the word "paradox"?

"A physical paradox is an apparent contradiction relating to physical descriptions of the universe." If this is so, why then, on this page and others (e.g. I followed a link here from Black hole information paradox), do we keep putting scare-quotes around the word, and say things like "so-called paradox", "seeming paradox", "apparent paradox", and so on? So is an "apparent paradox" then an "apparent apparent contradiction relating to physical descriptions of the universe"? -Dan 22:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Where in this article? Harald88 22:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, almost right off the bat! First section ("paradoxes relating to false assumptions"), caption to the image on the right: "The Twins paradox is an apparent paradox that shows that there is no absolute time." Text of section: "Certain physical paradoxes seem to defy common sense predictions [...] and thus appear superficially to be paradoxical [...] Other so-called paradoxes that appear at first glance to contradict common sense are Babinet's paradox and the Gibbs paradox [...]"

In "Observational paradoxes", section text: "A further set of physical "paradoxes" are based on sets of observations [...] In some sense, these may not be paradoxes at all [...]"

I think I've listed all of them. (I've also added "seem to defy common sense" and such to my objections. I'd say they do defy common sense, no?) -Dan 04:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I agree about paradox, especially as it's immediately pointed out in the intro. "at first glance appear" is obviously overdone -- a bit like "I would like to ask you if I can come in" could be replied with, technically, "OK, you may ask"! But "defy common sense" isn't good, as paradoxes that are solved by explanation only defy the common sense of those who don't understand yet; thus expressions like "seem to" or "may at first seem to" are required. -- happy editing! :-) Harald88 12:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that in some cases intuition might be satisfied by explanation, but in general explanations only work on a rational level. It is quite common for people to call results "unintuitive" or the like, even when they understand it perfectly well. This article even asserts that the Twin's and ladder paradoxes do defy common sense. -Dan 15:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? Such assertions are POV; for me the solutions to those two paradoxes make perfect sense (but I must admit that I studied them for years...) Harald88 00:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crank warning

Someone added a link to quantum Smarandache paradoxes. Someone should carefully check this out because [[Florentin Smarandache] and/or some Romanian fans have been enthusiastically adding references to his often bizzare ideas in WP. See this Romanian website, Neutrosophy, Dezert-Smarandache theory, etc. ---CH 07:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crank warning 2

The book mentioned at the bottom of this page probably does not warrant a mention. It looks like some random obscure German physicist's pet theory to me, and possibly is self-promotion. Some of the Amazon description sounds like word salad. I would suggest deletion. 27chaosmosis (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has said anything to me about this, I am going to go ahead and delete what I believe to be either a crank doing something or someone doing self-promotion. Yell at me if this is inappropriate, but I need to get my feet wet somehow. 27chaosmosis (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've delisted this from GA as it still lacks inline citations. I'll add in to our unreferenced GA task force. Once sufficient references are added hopefully it can easily regain GA status. --jwanders^Talk 11:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]