Is Rudolph's Lamp Paradox an Example of Breaking Fundamental Postulates?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mprm86
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Lamp Paradox
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a thought experiment involving a lamp and a chronometer, exploring the implications of turning the lamp on and off at increasingly shorter intervals. Participants examine whether the state of the lamp after one minute can be determined and whether the initial state influences the outcome. The conversation touches on concepts of infinity, continuity, and the potential paradoxes arising from the scenario.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that after one minute, the lamp will have been turned on and off an infinite number of times, leading to uncertainty about its final state.
  • One participant suggests that if the number of intervals (k) is odd, the lamp will be off, while if k is even, it will be on, although this reasoning is questioned.
  • Another participant argues that reaching exactly one minute while following the described rules is impossible, as the process only approaches one minute without ever reaching it.
  • A different viewpoint introduces the idea that extreme relativistic conditions could lead to the lamp being on due to energy conversion, although this is speculative and not directly related to the original question.
  • One participant expresses hesitation in engaging with the problem, suggesting it resembles a homework question and highlights the paradoxical nature of asking about the lamp's state after one minute.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the continuity of motion and the implications of breaking fundamental postulates in physics as they relate to the thought experiment.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the final state of the lamp after one minute, with multiple competing views and interpretations of the problem remaining unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations related to the assumptions of continuity in motion and the nature of infinite processes, which are not fully resolved within the conversation.

mprm86
Messages
52
Reaction score
0
We have a lamp and a chronometer. The lamp is initially turned off. Then, we start running the chronometer. When it marks 30 seconds, we turn on the lamp. When the chronometer marks 45 seconds, we turn it off. When it marks 52.5, we turn it on. I think you see where am I going. The next interval of time is half of the previous one. The question is: After a minute, how will be the lamp (turned on or turned off)? Does the result depend on the initial state of the lamp?
Thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
mprm86 said:
We have a lamp and a chronometer. The lamp is initially turned off. Then, we start running the chronometer. When it marks 30 seconds, we turn on the lamp. When the chronometer marks 45 seconds, we turn it off. When it marks 52.5, we turn it on. I think you see where am I going. The next interval of time is half of the previous one. The question is: After a minute, how will be the lamp (turned on or turned off)? Does the result depend on the initial state of the lamp?
Thanks.
At first glance, this is what I came up with:

[tex]\text{Seconds}=\sum_{n=0}^{k}\frac{30}{2^{n}}[/tex]

thus 60 seconds will have passed when k=infinity. That is, you have turned the light on and off an infinite number of times. Because of this, I am unsure of what to do from here.

However, if you have a value less that 60 seconds, you can determine whether the light is on by the following rule:

If k is odd, the lamp will be off. If k is even, the lamp will be on.

I don't know if this is entirelly correct, but it's the best I could come up with quickly.
 
At the end of 1 second the light will be on. After enduring extreme relativistic acceleration, the switch undergoes total conversion to energy and ignites the surroundings including the lightbulb. It will take a while longer for things to cool down sufficiently to declare the light off.
 
nate808 said:
I could be completely off, but i don't know that you could ever reach one minute while following all of the rules. You could flick it on and off an infinately many number of times, but in order to get to 1 minute you would have to stop, because the limit only approaches 1 minute, but never actually touches it
Since it is infinite, I would say that the light is on at 60 sec. following what Tide said.
 
I'm reluctant to answer, since the original post almost sounds like it's stating a homework problem... I think I'm just getting paranoid, though!

This is another fun pseudoparadox! The mistaken assumption is that it makes sense to ask about the state of the lamp after one minute! :smile:

Note that any physical intuition shouldn't even be applicable to this problem since it breaks (at least) one of the fundamental postulates we like to have in our models: that motion is continuous. I'm not just speaking about the jumping directly from on to off and back, but that there cannot be a continuous continuation at the one-minute mark.

(Why do I speak about physical intuition? Well, why else would you think it makes sense to ask about the state of the lamp at a future time, if you weren't applying your physical intuition to the problem?)

(Of course, if we tried this experiment IRL, we'd either reach the limits of our ability, or break the lightswitch, before the one-minute mark)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
6K
  • · Replies 287 ·
10
Replies
287
Views
29K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K