A paradox inside Newtonian world

[Tomaz Kristan]

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that Newtonian gravity is broken than Newton's laws? Even better, can't we just say that Newtonian gravity is not consistent with Newton's laws?

Can be gravity or any arbitrary other force here. Removing gravity is not enough.

Probably removing infinity in EVERY form is enough. But it is not certain.

p.s.

I wonder how many readers agree with me, that something IS very wrong.

 

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

No "infinite system of linear equations required".

How else are you going to solve for the accelleration of the system? You need to find the reaction forces if you want to find the total force experieinced by each particle.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

How else are you going to solve for the accelleration of the system? You need to find the reaction forces if you want to find the total force experieinced by each particle.

I don't care for the accelleration of the "system". I care only for the every ball, which is static. Except Jupiter.

The rightmost ball of the complex doesn't go anywhere. Why?

Be cause it is under some finite gravity, balanced by the surface reaction force. So for every next ball.

Where could it go? Do you think, they are going somewhere? What made them do that?

 

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The rightmost ball of the complex doesn't go anywhere. Why?

Be cause it is under some finite gravity, balanced by the surface reaction force. So for every next ball.

It will only be balanced by the surface reaction force if the reaction force is equal and opposite to the resultant gravity force. You haven't proven that. The reaction force could be greater than the gravity force, pushing the system to the right. It could be less than the gravity force, and the system will move to the left.

You need to compute the force. You haven't done that yet. You're assumming all the time that the reaction forces do in fact balance the gravity forces, but you haven't proved it yet.

 

[greedangerfoolishego]

Can you not have the same situation with only 2 balls?
If the one on the right has more mass than the one on the left?
Can someone tell me why (if) I am on completely the wrong track with regards to the frame of regerence being the problem here?
Are you quite sure that the centre of gravity is accelerating to the left, as opposed to just drifting at constant velocity? The centre of gravity is allowed to move, just not accelarate, right? So, assuming that it is accelerating like you say I suppose using the centre of mass frame doesn't make a difference because it would be an accelerating frame of reference? Am I right?
So if you can prove that it is defnitley accelerating then I can see the problem. So far all you've got is that it's moving left, I think.
ObsessiveMaths, am I on the right track or being foolish?

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

The centre of gravity is allowed to move, just not accelarate, right?

Wrong. Since everything stands still at the beginning, the moving Jupiter and standing complex IS a HUGE problem. GC should stay put in the absence of the external force.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

You need to compute the force. You haven't done that yet. You're assumming all the time that the reaction forces do in fact balance the gravity forces, but you haven't proved it yet.

No. I can just assume the surface reaction forces big just enough to balance gravity for every ball.

It is nothing to prove here, at all.

 

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

No. I can just assume the surface reaction forces big just enough to balance gravity for every ball.

And what justifies that assumption? What makes it valid? You can't just talk it into validity. At some point, you need to write down an equation. I did in post 136. When you run the numbers and actually try to solve the problem, you end up with an infinite system of linear equations.

In response to my presentation of actual equations, you've responded with some vagaries about infinities and frankly what looks like complete nonsense. I don't like saying this, but I do wonder if you are presenting your arguments here in good faith.

From the get go, you've presented a model and made only verbal arguments as to why there is a paradox. At no point have you presented any substantial equations whatsoever. Considering this is a mathematical paradox more so than anything else, I would have expected at least some mathematics presentation. Your original paper doesn't even contain the formulae for the gravity on each mass.

In post 27 I demonstrated why the motion of the center of mass is not a mathematically defined value. Later in post 136, largely because you would not present any equation whatsoever, I had to actually present the relevant equations for you. The system again turned out to be "unsolvable".

If you have issues with anything in either of these posts, then please be a little more specific as to what exactly you have an issue with. As in, if you think $$a_n=0$$, please explain why you think so, other than to say it "must" be zero.

Your paradox is inherantly a mathematical one, based on a physical problem. As such it cannot be solved, answered or even understood in purely verbal terms. It must be examined in a mathematical framework. Please keep that in mind.

 

[Quaoar]

Can't we just say that conditionally convergent series, which can be manipulated to produce any answer, should not be used in physical problems? As far I know those, they AREN'T used in any physical situation.

So how about this: Any supposed physical situation that reduces to a conditionally convergent series is unphysical.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

ObsessiveMathsFreak,

There is nothing (almost nothing) to calculate. The surface reaction forces are defined to balance any negative gravitational net force.

They are not defined to balance any positive (repulsive) gravitational net force in this case. They could also be, but they are not.

Gravity is chosen, but any other force would do, had it been set right.

The paradox arises, if the R^3 set and the Newton's axioms are combined. Who is "to blame", I don't know.

I know, it's not a real world problem, it's just a problem of an axiomatic system, we believed it was sane.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

So how about this: Any supposed physical situation that reduces to a conditionally convergent series is unphysical.

Something should be done. Maybe it would be enough.

For now, the construction I gave, is perfectly legal.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

An illustration of the problem. An illustration, nothing more.

The complex on the left side consists of the infinite number of ever smaller (1000 times by volume, 2 times by mass) spheres.

http://www.critticall.com/alog/Complex_of_Mass_Spheres.jpg

 

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

There is nothing (almost nothing) to calculate. The surface reaction forces are defined to balance any negative gravitational net force.

Which part of;
$$L_{n} = L_{n+1} - G_{n+1} +m_{n+1} \frac{G_{n+2} + L_{n+1} -L_{n+2}}{m_{n+2}}$$
is giving the trouble exactly. To me, it''s fairly straightforward that this equation says that the left reaction force on any ball depends on the left reaction forces of the two balls to the left of it. Would you care to comment.

They are not defined to balance any positive (repulsive) gravitational net force in this case. They could also be, but they are not.

You do realize that what you're saying means that whatever model you are working with, is totally unrealted to the original problem. You've introduced some external holding force on each ball, justified by nothing more than your own handwavings.

The paradox arises, if the R^3 set and the Newton's axioms are combined. Who is "to blame", I don't know.

I'm putting the balme squarely with the "lack of rigor" department.

I know, it's not a real world problem, it's just a problem of an axiomatic system, we believed it was sane.

It's a mathematical problem. So far, you've provided close to zero mathematics, Now either you're going to provide some solid mathematics that everyone can digest, or you're going to keep obstinately refusing to even put down one equation. Dodgeing the issue with handwavings or dismissing valid arguments completely smacks of crackpottery.

I'm not often this caustic, but frankly I feel at this point that you are deliberately wasting everyone's time here.

Edit:
P.S.
Please turn that bmp into a jpeg. You're causing an internet traffic jam.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

Why two? Why this equation at all? Who invented it? You?

I think, that EACH ball on the left side has its gravitational pull to a ball. All those pull forces are to be added together.

When we do that, we still have a finite force, canceled out by the surface reaction force.

Plus, a finite force from the right side is also always present, always finite.

What more do you need? The gravitational force formula? Some infinite series sums?

 

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Why two? Why this equation at all? Who invented it? You?

I derived it in post 136!

What more do you need? The gravitational force formula? Some infinite series sums?

The answers Kristan! Give your answer for the accelleration. It's the result of mathematical equations. Show your equations. The equations you presumably came up with when you first investigated these paradoxes so that you would at least have some idea what you were talking about when you presented them here rather than have the rest of us go to the trouble of coming up with just about everything for you.

Honestly!

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

The answers Kristan! Give your answer for the accelleration. It's the result of mathematical equations.

I can't believe this.

F(N,N+1)=G*m(N)*m(N+1)/(10^(N+1))^2=G*m(N)*(m(N)/2)/(10^(N+1))^2

For every N.

Do you agree so far?

 

[HallsofIvy]

You can't believe what? That people would ask you to verify what you say? That people would ask you to show exactly how you arrived at the equations you use? What you've given is the gravitational force between two consecutive masses. What is the total force on each mass and what is its acceleration?

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

You can't believe what?

That you don't find this arithmetic trivial.

What is the total force on each mass and what is its acceleration?

Okay, if you want it the slow way.

Do you agree or not:

F(N,N+1)=G*m(N)*m(N+1)/(10^(N+1))^2

or

G*m(N)*(m(N)/2)/(10^(N+1))^2

or

G*(m(N)^2/2)/(10^(N+1))^2


For every N.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

In the case you agree, do you agree with:

F(N,N+1)+F(N,N+2)+F(N,N+3)+ ... < 2*F(N,N+1)

Since the m(N+1)=m(N+2)+m(N+3)+m(N+4)+...

and the mass is actually distributed more away, than if it was all squeezed to the immediate left ball.

 

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

In the case you agree, do you agree with:

F(N,N+1)+F(N,N+2)+F(N,N+3)+ ... < 2*F(N,N+1)

That came out of nowhere, again without any proof whatsoever.

Since the m(N+1)=m(N+2)+m(N+3)+m(N+4)+...

and the mass is actually distributed more away, than if it was all squeezed to the immediate left ball.

And...? What relevance has any of this to the accelleration of the system? You still haven't given any answers yet.

 

[Quaoar]

I hate to repeat myself but what's wrong with saying that conditionally convergent series are unphysical? Doesn't this resolve the issue?

 

[vanesch]

I hate to repeat myself but what's wrong with saying that conditionally convergent series are unphysical? Doesn't this resolve the issue?

The problem is not with the mathematics. The problem is with the axiomatic system of Newtonian mechanics, which allows (if not explicitly forbidden) a setup in which, in order to calculate the force on a body, the rule that is given by the axiomatic system LEADS TO a conditionally convergent series.

Imagine a force law which contains a term : sqrt(d - 5) where d is the distance between two points. You can now say: the fact that you get difficulties for d < 5 is related to saying that imaginary numbers are unphysical. Right. But the problem is that if the rule said that you had to apply sqrt(d - 5), and for the specific setup at hand this gives you an imaginary number (because d = 3 for instance), then that's not a problem of mathematics but of the force law at hand: it must make sure that d cannot be smaller than 5. And in the example cited here in this thread, there is no a priori reason why it should not occur (except for diverging volume mass density).

 

[Quaoar]

The problem is not with the mathematics. The problem is with the axiomatic system of Newtonian mechanics, which allows (if not explicitly forbidden) a setup in which, in order to calculate the force on a body, the rule that is given by the axiomatic system LEADS TO a conditionally convergent series.

My point is that any problem that results in a conditionally convergent series couldn't be constructed in the first place. In this case, it's because we have an infinite number of masses.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

OMF,

One of this days I'll tell you, what value exactly the sum of all left forces are. I assure you, it is smaller than if two immediate left balls were in the same place. I assure you!

My point is that any problem that results in a conditionally convergent series couldn't be constructed in the first place. In this case, it's because we have an infinite number of masses.

A good suggestion for the future improvements, maybe. But it is not on the table now. Nor has Newton forbid this crap, not is forbidden in the R^3 set.

vanesch,

Thank you for understanding the whole picture. I like your remark, that the system might produce this kind of situation by itself, calculating or simulating something else, completely harmless at the first glance.

 

[vanesch]

My point is that any problem that results in a conditionally convergent series couldn't be constructed in the first place. In this case, it's because we have an infinite number of masses.

Well, yes, but the total mass is finite, so this simply comes down to a special distribution of a finite mass over space. If this is not allowed, then we could not do Newtonian mechanics in continuum mechanics, where we chunk up a finite mass in an infinite number of infinitesimal amounts of mass. So it can not be this infinite chunking up which gives problems by itself.
I have my gut feeling that it is the divergent mass density which is the culprit, but there are 2 caveats:
- one should then have to be able to show that in cases where there is no such divergent mass density, that a conditionally convergent series cannot occur
- one should also (that's way trickier !) have to show that such situations cannot evolve, under Newtonian dynamics, from much more innocent mass distributions which do have finite mass densities.
(because in that way, these more innocent initial conditions should also have to be forbidden etc... and, by Poincare, we might end up by forbidding 99.9999% of all of phase space as initial condition!)

Now, as already said, this doesn't mean that there is any practical problem with Newtonian physics as an effective theory. But it is a surprise to me that it fails as an axiomatic system.

 

[vanesch]

You can't believe what? That people would ask you to verify what you say? That people would ask you to show exactly how you arrived at the equations you use? What you've given is the gravitational force between two consecutive masses. What is the total force on each mass and what is its acceleration?

In earlier posts I attached some mathematica notebooks calculating numerically the forces to the first problem which was posed in this thread. The results were indeed only numerical but I think it is not difficult to establish analytic inequalities.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

I have my gut feeling that it is the divergent mass density which is the culprit

As a matter of fact, there is a certain possible way, to flatten those balls to pancakes. To avoid arbitrary big densities.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

OTOH, those close pancakes still cause the arbitrary high densities.

But it is conceivable, to have a force between those balls, which is proportional to r^-4. That way those balls could have even a constant density, still causing the paradox.

Anyway, something must go to arbitrary high (yet finite!) values in order to have this problem. It will remain so, until some maximal or minimal values aren't there. In the real physics we have the speed of light, Planck size and time, and so on, already.

 

[Hurkyl]

Nor has Newton forbid this crap

What axiomization of classical mechanics are you using?

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

What axiomization of classical mechanics are you using?

Newton's three laws of motion. The first is already a derivative, a theorem of the second, so the II. and the III.

Plus of course everything what comes with the so called real numbers.

Plus the gravity law, but this one could be replaced by some other force, behaving like that. Or even "better", to be proportional to r^-5 or something.

So, the second and the third Newton's law inside R^3 or even R.

Enough to get there, where a paradox lives.

 

[Hurkyl]

Newton's three laws of motion.
...
Plus of course everything what comes with the ... real numbers.

Newton's laws are rather informal, and certainly not complete. e.g. you've listed nothing that tells you, e.g., that a particle is something with mass and position. (which is a problem, because I don't think you can even state Newton's laws until you've postulated that particles have mass and position)

Before asking this question, I did a brief search for axiomatic Newtonian mechanics, and found Axiomatic foundations of Classical Particle Mechanics. Some key points about this paper are:

The first axiom is that there are only finitely many particles.

In theorem 3 (which deals with center of mass), they remark that the assumption of finitely many particles is essential to their formalism.

If we used their formalism, then there is no paradox: your construction is illegal.

If we took their formalism and threw out the axiom that says there are finitely many particles, then you don't have a center of mass theorem, and once again there is no paradox.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

Page 258 bottom and 259 top:

But an essential generalization of our axiom system would be obtained if we were to replace P1 by the axiom: "P is nonempty, and either finite or countably infinite." If the axiom P1 were to be liberalized in this way, however, then it would probably be desirable to add some additional axioms, as to insure that the total mass and kinetic energy of the system be finite.

 

[Hurkyl]

I repeat::

If we took their formalism and threw out the axiom that says there are finitely many particles, then you don't have a center of mass theorem, and once again there is no paradox.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

No. The mass center can be very well defined for the infinite number of particles, when the mass remains finite. At least.

 

[Tomaz Kristan]

The paradox does not live only with the infinite set of bodies. You may consider those left balls as glued together, and the Jupiter as the second body on the right side.

The paradox blooms fine, with "only" the infinite divisibility of the matter.