20150610

Partial Proof of the Assumption of Infinity

Blog 20150610

Lately I have been in an Internet conversation with Sofia, a retired physicist from Israel. She was intrigued by my paper on the “Resolution of the SLT-Order Paradox.” The essence of that was an application of neomechanics in which I pointed out that the Second Law of Thermodynamics was a description of divergence, while its complement was a description of convergence. I deemed this so important that I used it as the Sixth Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are subject to divergence and convergence from other things). That, of course, required the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). Again, both are not only consupponible, but require each other. On the other hand, regressive physicists, who assume finity, are enamored with cosmogony (that the universe had an origin) and the Big Bang Theory. One of the popular claims of regressive physicists is that the universe, like all finite, isolated things described by the Second Law of Thermodynamics (SLT) must suffer a “heat death.” This means that all things, once they exist, will eventually emit matter and the motion of matter that leads to their demise. Systems philosophers and their regressive cohorts customarily ignore the fact that this matter and its motion must go somewhere outside the system to produce yet another microcosm in the infinite universe.

My other claim is that all paradoxes are based on incorrect assumptions. The jist of my paper was that the SLT-Order Paradox only existed because regressive physicists assumed finity instead of infinity. A similar result occurred during my conversation with Sofia. She brought up the Loschmidt Paradox, which I had never heard of before. My resolution of that paradox, like the resolution of the SLT-Order Paradox, again was performed by the Eighth Assumption of Science.

The Loschmidt Paradox goes like this:
1.     Imagine you have a box filled with a half-dozen billiard balls that are lying on its floor.
2.     Imagine you have another ball that you will release from the ceiling of the box.
3.     After releasing the ball from the ceiling, it hits one of the balls on the floor of the box.
4.     Being in contact with some of the other balls, that ball will cause the other balls to bounce around.
5.     Loschmidt suggested that the motions of all the balls would be reversible, ending up with one of the balls on the ceiling.

With this illustration, Loschmidt was pointing out a contradiction between classical mechanics and the SLT. His illustration and understanding of classical mechanics was correct. Remember that Newton’s Second Law of Motion was an idealization. All of the motion of body A was transferred to body B. If any of that motion was lost, reversibility would be impossible. Newton’s body was assumed to be “solid matter,” so there was no reason for it to absorb any of the motion imparted internally. Similarly, any contact with the walls of the container would not involve the absorption of any of that motion. Of course, in the real world, neither is true. Impacts always involve the internal absorption of the motions of the impacting bodies. The best illustration is the heating of both the hammer and the nail upon impact.

Now, the SLT expressly forbids reversibility. An isolated system always loses some of its internal motion to its environment. This has been tested over and over again, without any other result. And as I pointed out in the SLT paper, that result is perfectly compatible with an infinite universe. Newton’s idealization, of course is not. In the real world, there are always losses whenever two microcosms collide. In an infinite universe not containing “perfectly empty space” there is always matter within the macrocosm that is ready to accept some of that motion as well. Incidentally, both of these conspire to bedevil Finite Particle Theorists who hypothesize unprecedented bodies that are unable to absorb motion upon collision.


The upshot of all this is that the underlying assumption of classical mechanics, finity, is incorrect, while the Second Law of Thermodynamics is correct. I realize that infinity, is not required for the tremendous experimental success of the SLT. Nonetheless, like the SLT-Order Paradox, there can be no resolution of the Loschmidt Paradox without the assumption of infinity. I also realize that this is only a partial proof of that assumption. Such fundamental assumptions cannot be proven, as explained in
The Ten Assumptions of Science.” No one will ever go out to the “edge of the universe” to prove whether it is infinite or finite. That is why fundamental assumptions are so important and why paradoxical claims are sure signs that the indeterministic language of regressive physics is being spoken. Be reminded, however, that the assumption of infinity, which distinguishes neomechanics from classical mechanics, will not be accepted readily by the mainstream. Those folks are not bothered by paradox, which was commonplace during their religious indoctrination and still is not considered detrimental to physical theory.

5 comments:

Glenn Borchardt said...

Sorry about all the typos in the first version. You would think that I could at least not get infinity and finity backwards, even if it was written on an airplane. Here is an interesting comment from Bill Westmiller:

"I agree with your response: in essence, that a paradox is proof of a false premise.

But, there's another interesting problem: misunderstanding mathematical operators.

For example, Loschmidt infers from the equal sign that combinations described in an equation are necessarily "time reversible". Thus, if H+H+O = H2O, it must be equally probable that H2O = H+H+O. What he misses is that the equation is NOT a statement about a process (=>), but rather a state of being. If construed as a process, either assertion's combination "+" requires the application of external energy (some other mass in motion) that isn't expressed in the state equation. The amount of energy required is different for an inversion of any "process equation". Thus, an equation is NOT a statement of causation."


For the Wiki on Loschmidt, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loschmidt%27s_paradox

Actually, classical mechanics rectified the problem by inventing energy. Prior to that, reactions would be written like this:

NaCl => Na + Cl
and
Na + Cl => NaCl

This was recognition that all reactions involve the transformation of one kind of matter into another kind. Under appropriate conditions, many reactions were observed to be “reversible.”

Afterwards, they would be written like this:

NaCl + energy => Na + Cl – energy
and
Na + Cl - energy => NaCl + energy

This was recognition that all reactions necessarily involve interactions with the macrocosm (environment). These interactions involve supermicrocosmic collisions that decrease or increase the submicrocosmic motion within the microcosm, which in this case happens to be a sodium chloride crystal. You can test this yourself. Just put some salt crystals in water and the temperature of the water will drop. Temperature is the vibration of matter, so some of the vibrations of the water molecules are needed to cause Na and Cl atoms to escape the imprisonment that is the salt crystal. This is called an endothermic reaction. Reactions that give off energy are called exothermic.

I am encouraged that Bill is getting closer to a real understanding of energy, which neither exists nor occurs. It is simply a calculation that we use to describe the effects of matter in motion.



Westmiller said...

Good explanation. Now, is E=mc2 a state expression or a process expression?
It's widely read as a process: "converting" mass to energy, or vice versa, depending entirely on velocity.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Bill:

As you imply, E=mc2 is a calculation describing a process, just like the other common matter-motion calculations represented by momentum, force, etc. In this case, the E=mc2 equation can be interpreted in two different ways, with the math being the same for both:

Indeterministic

Einstein’s fanciful interpretation implies that mass can be converted into “energy.” Thus, during atomic fission, mass within the atom disappears, flying off through empty space as “energy” travelling at the speed of light.

Deterministic

The neomechanical interpretation is a bit more complicated, but does not rely on magical thinking. In the end, however, it is simpler and no different than other common material interactions. Remember that mass is the resistance of an xyz portion of the universe (a microcosm) to a change in position due to collisions from other microcosms outside itself defined as “supermicrocosms.” Now, because we assume infinity in neomechanics, we define matter as that which contains other matter ad infinitum. The matter inside a particular microcosm of concern consists of “submicrocosms.”

The E=mc2 calculation simply describes how submicrocosmic motion inside the atom is transferred across the microcosmic wall to supermicrocosms outside the atom. As mentioned above, neomechanics assumes that there are submicrocosms within and supermicrocosms without for every xyz portion of the universe. That is why neomechanics requires an aether for that calculation to work. It also explains why the transferred motion travels at c when outside the atom. The velocity of wave motion is a property of the medium, which consists of particles just as air consists of nitrogen and oxygen molecules. Sound travels through air at a roughly constant 700 mph. Motion through the aether medium travels at a roughly constant 300,000 km/s.

Note that the amount of matter within the atom remains the same before and after fission. The mass is less because the submicrocosms within are slowed, causing their momenta to decrease. Their impacts against the insides of the microcosmic wall are less forceful, providing less resistance to any supermicrocosms that might be used to measure mass.

Of course, the tendency for fission to defy observation of the above mechanism is a bit of a problem when the bomb explodes. Nonetheless, common mechanical interactions behave in the same way. As Gardner (1962) put it: "As the coffee cools, mass is lost." In that case, the internal vibratory motions of the water molecules in the coffee are transferred to the surrounding air molecules. The equation is a bit different (KE = mv2), but that still refers to the transfer of motion from inside to outside.



References
Borchardt, Glenn, 2009, The physical meaning of E=mc2, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs, CN, p. 27-31.
Gardner, Martin, 1962, Relativity for the million: New York, Macmillan, p. 66.

Bligh said...

Re: Coffee. Coffee loses rest mass by evaporation as it cools as well as mass in the form of K.E.
“Note that the amount of matter within the atom remains the same before and after fission.”
Yes, because you define the universe as matter. So, any microcosm is always 100% matter, as is any macrocosm. But the atom is a smaller microcosm when at a lower energy state in terms of Total Energy content. We have to measure things in physics. The dimensions of the atom change with different energy states. Its xyz position occupies less space.
George

Glenn Borchardt said...

So true. According to neomechanics, when submicrocosms lose some of their motion, their impacts against the internal wall of the microcosm have less momentum. If the impacts due to supermicrocosms on the outside of the wall remain the same, the microcosm will contract. None of this has anything to do with energy, which does not exist or occur. Energy is a calculation. All of this is much easier to understand when we view it simply in terms of matter in motion. Energy calculations are useful for comparing things, but they are not always necessary for understanding the underlying processes.

Post a Comment

Thanks so much for your comment. Be sure to hit "Preview" to see if it will publish correctly. Then hit "Publish". Include your email address if you wish to receive copies of your comment as well as all other published comments to this Blog.

For those having trouble getting this comment section to work:

Nitecruzr writes:

[FAQ] Why can't people post comments on my blog?

The Blogger / Google login status, and the ability to post comments, is sensitive to both cookie and script filters. Your readers may need to enable (stop filtering) "third party cookies", in their browser and on their computer. The effects of the newly unavoidable CAPTCHA, and the Google "One account" login, requires third party cookies, even more than before.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/11/the-google-one-account-login-and-cookie.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/comments-and-cookie-filters-october-2014.html

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/10/the-new-commenting-captcha-is.html

Third party cookies filtering, in a browser setting, is the most common solution, overall - but your readers may have to search for other filter(s) that affect their use of Blogger / Google.

Any filters are subject to update, by the creator. If the problem started a few days ago, your readers may have to look on their computers, and find out what product or accessory was updated, a few days ago.

http://blogging.nitecruzr.net/2014/01/almost-nobody-controls-their-own.html