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.