As for the second answer, it doesn’t really state where the calculations in the presentation of the paradox are wrong or are missing something. It just says that they are, so it’s a non-solution.
Maybe this is because I was a physics student, but to me the missing pieces implied by the second answer are so obvious as to make it not worth my time to type them and yours to read them. Apparently I was mistaken, so here they are.
By the principle of superposition, we can break down a N-body problem into (N choose 2) 2-body problems. Consider the mass M and the mass m, a distance R away from each other (with m lighter and at the leftward position x). Their CoM is at x+RM/(M+m). The force FMm, leading to the acceleration am, is GMm/R^2, leading to GM/R^2. The force FmM, leading to the acceleration aM, is -GMm/R^2, leading to -Gm/R^2 (these are negative because it is being pulled leftward). To determine the acceleration of the center of mass, we calculate m*am+M*aM=GMm/R^2-GMm/R^2=0. The CoM of that pair will not move due to forces exerted by that pair. This is independent of M, m, and R. When we add a third mass, that consists of adding two new pair systems- each of which has a CoM acceleration of 0. This can be continued up to arbitrarily high N.
That may be true, but it feels a rather weak dodging-the-issue explanation.
Whenever there’s a paradox that mentions infinity, delete the infinity and see if the paradox still exists. Odds are very high it won’t. A lot of diseased mathematical thinking is the result of not being clear with how you take limits, and so when I find a “paradox” that disappears when you get rid of infinity, that’s enough for me to drop the problem.
Whenever there’s a paradox that mentions infinity, delete the infinity and see if the paradox still exists. Odds are very high it won’t. A lot of diseased mathematical thinking is the result of not being clear with how you take limits, and so when I find a “paradox” that disappears when you get rid of infinity, that’s enough for me to drop the problem.
This seems like an unproductive attitude. If everyone took this attitude they would never have hammered out the problems in calculus in the 19th century. And physicists would probably not have every discovered renormalization in the 20th century.
A better approach is to try to define rigorously what is happening with the infinities. When you try that, either it becomes impossible (that is there’s something that seems intuitively definable that isn’t definable) or one approach turns out to be correct, or you discover a hidden ambiguity in the problem. In any of those cases one learns a lot more than simply saying that there’s an infinity so one can ignore the problem.
This seems like an unproductive attitude. If everyone took this attitude they would never have hammered out the problems in calculus in the 19th century. And physicists would probably not have every discovered renormalization in the 20th century.
I will make sure to not spread that opinion in the event that I travel back in time.
A better approach is to try to define rigorously what is happening with the infinities. When you try that, either it becomes impossible (that is there’s something that seems intuitively definable that isn’t definable) or one approach turns out to be correct, or you discover a hidden ambiguity in the problem. In any of those cases one learns a lot more than simply saying that there’s an infinity so one can ignore the problem.
I agree with you that this is a better approach. However, the problem in question is “find the error” not “how conservation of momentum works,” and so as soon as you realize “hm, they’re not treating this infinity as a limit” then the error is found, the problem is solved, and your curiosity should have annihilated itself.
Maybe this is because I was a physics student, but to me the missing pieces implied by the second answer are so obvious as to make it not worth my time to type them and yours to read them. Apparently I was mistaken, so here they are.
By the principle of superposition, we can break down a N-body problem into (N choose 2) 2-body problems. Consider the mass M and the mass m, a distance R away from each other (with m lighter and at the leftward position x). Their CoM is at x+RM/(M+m). The force FMm, leading to the acceleration am, is GMm/R^2, leading to GM/R^2. The force FmM, leading to the acceleration aM, is -GMm/R^2, leading to -Gm/R^2 (these are negative because it is being pulled leftward). To determine the acceleration of the center of mass, we calculate m*am+M*aM=GMm/R^2-GMm/R^2=0. The CoM of that pair will not move due to forces exerted by that pair. This is independent of M, m, and R. When we add a third mass, that consists of adding two new pair systems- each of which has a CoM acceleration of 0. This can be continued up to arbitrarily high N.
Whenever there’s a paradox that mentions infinity, delete the infinity and see if the paradox still exists. Odds are very high it won’t. A lot of diseased mathematical thinking is the result of not being clear with how you take limits, and so when I find a “paradox” that disappears when you get rid of infinity, that’s enough for me to drop the problem.
This seems like an unproductive attitude. If everyone took this attitude they would never have hammered out the problems in calculus in the 19th century. And physicists would probably not have every discovered renormalization in the 20th century.
A better approach is to try to define rigorously what is happening with the infinities. When you try that, either it becomes impossible (that is there’s something that seems intuitively definable that isn’t definable) or one approach turns out to be correct, or you discover a hidden ambiguity in the problem. In any of those cases one learns a lot more than simply saying that there’s an infinity so one can ignore the problem.
I will make sure to not spread that opinion in the event that I travel back in time.
I agree with you that this is a better approach. However, the problem in question is “find the error” not “how conservation of momentum works,” and so as soon as you realize “hm, they’re not treating this infinity as a limit” then the error is found, the problem is solved, and your curiosity should have annihilated itself.