[hexane360]

There's a lot of minor points in that post, but it seems like both authors largely agree on the meaning, but are using different language. From Dr. Davies' post:

>To remain Newtonian and preserve determinism, we can exclude the singular point by constraining the higher orders to zero whenever the net force is zero. We lose time symmetry for this special case if we do this. If we wish to keep that, then we have to accept that Newtonian mechanics is incomplete and consider higher order differentials.

And from Dr. Norton's article:

>The solutions (3) are fully in accord with Newtonian mechanics in that they satisfy Newton's requirement that the net applied force equals mass x acceleration at all times.

>An important feature of Newtonian mechanics is that it is time reversible, or at least that the dynamics of gravitational systems invoked here are time reversible.

Dr. Davies is saying that there's three options: a) relaxing time-reversal symmetry (at singularities) from Newtonian mechanics, by interpreting Newton's First Law to apply to higher derivatives; b) considering Newtonian mechanics to be incomplete, and make (unspecified) choices about what trajectories of higher-order derivatives are acceptable; or c) accept non-determinism.

Dr. Norton is defining "Newtonian mechanics" as necessarily having time-reversal symmetry, which prevents the first solution. He is also defining it as specifying acceleration only (which I think is quite reasonable), preventing the second solution. Therefore he's concluded the third solution: This mathematical stating of Newtonian mechanics is non-deterministic.

[kergonath]

You are entirely right, whether something that depends on higher-order derivatives can be called Newtonian is debatable. Personally I don’t really care either way, as this is just a label. Newton did not mention higher-order derivatives but on the other hand they are a trivial extension to the mathematical framework. It is difficult to call a body at rest if any of the derivatives of the position is not zero, because then it will start moving instantaneously so it is hard to read the first law otherwise. And the second law does not care about anything other than acceleration. And there certainly isn’t anything that prevents us from using clever shape to roll balls on, as long as the shape make physical sense.

What this does not change, however, is that the dome does not demonstrate non-determinism. The apparent demonstration hinges on logical errors that remain errors regardless of the framework used, be it classical or quantum mechanics, or relativity.

[archgoon]

It is not a trivial extension. If you need all infinite number of derivatives to predict motion than your theory is non predictive.