söndag 16 juli 2017

måndag 10 juli 2017

Modern Physicists and Sailing

Lubos Motl with his blog The Reference Frame prides himself to be a physicist, with special expertise in string theory. In his last post, he shows complete ignorance about the physics of sailing which puts him in the same league as the Stephen Hawking he is criticizing for being illiterate about basic physics of planetary climate.

How can it be that physicists of today, who are viewed by the physics community (like Hawking) or are viewing themselves (like Motl) as carriers of deepest insight into the deepest mysteries of physics, can be totally ignorant about basic simple physics?

PS Lubos accepts a comment from me on his post, a rare event, pointing to the new theory of sailing and flying I have developed with Johan Hoffman and Johan Jansson. It will be interesting to see if Lubos will read and learn, or if the material will be too difficult for him to grasp...

Inflated "Greenhouse Effect"

A new study by Nikolov and Zeller supports the idea presented by several climate skeptics including myself that global temperature is the result of a thermodynamic gravito-thermal effect setting a lapse rate (decrease of temperature with altitude) of about 6.5 C/km and an effect of radiation to outer space occuring from an altitude of about 5 km (on rough average). The study reported at length on WND is published in Environment Pollution and Climate Change:
The study shows that the basic postulate of CO2 alarmism of a "greenhouse effect" from radiation alone without the gravito-thermal effect, gives CO2 a much inflated role as control knob for global temperature: Warming of 3 C upon doubling of CO2 as a 10 fold inflation of a possible real effect of at most 0.3 C, so small that it cannnot be observed and distinguished from natural variations and thus practically zero.

Monckton as lukewarmer skeptic of course immediately jumps in and questions Nikolov and Zeller instead of acknowledging elements of truth in their analysis, thus effectively supporting CO2 alarmism rather than the opposite. Sorry to say, I have met the same type of reaction, from also Spencer and Curry...maybe skeptics need alarmism to have a role to play and thus readily spend lots of energy on internal fight...

Leibniz said that it is always more interesting/productive to seek what is right in what someone is saying, than what is wrong; it is always possible to find a fault, maybe a missing comma, without properly  understanding anything, while properly understanding what is right requires more intelligence and real insight. Stupid people can find errors, but only clever people can find possibilites.

China Daily News reports that, as an effect of CO2 alarmism, France plans to forbid the use of fossil fuel driven vehicles by 2040...if not earlier...China prepares for heavy demand in Europe of electrical cars charged by solar panels all made in China boosted by massive fossil fuel...

lördag 8 juli 2017

Life as Sexual Mind-Body System



Here is a simple reflection on the eternal mind-body problem:

The basic idea is that (at least higher forms of) living organisms consist of a mind-body system, where the mind carries a representation/model of the exterior + organism supported by sensory input from the body. Part of the mind appears as consciousness carried by sensations/feelings over basically a range from pain to pleasure. To be conscious thus basically is to experience pain or pleasure as hunger or sex, or more or less sublimated sensations from music, arts, poetry, science, sports,...

To give a robot life it is with this perspective necessary to give the robot the capacity of feeling pain and pleasure, with pain leading away from destruction and the ultimate of sexual pleasure driving reproduction. 

To give a robot life, it thus appears necessary to give the robot the capacity to helplessly fall in love and experience highest sexual pleasure together with one (or more) other robot(s) (of the same or opposite sex). Will this be possible? Is it desirable?

Another aspect on the role of experiencing pain (and pleasure): A tree is not equipped with a central nervous system capable of feeling pain, because it cannot move away from what causes the pain, or move closer to pleasure. In other words, our mind is coming along with our legs.

Hawking, Venus, Trump and Modern Physics

Media reports the shocking news that
  • STEPHEN HAWKING SAYS EARTH WILL BECOME AS HOT AS VENUS BECAUSE OF DONALD TRUMP'S PARIS ACCORD DECISION
Hawking is supposed to be one of the greatest now living physicists (the greatest?) with deep insights into the construction of the Universe comparable (or beyond?) to those of Einstein (and Newton of course).

But Hawking's statement shows an even more deep ignorance/illiteracy of basic elementary facts of physics: The surface of Venus is so much hotter (about 450 C) than that of the Earth (about 15 C) because the atmosphere is 100 times thicker and the atmospheric pressure 100 times higher, which by elementary thermodynamics comes with high temperature (since the atmosphere is also opaque). 

Hawking's statement shows that he does not understand basic physics and thermodynamics. It is then difficult to not ask the question if Hawking really better understands less basic facts of physics, such as physics of black holes as his specialty? 

How is it possible that a (the?) leading now living representative of modern physics shows a deep ignorance about basic physics? 

What does that say about the status of modern physics? What does that say about the progress of modern physics concerning the main current topics of multiversa, black holes, string theory...?

What do you say?

Or is Hawking deliberately misleading the general public because of some hidden political agenda?

onsdag 5 juli 2017

Wind Energie Needs 100% Back Up

A new study shows that wind energy needs 100% back up from conventional power (coal, gas, nuclear, hydro) and delivers less than 20% of installed power over time.

söndag 2 juli 2017

The Weak Science behind CO2 Alarmism to be Exposed

Washington Post reports:
This means that the very weak scientific support of fossil fuel CO2 alarmism will finally be exposed to the world and the dooms day bubble will collapse. All poor people can now look forward to a brighter future with improved living conditions from cheap fossil fuel without dangerous climate impact:  New York Times reports that 1600 new coal plants are about to be built around the world.

Compare with this new frontier research discovery giving new perspective and insight into human condition and global warming.

lördag 1 juli 2017

Physics as Oscillating Systems

To get an overview to prepare entering into realQM it may be illuminating to recall that the mathematical model of a physical system which has permanence over time in the form of oscillations between two different states, typically takes the form:
  • $i\dot\varphi + A\varphi = 0$      (1)
where $\varphi =\varphi_1 +i\varphi_2$ is a complex-valued function with $\varphi_1(x,t)$ and $\varphi_2(x,t)$ representing the different states being real-valued functions of a 3d space coordinate $x$ and a time coordinate $t$, with $i$ the imaginary unit and the dot signifying differentiation with respect to time, and $A\varphi \equiv A\varphi_1+iA\varphi_2$ with $A$ a symmetric operator acting on real-valued functions. We understand that (1) is a condensed complex-valued form of the following system on real-valued form:
  • $\dot\varphi_1 =-A\varphi_2$, $\dot\varphi_2 = A\varphi_1$   (2)
where the oscillatory nature is exhibited: $\varphi_1$ changes with input from $A\varphi_2$ and $\varphi_2$ changes with input from $A\varphi_1$. We understand that there is nothing magical in the complex-valued form (1) as it is only shorthand for the real-valued system (2) simply expressing oscillation between two states.

With different operators $A$ the equation (1) (or system (2)) covers:
  1. Physics (Harmonic oscillator): $A = identity$, $\varphi_2$ position, $\varphi_1$ velocity,
  2. Electro-magnetics (Maxwell’s Equations): $A =\nabla\times$, $\varphi_2=E$ electrical field, $\varphi_1=B$ magnetic field,
  3. Mechanics (Vibrating Elastic Plate): $A =\Delta$, $\varphi_2$ displacement velocity, $\varphi_1$ moment,
  4. Chemistry (Foxes and Rabbits): $A=identity$, $\varphi_1$ and $\varphi_2$ species densities,
  5. Quantum Mechanics (Schrödinger’s Equation): $A=H$ with $H$ Hamiltonian, $\varphi$ wave function.
We see that (1) encompasses the basic models of physics with quantum mechanics on the same footing as classical mechanics and electro-magnetics. We see oscillations between kinetic and potential/elastic energy, between species densities (foxes and rabbits), and in particular between electric and magnetic fields giving perspective on the oscillation between the real and imaginary parts of the wave function of quantum mechanics.

Hopefully, this can help to reduce the mystery of the complex form of Schrödinger's equation and give incentive to check out realQM.

The basic feature of (2) obtained by multiplication of the first equation by $\varphi_1$ (or $-\dot\varphi_2$) and the second by $\varphi_2$ (or $\dot\varphi_1$) and addition followed by integration in space, is conservation in time of
  • $\int (\varphi_1^2+\varphi_2^2)dx$,
  • $\int (\varphi_1A\varphi_1+\varphi_2A\varphi_2)dx$,
capturing oscillation between two states; when $\varphi_1$ is big $\varphi_2$ is small, and vice versa.

Inviscid fluid mechanics can also be formulated as (a generalisation of ) (2):
  • $\dot v + \nabla p= 0$, $\dot p + \nabla\cdot v=0$ with $v$ velocity and $p$ pressure.

torsdag 22 juni 2017

Popular Standard View of stdQM

Philip Ball is a writer of popular science and in his latest contribution in Aeon he propagates yet another time the standard view that quantum mechanics does not make sense, as vividly witnessed and acknowledged by all great physicists:
  • Why, then, is it still so common to find talk of quantum mechanics defying logic and generally messing with reality? 
  • We might have to out some of the blame on the Danish physicist Niels Bohr. He was probably the deepest thinker about the meaning of quantum theory among its founding pioneers, and his intuitions were usually right. 
  • But during the 1920s and ’30s, Bohr drove a lasting wedge between the quantum and classical worlds. They operate according to quite different principles, he said, and we simply have to accept that. 
Ball then starts out to fix this major defect of modern physics, something all the great physicists failed to do:
  • Now we have that theory. Not a complete one, mind you, and the partial version still doesn’t make the apparent strangeness of quantum rules go away. But it does enable us to see why those rules lead to the world we experience it allows us to move past the confounding either/or choice of Bohr’s complementarity. 
  • The boundary between quantum and classical turns out not to be a chasm after all. A ball has a position, or a speed, or a mass. I can measure those things, and the things I measure are the properties of the ball. What more is there to say? 
Yes, there is more to say, and that is said as realQM.

måndag 19 juni 2017

Restart of Icarus Simulation AB

My consulting company Icarus Simulation AB together with Johan Jansson is now being restructured  to take on new challenges in computational simulation.

Icarus Simulation also offers unified reformed mathematics education from early school to advanced university level combining formal and computational mathematics into a basic tool of the computer age with wide areas of application.

Customers are welcome.

lördag 3 juni 2017

realQM: Helium Ground State -2.9036 = Success

Computation with realQM in spherical coordinates with azimuthal symmetry on a mesh with 200 points in radial direction and 100 in polar angle (on my iPad), gives the value -2.9036... (Hartree) for the ground state energy of Helium in good agreement the observed value and benchmark computations with stdQM (here and here):
  • Pekeris (1959): -2.903724376    (best stdQM/Hylleraas with 1078 parameters)
  • Koki (2009): -2.9042 (in supposedly better agreement with observation).
realQM offers a new model of the atom, which has a physical meaning in classical continuum mechanical terms and which is computable. The first test of realQM, beyond the one-electron Hydrogen atom where realQM coincides with the standard Schrödinger equation, is Helium with two electrons, and it seems that realQM passes this test successfully! The step from one to two is huge while the step from two to many may be smaller...so if realQM works for Helium, then...

Wikipedia gives the observed value −2.90338583(13) with reference:
The difference with Pekeris is significant: stdQM does not appear to fit better with observation than realQM...maybe less... Wikipedia handles the discrepancy by the following hand-waving:






PS1 1st ionisation energy as observed is supposed to be 0.903569881854.

PS2  Nakashima and Nakasuji reports -2.903 724 377 034 119 598 311 159 245 194 404 446 696 905 37 with 40 correct decimals, still different from observation -2.903385...



Trumps Reason to Withdraw from the Paris Accord

When President Trump declared that the US will pull out from the Paris Climate Accord, he did not repeat his earlier analysis that CO2 climate alarmism is a hoax without scientific support.

He could have done that on very good grounds, but he did not get into the question whether CO2 emissions from human activity is a real threat to the planet or not, which some climate skeptics regret.

Trump simply referred to the fact that even if all commitments of a Paris Accord where fully fulfilled, or more, the total effect according to the very dogmas of CO2 climate alarmism, would be at most 0.2 C reduction of global warming at the end of the century, that is zero effect. His logic was that it would be immoral to deliberately deny poor people access to cheap fossil fuel and keep them in poverty, if the effect on climate would be zero.

This shows the true dilemma of climate alarmism: If there is a real threat, then the planned measures to avoid catastrophe are totally inadequate and thus meaningless and then immoral by causing human suffering.  If there is no real threat, then the planned measures are even more meaningless and immoral.

This dilemma is covered up by main stream media selling climate alarmism, but comes out in the  true face of climate alarmism as expressed by Joachim Schellnhuber, climate advisor to Merkel and the Pope, asking for a "great transformation" of human civilisation. This is something completely different from buying an electrical car.  Think of that.


PS When Scott Pruitt as new Director of EPA and chief architect together with Mylon Ebell of Trumps CO2 agenda and decision to withdraw from the Paris Accord, was asked if he knew what  Trump was "thinking about climate",  Pruitt responded that frankly he did not know and that he had not discussed this question with Trump. To Pruitt and Ebell (and to the world) it is enough to know that their agenda is supported by Trump. This fits with Trump's decision to refrain from repeating his claim that climate alarmism is a "hoax" (which is impossible to prove), because the Paris Accord is meaningless, "hoax" or not.

tisdag 30 maj 2017

Kutta Condition, Gods Finger and Secret of Flight




The New Theory Flight revealing the secret of flight (article1, article2book and website) is now backed by new computations in realistic geometry to be presented next week at the High-Lift Prediction Workshop III.

At this historic moment, let me recall the The Old Theory of Flight by Kutta-Zhukovsky presented
around 1905, which is still the accepted text book explanation of the generation of lift by an airfoil.
The Old Theory states that an airfoil is capable of generating lift because it has a sharp trailing edge, which is supposed to force potential flow without lift separating on the upper surface of the wing to instead separate at the trailing edge and then generate lift by causing a redirection of the airflow, as illustrated in this generic text book figure illustrating the Kutta condition:  


The Old Theory contains two unphysical effects, which happen to balance and then miraculously give a physical result = lift. The two unphysical effects are:
  1. The start is 2d potential flow without lift separating on top of the wing. 
  2. By making the trailing edge sharp, the flow is forced to separate at trailing edge and then give lift. 
The New Theory shows that 2d flow is unphysical because real flow contains completely crucial 3d features.

To believe that real flow can be forced to separate at the trailing edge by making it sharp, is to give yourself access to the action of a God's finger of unlimited power.

In numerics you can play God and set the velocity zero wherever you want, but that is simulated virtual reality and not real physics. It is like putting a needle into a voodo doll believing it will have an effect on a real person. This is voodo-physics.

Yet, this is the text book explanation of lift. To test, ask your favourite aero-dynamicist:
  1. Why do airfoils have sharp trailing edge? 
  2. What happens if the trailing edge is not sharp but more or less rounded? 
After this experience, you will be more motivated to dig into the New Theory of Flight.

PS The book will now be updated to find an efficient publisher.


tisdag 16 maj 2017

realQM Excited States

I have updated realQM with a section on
The interested reader will there find that realQM offers a natural way to model excitation of electrons in an outermost shell by replacing the electrons in inner shells and the kernel by an effective kernel of a certain radius and reduced charge, thus relating in principle excitation of all atoms to that of Hydrogen.

In realQM electron wave functions have local support and occupy different domains i space, which gives the model with an effective kernel a direct physical meaning, while in stdQM wave functions have global support and precise allocation of electrons to different shells is impossible.


Classical vs Quantum Physics According to Lubos

Lubos Motl as devoted soldier in the army of Bohr-Born-Heisenberg is preaching the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics and anybody raising any doubt will be subject to scorn, the most recent victim being Christopher Fuch as expressed in the post: Qbism: Fuch vs Bohr+Motl. Here is Lubos credo from the post:
  • Classical physics allows you to assume that some things objectively exist. You may make true statements about the objects in Nature but there are underlying objects and all the true statements are just reflections of something that is out there.
  • Quantum mechanics allows you to assign truth values or probabilities (a continuous version of the truth value) to propositions about Nature, too. However, you can no longer assume that the true statements that you may derive from quantum mechanics are reflections of the objective reality.
  • That makes sense. Quantum mechanics is an analogy of mathematical logic that allows you to prove and derive new valid propositions out of some assumed ones, the axioms.
No Lubos, it does not make sense; if quantum mechanics is not a "reflection of the objective reality", then it is fantasy and nothing but fantasy, and then it is not science but only tragedy.

If you seek for a quantum mechanics as "a reflection of objective reality", then realQM may be what you are looking for. Try it out!

lördag 6 maj 2017

Schrödinger: Do Electrons Think?



Schrödinger's equation is the basic basic mathematical model of quantum mechanics. It was first formulated for the Hydrogen atom with one electron in terms of a wave function $\psi (x,t)$ depending on a 3d space coordinate $x$ and a time coordinate $t$, with $\vert\psi (x,t)\vert^2$ representing electron charge density at $(x,t)$. Schrödinger's equation expresses stationarity of an associated energy functional and the ground state is defined as the charge density of minimal energy.  

Since the agreement between model and observation was perfect for Hydrogen, Schrödinger's equation was greeted as the most stunning triumph of the human mind since Newton's law of gravitation.

The generalisation of Schrödinger's equation to atoms with $N > 1$ electrons presented itself
as a formal extension into a wave function $\psi (x_1,...,x_N)$ depending on $N$ 3d space coordinates $x_j$, altogether $3N$ space coordinates.  But such a multi-d wave function could no longer be interpreted as a charge density in physical 3d space,  only as the probability to find at any given time electron $j$ at position $x_j$ for $j=1,...,N,$ as if the electrons as particles were randomly jumping around. This was coined the Copenhagen Interpretation of Bohr-Born-Heisenberg which took over the scene against heavy protests from Schrödinger and Einstein among others.

Schrödinger phrased his protest in many ways and in particular as the question do electrons think? Schrödinger argued that if electrons jump around randomly as in the Copenhagen Interpretation, then they cannot be viewed to think.  But if electrons instead in a deterministic way react upon forces so as to minimise energy, then they can be viewed to think in some sense. Schrödinger would thus give his answer as: Yes, electrons do think! as a protest to the randomness without thought of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

This connects to Descartes "I think and therefore I am (exist)". With the same logic for the electron, physical existence would be linked to thinking and so electrons do exist because they think and do not jump randomly without thought.

What do you think?          

fredag 5 maj 2017

New Web Site: Real Quantum Mechanics

I have launched a new web site describing a new approach to atom physics in terms of classical continuum mechanics in three space dimensions named realQM or
also presented as a book in draft form. Take a look and see if you get encouraged to follow the further development of this project.

onsdag 3 maj 2017

Programmering i Matematikämnet: Så Lite Som Möjligt?

Regeringen beslutade 090317 att med start ht17 programmering skall ingå som en del av matematikundervisningen i grundskola och gymnasium, se tidigare bloggpost.

För att detta skall bli verklighet fordras utveckling av nya läromedel och fortbildning av lärare.

För detta ändamål säger sig Skolverket vilja tillföra några moduler på Lärportalen i stil med de moduler som utformats för Matematiklyftet av bl a NCM i Göteborg.

Kommer detta att räcka? Det beror på målsättningen, som kan vara allt från (1) så lite som möjligt till (2) lite mera till (3) så mycket som vore befogat med tanke på Regeringens uppdrag.

Här kan vi förvänta oss stor uppslutning för (1) eftersom det finns starka krafter som vill behålla matematikundervisningen i sin traditionella form utan störande inslag av programmering. Med (1) förenklas ju uppgiften vad gäller nya läromedel och fortbildning avsevärt, då nästan inget behöver göras.

Eftersom ingen aktion har varit märkbar efter Regeringens beslut i mars och ht17 snart är här, så verkar det vara så att skolvärlden ställer in sig på (1). Men det var inte (1) Regeringen avsåg.

Jag har förslagit NCM att jag skulle kunna bidra med Matematik-IT som är i linje med (3). Vi får se om NCM tycker det vore bra eller om det är (1) som gäller även på NCM.

Vad gäller att sätta ett tak på nivå (1) för alla, som mycket väl kan bli verklighet, kan man säga att det inte vore i linje med Regeringens intentioner.  Nog borde det väl kunna få finnas alternativ i linje med (2) och (3) för de skolor/lärare som vill mer än (1)? Eller skulle det störa en princip om likformig skola?

PS Varken Svenska Matematikersamfundet eller Nationalkommitten för Matematik har uttryckt någon mening vad gäller Regeringens beslut om att förändra matematikundervisningen i skolan. Detta är i linje med tidigare hållning att inte befatta sig med skolmatematik, och i fall (1) behöver ju inte heller något sägas.


tisdag 2 maj 2017

CO2 Global Warming Alarmism: Hour of Reckoning

Driving in the wrong direction on a one-way street, firmly believing it to be a two-way street, is stupid and potentially deadly hazardous for other people.

The US Environmental Protection Agency EPA has now cleansed its web page from CO2 global warming alarmism and US Energy Sec. Perry declares
  • We should ‘renegotiate’ the Paris Climate Change Agreement,
This signals the beginning of the end of the CO2 alarmism driven by EU politicians and US Democrats:
This is a victory for rational science showing that the "CO2 greenhouse effect" has been artificially
boosted to seemingly dangerous levels without proper scientific evidence, only in order to fit a certain political agenda. 

I feel happy to have contributed to this insight through an analysis of the unphysical nature of the concept of "back radiation" which is central to the proclaimed alarmingly big "CO2 greenhouse effect". 

You find "back radiation" in many books on atmospheric physics as one part of a "two-stream" radiative transfer model originally proposed by Schwarzschild in 1905 with net heat transfer warm-to-cold as the difference of two gross heat transfers warm-to-cold and cold-to-warm. See also History of Radiative Heat Transfer.

But what you find in many physics books is not necessarily true physics, and this is the case with two-stream radiative heat transfer, which is fake-science. This is because heat transfer cold-to-warm violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In the two-stream Schwarzschild equations this is present as an effect of unphysical absorption from unphysical back radiation. Schwarzschild formulated his model to allow analytical solution as first priority and did not worry about unphysical aspects. 

Two-stream radiative transfer is based on a mis-interpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann-Planck's Law $\sigma T^4$ as the radiative heat energy emitted by a black body of temperature $T$ Kelvin independent of the temperature of the environment of the body, while the physically correct interpretation is  radiative energy emitted into a background of temperature zero Kelvin. 

The radiative heat energy emitted by a black body of temperature $T$ in an environment of temperature $T_0$ is thus given by $\sigma (T^4-T_0^4)$ if $T_0\le T$. If $T_0>T$ then the body absorbs energy from the environment and emits no energy. 

The mis-interpretation of SBP law is widely spread and apparently accepted by many more or less prominent physicists. This is made possible by the fact that the standard derivation of the SBP law is based on statistics obscuring real physics. I have given an alternative derivation based on transparent physics exhibiting the mis-interpretation.  

CO2 alarmists like two-stream gross flow because small changes of gross flow can be big and support alarmism, while small changes of net flow will remain small and give no reason for alarm. And true radiative heat transfer is one-stream warm-to-cold. 

In short, the CO2 swindle is based on unphysical two-stream radiative heat transfer between the Earth surface and the atmosphere of size 300 W/m2 claimed to suggest a global warming alarm of 3 C, while the true net transfer is 10 times smaller about 30 W/m2, which can only suggest a harmless warming of 0.3 C. 

There is much evidence that CO2 alarmism is scientific swindle, a basic element being the unphysical idea of two-stream radiative transfer connected to a mis-interpretation of the SBP law. To be ignorant of physics may be inconvenient but to make a mis-interpretation of a physical law believing it to be true physics can be very dangerous; for example believing that a one-way street is a two-way street can be lethal...and the more convinced you are the more dangerous...

It is the responsibility of physicists to gard that basic physics of radiative heat transfer is correctly described in the physics literature.  Apparently physicists today have other priorities (like string theory and multiversa) and so the mis-interpretation of the SBP law as a basis for CO2 alarm has been able to survive under the wings of physics, but now the time of reckoning is here...as evidenced by EPA...

Murry Salby is today a leading skeptic to CO2 alarmism, but the mis-conception of two-stream radiative heat transfer was present in his 1996 book Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics as a result of mis-management of fundamental physics in modern times allowing violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as the cornerstone of classical physics.

PS1 Schwarzschild's two-stream model for radiative heat transfer takes the following form for a horisontal slab atmosphere, with vertical coordinate $x$ with $x=0$ at the Earth surface and $x=X$ at the top of the atmosphere, in terms of a gross upward heat flux $F^+(x)$ and a gross downward heat flux  $F^-(x)$ satisfying the following advection-absorption equations for $0\lt x\lt X$:
  • $\frac{dF^+}{dx} + F^+ = Q$               (1)
  • $-\frac{dF^-}{dx} + F^- = Q$               (2) 
where $Q(x) =\sigma T(x)^4$ is supposed to express the SBP law with $T(x)$ the temperature at $x$ and $\sigma$ Stefan-Boltzmann's constant, and $x$ serves as an optical coordinate normalizing absorption. The atmosphere is supposed to be heated from below at $x=0$ by a heat source $H$, and the heat is radiatively transported to the top of the atmosphere from where it is radiated into outer space at 0 K. Conservation of heat energy gives the additional equation
  • $F^+-F^- = H$,                                      (3)
from which follows by adding/subtracting (2) from (1) that $F^+ + F^-=2Q$ and $\frac{d(F^++F^-)}{dx}=-H$ and thus:
  • $2Q(x) = H(X-x)+H$,                          (4)
  • $F^+ =\frac{H}{2}(X-x)+H$
  • $F^-=\frac{H}{2}(X-x)$                        
which determines the temperature profile $T(x)$. Schwarzschild's model resulting in linear $Q(x)$, is very simplistic. Only a model with $Q(x)$ constant could be more simplistic.

Schwarzschild's model (1-2) expresses conservation of upward and downward heat fluxes through a thin atmospheric layer radiating both upward and downward according to SBP in the form $Q(x) =\sigma T(x)^4$.

The model is unphysical because it is based on mis-interpretation of SBP and through the equation
$-\frac{dF^-}{dx} + F^- = Q$ introduces spurious absorption.

In a following post I will consider one-stream models for radiative transport based on real physics.

PS2 I have over the years had heated debates about back radiation and two-stream radiative with many people including Roy Spencer and Judy Curry and I have met the strong grip physics books, right or wrong, can have on peoples minds. Planck is primarily to be blamed because of his unphysical proof of the law of black body radiation using statistical arguments, which he himself did not believe in and was very unhappy with, but also secondarly all the leading physicists after Planck who uncritically have accepted what cannot be true physics.

I have many times met the reaction, when I express my view that two-stream radiative heat transfer to be unphysical, that people get upset and in anger block further communication. Thus the idea of two-stream radiative heat transfer has been protected from scrutiny allowing it to serve as a corner-stone of the "greenhouse effect" invented to serve CO2 global warming alarmism. 
        

söndag 16 april 2017

Yes, anti-matter does anti-gravitate!

Sabine Hossenfelder asks in a recent post at Backreaction:
  • Why doesn’t anti-matter anti-gravitate?
According to the gravitational model presented in my app NewMath: Darkenergy, anti-matter does anti-gravitate as a result of the gravitational law
  • $\Delta\phi = \rho$
where $\phi (x,t)$ is gravitational potential and $\rho (x,t)$ mass density depending on a Euclidean space coordinate $x$ and $ t$ is a time coordinate, where $\rho (x,t)$ can be both positive and negative, and positive $\rho (x,t)$ signifies presence of normal matter and negative $\rho (x,t)$ signifies presence of anti-matter, at $(x,t)$.

This model is explored under the following categories on this blog
Here is an output from as simulation with anti-matter (green) repelling normal matter (red) into expansion, as an explanation of the observed expansion of the universe.


Hopefully, you are now encouraged to download the app and test the model!


måndag 20 mars 2017

Climate Change Programmes: Waste of Money

The Independent and The Guardian reports:
  • Donald Trump's budget director calls efforts to combat climate change "waste of money".
  • The budget proposal calls for deep cuts across various federal agencies responsible for different climate change actions.
This means a historic shift from inhuman irrational political ideological extremism of CO2 climate change hysteria to science, rationality and humanity.

All the people of the world can now celebrate that there is more than enough fossil energy on this planet, which can safely be harvested and utilised under controllable environmental side effects, to allow virtually everybody to reach a good standard of living (under the right politics). 

The industrial revolution was driven by coal and the boost of the standard of living during the 20th century in the West was made possible by the abundance of oil and gas.  Without CO2 hysteria this development can now be allowed to continue and bring more prosperity to the people, as is now happening on large scale in China and India.

Wasting money on actions without meaning and effect is about the most stupid thing a government can do and that will now be put to stop in the US as concerns energy production (if not on military...)

It remains for the EU to come to the same conclusion...and that will come even if the awakening will take some time...

PS Note the shift of terminology from "global warming by CO2" to the more neutral "climate change", motivated by the lack of warming in the "hiatus" of global temperatures during now 20 years. If "stopping climate change" was the issue, the prime concern would be to stop the upcoming ice age.  But that is not on the agenda, maybe because nobody believes that this is within the range of climate politics...the only thing that could have an effect would be massive burning of fossil fuel under the belief that it can cause some warming... 

söndag 19 mars 2017

The World as Analog Computation?!

                                     Augmented reality by digital simulation of analog reality.

Sabine Hossenfelder expresses on Backreaction:
  • No, we probably don’t live in a computer simulation!
as a reaction to the Simulation Hypothesis:
Sabine starts her discussion with
  • First, to get it out of the way, there’s a trivial way in which the simulation hypothesis is correct: You could just interpret the presently accepted theories to mean that our universe computes the laws of nature. Then it’s tautologically true that we live in a computer simulation. It’s also a meaningless statement.
And she gets support from Lubos Motl stating:
  • Hossenfelder sensibly critical of our "simulated" world.
Is it then meaningless to view the World as the result of analog computation? I don't think so, with arguments presented at The World as Computation.

The main idea is that if the world is an analog computation, then it may well be possible to simulate the world by digital computation, and if that is possible we may perhaps better understand and control the world to our benefit. 

And the other way: If the world is not analog computation, then chances for simulation by digital computation are slim, and then what? 

Recall that the basic principle of classical rational deterministic physics is to view the evolution of the world as the result of sequential analog computation as transformations of inputs into outputs according to laws of physics. In short: The World as a Clock according to Laplace. Or more precisely, The World as a Clock of Infinite Precision, since the laws of physics are supposed to be satisfied exactly.

Sabine's standpoint is logical as an expression of the complete collapse of classical rational deterministic physics in the spirit of Laplace into the irrational quantum world of modern physics without determinism, for which the idea of input-output computation no longer is valid. The non-computational aspect of quantum physics comes out in the multi-dimensional form of Schrödinger's equation, which makes it impossible to solve by digital computation. 

But the complete collapse of rationality/determinism in modern physics is a serious blow to physics as science and I have sought a way to avoid collapse by modifying Laplace's dictum into The World as a Clock of Finite Precision and by giving Schrödinger's equation an alternative three-dimensional form as realQM, both inviting to simulation by digital computation.  

Sabine's post expresses the paralysis created by the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics presenting a world which is not understandable and therefore not computable and therefore not understandable...a world view which we do not have to accept because there are alternatives to explore...

There is no evidence that we live in a computer simulation (because the world is not digital), but there is much evidence that an analog world can be simulated by digital computation, and that opens endless possibilities of enhancing the analog world by simulated worlds as augmented reality...




torsdag 9 mars 2017

Regeringen Beslutar om Programmering i Matematikämnet

Regeringen har idag beslutat om förtydliganden och förstärkningar i bland annat läroplaner, kursplaner och ämnesplaner för grundskolan och gymnasieskolan:
  • Syftet är att tydliggöra skolans uppdrag att stärka elevernas digitala kompetens.
  • Programmering införs som ett tydligt inslag i flera olika ämnen i grundskolan, framför allt i teknik och matematik.
  • Ändringarna ska tillämpas senast från och med den 1 juli 2018. Huvudmännen kommer att kunna välja när de ska börja tillämpa ändringarna inom ett ettårigt tidsspann från och med den 1 juli 2017.
Nu återstår att fylla detta med konkret innehåll. Om det skall bli något annat än bara en tom åtbörd, fordras massiv vidareutbildning av särskilt lärare i matematik. 

Mitt bidrag för detta ändamål finns i form av Matematik-IT. 

Det finns starka konservativa krafter inom matematikutbildning från grundskola till universitet, som inte vill medverka till att bredda matematikämnet med programmering.  

Det finns starka krafter inom datalogi att ta hand om programmeringen i skolan enligt en princip av "datalogiskt tänkande".

Matematikämnet står därmed inför det vägskäl som präglat hela mitt akademiska liv: 
  1. Förnya/utvidga traditionell analytisk matematik med programmering = Matematik-IT.
  2. Bevara traditionell matematikutbildning och låt inte programmering störa bilden.
Regeringen har bestämt att 1. skall gälla, medan akademin lutar åt 2.  Vad är bäst för Sveriges elever? Digital kompetens med eller utan matematik? Matematik med eller utan programmering? Kampen går vidare...


tisdag 28 februari 2017

Update of realQM

I have put up an update of realQM for inspection, with Chapter 6 presenting the basic model.
It includes in particular the following remark on the difference between realQM and the stdQM of text books:

Schrödinger approached mathematical modeling of the atom starting with wave functions and then seeking an equation satisfied by the wave functions as solutions, thus proceeding from solutions to equation rather than from equation to solutions as the normal approach with the equation formulated on physical principles.

This is reflected in the absence of any derivation of Schrödinger's equation from basic physical principles, which is a main defect of stdQM. Starting from solutions and then finding an equation satisfied by the solutions hides the physics, while starting with the equation requires physics to formulate the equation. And this is the essence of realQM!


fredag 24 februari 2017

Skeptics Letter Reaches the White House

The Washington Examiner reports:
  • Hundreds of scientists skeptical of climate change urged President Trump on Thursday to withdraw from the United Nations framework on global warming, arguing that doing so would support the administration's pro-jobs agenda and help "people bootstrap themselves out of poverty."
  • The letter asserts that carbon dioxide, considered by many scientists to be the primary cause of climate change, "is not a pollutant" at all, but a necessary ingredient for nourishing life on Earth.
  • The 300 scientists, led by well-known climate researcher Richard Lindzen of the Massaschusetts Institute of Technology, sent a letter to the White House with a petition urging the U.S. to exit from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
  • Candidates Trump and Pence promised not only to keep the U.S. out of a harmful international climate agreement, but also to roll back misdirected, pointless government restrictions of CO2 emissions," the letter read. "Dr. Lindzen and hundreds of scientists support you in this.
I was one of the 300 scientists signing the letter (here).

Also Washington Times reports on this historic letter:
  • Hundreds of scientists urge Trump to withdraw from U.N. climate-change agency
  • MIT’s Richard Lindzen says policies cause economic harm with ‘no environmental benefits’.

lördag 18 februari 2017

Scott Pruitt New Director of EPA


Trump's Pick for EPA Chief Scott Pruitt: Climate Change Dissent Is Not a Crime



Pruitt is expected to scrap the Clean Power Plan (CPP) defining the gas of life CO2 to be a toxic to be put under severe control, as well as the Paris Agreement formed on the same premise.

Pruitt's standpoint based on science is that there is no scientific evidence that CO2 is toxic or that CO2 emission from burning of fossil fuels can cause measurable global warming. 

The work force at an EPA without CPP is estimated to be reduced from 15000 to 5000, with new main concern being clean air and water and not meaningless control of CO2.

This brings hope to the all poor people of the world that there can be energy and food for everybody! 

lördag 11 februari 2017

QM: Waves vs Particles: Schrödinger vs Born


From The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics The Interpretations of QM in Historical Perspective by Max Jammer, we collect the following account of Schrödinger's view of quantum mechanics as wave mechanics, in full correspondence with realQM:
  • Schrödinger interpreted quantum theory as a simple classical theory of waves. In his view, physical reality consists of waves and waves only. 
  • He denied categorically the existence of discrete energy levels and quantum jumps, on the grounds that in wave mechanics the discrete eigenvalues are eigenfrequencies of waves rather than energies, an idea to which he had alluded at the end of his first Communication. In the paper "On Energy Exchange According to Wave Mechanics," which he published in 1927, he explained his view on this subject in great detail.
  • The quantum postulate, in Schrödinger's view, is thus fully accounted for in terms of a resonance phenomenon, analogous to acoustical beats or to the behavior of "sympathetic pendulums" (two pendulums of equal, or almost equal, proper frequencies, connected by a weak spring). 
  • The interaction between two systems, in other words, is satisfactorily explained on the basis of purely wave-mechanical conceptions as if the quantum postulate were valid- just as the frequencies of spontaneous emission are deduced from the time-dependent perturbation theory of wave mechanics as if there existed discrete energy levels and as if Bohr's frequency postulate were valid. 
  • The assumption of quantum jumps or energy levels, Schrödinger concluded, is therfore redundant: "to admit the quantum postulate in conjunction with the resonance phenomenon means to accept two explanations of the same process. This, however, is like offering two excuses: one is certainly false, usually both." 
  • In fact, Schrodinger claimed, in the correct description of this phenomenon one should not apply the concept of energy at all but only that of frequency.
We contrast with the following account of Born's view of quantum mechanics as particle statistics:
  • Only four days after Schrödinger's concluding contribution had been sent to the editor of the Annalen der Physik the publishers of the Zeitschrift fur Physik received a paper, less than five pages long, titled On the Quantum Mechanics of Collision Processes, in which Max Born proposed, for the first time, a probabilistic interpretation of the wave function implying thereby that microphysics must be considered a probabilistic theory.
  • When Born was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1954 "for his fundamental work in quantum mechanics and especially for his statistical interpretation of the wave function," he explained the motives of his opposition to Schrödinger's interpretation as follows: 
  • "On this point I could not follow him. This was connected with the fact that my Institute and that of James Franck were housed in the same building of the Göttingen University. Every experiment by Franck and his assistants on electron collisions (of the first and second kind) appeared to me as a new proof of the corpuscular nature of the electron."
  • Born's probabilistic interpretation, apart from being prompted by the corpuscular aspects in Franck's collision experiments, was also influenced, as Born himself admitted, by Einstein's conception of the relation between the field of electromagnetic waves and the light quanta.
  • In the just mentioned lecture delivered in 1955, three days before Einstein's death, Born declared explicitly that it was fundamentally Einstein's idea which he (Born) applied in 1926 to the interpretation of Schrödinger's wave function and which today, appropriately generalized., is made use of everywhere. 
  • Born's probability interpretation of quantum mechanics thus owes its existence to Einstein, who later became one of its most eloquent opponents.
We know that the view of Born, when forcefully missioned by Bohr, eliminated Schrödinger from the scene of modern physics and today is the text book version of quantum mechanics named the Copenhagen Interpretation. We understand that Born objected to Schrödinger's wave mechanics because he was influenced by Einstein's 1905 idea of a "corpuscular nature" of light and certain experiments suggesting a "corpuscular nature" of electrons. 

But associating a "corpuscular nature" to light and electrons meant a giant step back from the main advancement of 19th century physics in the form of Maxwell's theory of light as electromagnetic waves, a step back first taken by Einstein but then abandoned, as expressed by Jammer:
  • Born's original probabilistic interpretation proved a dismal failure if applied to the explanation of diffraction phenomena such as the diffraction of electrons. 
  • In the double-slit experiment, for example, Born's original interpretation implied that the blackening on the recording screen behind the double-slit, with both slits open, should be the superposition of the two individual blackenings obtained with only one slip opened in turn. 
  • The very experimental fact that there are regions in the diffraction pattern not blackened at all with both slits open, whereas the same regions exhibit strong blackening if only one slit is open, disproves Born's original version of his probabilistic interpretation. 
  • Since this double-slit experiment can be carried out at such reduced radiation intensities that only one particle (electron, photon, etc.) passes the appara- tus at a time, it becomes clear, on mathematical analysis, that the $-wave associated with each particle interferes with itself and the mathematical interference is manifested by the physical distribution of the particles on the screen. The wave function must therefore be something physically real and not merely a representation of our knowledge, if it refers to particles in the classical sense.
Summing up: 
  • Real wave mechanics in the spirit of Schrödinger makes a lot of sense, and that is the starting point of realQM.
  • Born's particle statistics does not make sense, and the big trouble is that this is the text book version of quantum mechanics.
How could it be, with these odds, that Born took the scene? The answer is the "obvious"  generalisation of Schrödinger's wonderful 3d equation for the Hydrogen atom with one electron with physical meaning, into the 3N-dimensional linear Schrödinger equation for an atom with $N > 1$ electrons, a trivial generalisation without physical meaning. There should be another generalisation which stays physical and that is the aim of realQM.

In the end Schrödinger may be expected to take the game because he has a most perfect and efficient brain, according to Born.

To get more perspective let us quote from Born's 1954 Nobel Lecture:
  • Einstein, De Broglie, and Schrödinger have unceasingly stressed the unsatisfactory features of quantum mechanics and called for a return to the concepts of classical, Newtonian physics while proposing ways in which this could be done without contradicting experimental facts. Such weighty views cannot be ignored. Niels Bohr has gone to a great deal of trouble to refute the objections. I, too, have ruminated upon them and believe I can make some contribution to the clarification of the position.
  • Schrödinger thought that his wave theory made it possible to return to deterministic classical physics. He proposed (and he has recently emphasized his proposal anew’s), to dispense with the particle representation entirely, and instead of speaking of electrons as particles, to consider them as a continuous density distribution or electric density. 
  • To us in Göttingen this interpretation seemed unacceptable in face of well established experimental facts. At that time it was already possible to count particles by means of scintillations or with a Geiger counter, and to photograph their tracks with the aid of a Wilson cloud chamber.
Born's argument against Schrödinger's wave mechanics in the spirit of Maxwell in favor of his own particle mechanics in the spirit of Newton, evidently was that a "tick" of Geiger counter or "track" in a cloud chamber both viewed to have "particle-like quality", can only be triggered by a "particle", but there is no such necessity...the snap of a whip is like a "particle" generated by a "wave"...

Born ends with:
  • How does it come about then, that great scientists such as Einstein, Schrö- dinger, and De Broglie are nevertheless dissatisfied with the situation? 
  • Of course, all these objections are levelled not against the correctness of the formulae, but against their interpretation.
  • The lesson to be learned from what I have told of the origin of quantum mechanics is that probable refinements of mathematical methods will not suffice to produce a satisfactory theory, but that somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept, unjustified by experience, which we must eliminate to open up the road.

fredag 10 februari 2017

2500 Years of Quantum Mechanics


Erwin Schrödinger connects in Nature and the Greeks (1954) and in 2400 Jahre of Quantenmechanik (1948) the standard Copenhagen Interpretation of his wave function of quantum mechanics, back to the Greek atomists Leucippus and Democritus (born around 460 BC) preceded by the view of Anaximenes (died about 526) disciple of Anaximander of matter as collections of "particles" as "indivisible smallest bodies separated by void" subject to "rarefaction and condensation".

In the Copenhagen Interpretation wave functions are supposed to represent probability distributions of collections of electrons viewed as "particles in void" in the same way as the Greek atomists did 2500 years ago.

The contribution from modern physics to this ancient view is the element of probability eliminating causality by stating that "particles" are supposed to "jump around", or "jiggle" in the terminology of Feynman, without cause and thus always be nowhere and everywhere in the void at the same time.

Schrödinger compares this ancient "particle" view boosted by probability with his own opposite view that "all is waves without void obeying causality" as possibly a true advancement of physics. This is the starting point of realQM...as ontic/realistic/objective rather epistemic/idealistic/subjective...

Recall Roger Penrose in Foreword to Nature and the Greeks and Science and Humanism:
  • Moreover, in my personal view, the more "objective" philosophical standpoints of Schrõdinger and Einstein with respect to quantum mechanics, are immeasurably superior to "subjective" ones of Heisenberg and Bohr. 
  • While it is often held that the remarkable successes of quantum physics have led us to doubt the very existence of an "objective reality" at the quantum level of molecules, atoms and their constituent particles, the extraordinary precision of the quantum formalism - which means, essentially, of the Schrõdinger equation - signals to us that there must indeed be a "reality" at the quantum level, albeit an unfamiliar one, in order that there can be a "something" so accurately described by that very formalism.

tisdag 7 februari 2017

Towards a New EPA Without CO2 Alarmism

The US Environmental Protection Agency EPA is facing a complete revision along a plan drawn by CO2 alarmism skeptic Mylon Ebell, but EPA still trumpets the same old CO2 alarmism of the Obama administration under the head lines of Climate Change:
  • Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change.
  • Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 
  • Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm. This phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect... and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup of greenhouse gases can change Earth's climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and to ecosystems.

The reason that this propaganda is still on the EPA web page can only be that the new director of EPA Scott Pruitt has not yet been confirmed. It will be interesting to see the new web page after Pruitt has implemented the plan of Ebell to dismantle CO2 alarmism...in the US...and then...

söndag 5 februari 2017

From Meaningless Towards Meaningful QM?


The Schrödinger equation as the basic model of atom physics descended as a heavenly gift to humanity in an act of godly inspiration inside the mind of Erwin Schrödinger in 1926.

But the gift showed to hide poison: Nobody could give the equation a physical meaning understandable to humans, and that unfortunate situation has prevailed into our time as expressed by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg (and here):
  • In searching for an interpretation of quantum mechanics we seem to be faced with nothing but bad choices.
  • My own conclusion (not universally shared) is that today there is no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws, and that we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is merely a good approximation.
Weinberg's view is a theme on the educated physics blogosphere of today:
Sabine agrees with Weinberg that "there are serious problems", while Lubos insists that "there are no problems".

There are two approaches to mathematical modelling of the physical world:
  1. Pick symbols to form a mathematical expression/equation and then try to give it a meaning.
  2. Have a meaningful thought and then try to express it as a mathematical expression/equation. 
Schrödinger's equation was formed more according to 1. rather than 2.  and has resisted all efforts to be given a physical meaning. Interpreting Schrödinger's equation has shown to be like interpreting the Bible as authored by God rather than human minds.

What makes Schrödinger's equation so difficult to interpret in physical terms, is that it depends on $3N$ spatial variables for an atom with $N$ electrons, while an atom with all its electrons seems to share experience in a common 3-d space.  Here is how Weinberg describes the generalisation from $N=1$ in 3 space dimensions to $N>1$ in $3N$ space dimensions as "obvious":
  • More than that, Schrödinger’s equation had an obvious generalisation to general systems.
Weinberg takes for granted that what "is obvious" does not have to be explained.  But everything in rational physics needs rational argumentation and nothing "is obvious", and so this is where quantum mechanics branches off from rational physics. If what is claimed to be "obvious" in fact lacks rational argument, then it may simply be all wrong. The generalisation of Schrödinger's equation to $N>1$ fell into that trap, and that is the tragedy of modern physics.

There is nothing "obvious" in the sense of "frequently encountered" in the generalisation of Schrödinger's equation from 3 space dimensions to 3N space dimension, since it is a giant leap away from reality and as such utterly "non-obvious" and "never encountered" before.

In realQM I suggest a different form of Schrödinger's equation as a system in 3d with physical meaning.

PS Note how Weinberg describes the foundation of quantum mechanics:
  • The first postulate of quantum mechanics is that physical states can be represented as vectors in a sort of abstract space known as Hilbert space.
  • According to the second postulate of quantum mechanics, observable physical quantities like position, momentum, energy, etc., are represented as Hermitian operators on Hilbert space. 
We see that these postulates are purely formal and devoid of physics. We see that the notion of Hilbert space and Hermitian operator are elevated to have a mystical divine quality, as if Hilbert and Hermite were gods like Zeus (physics of the sky) and Poseidon (physics of the sea)...much of the mystery of quantum mechanics comes from assigning meaning to such formalities without meaning...

The idea that the notion of Hilbert space is central to quantum mechanics was supported by an idea that Hilbert space as a key ingredient in the "modern mathematics" created by Hilbert 1926-32 should be the perfect tool for "modern physics", an idea explored in von Neumann's monumental Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.  Here the linearity of Schrödinger's equation is instrumental and its many dimensions doesn't matter, but it appears that von Neumann missed the physics:

  • I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe absolutely in Hilbert space no more. (von Neumann to Birkhoff 1935)

fredag 3 februari 2017

Unphysical Basis of CO2 Alarmism = Hoax


CO2 alarmism is based on an unphysical version of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law and associated Schwarzschild equations for radiative heat transfer stating a two-way radiative heat transfer from-warm-to-cold and from-cold-to-warm with net transfer as the difference between the two-way transfers.

This is expressed as "back radiation" from a colder atmosphere to warmer Earth surface in Kiehl-Trenberth's Global energy budget (above) and in Pierrehumbert's Infrafred radiation and planetary temperature based on Schwarzschild's equations, presented as the physical basis of CO2 alarmism.

In extended writing I have exposed the unphysical nature of radiative heat transfer from-cold-to-warm as violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, see e.g.
Massive two-way radiative heat transfer between two bodies is unphysical because it is unstable, with the net transfer arising from the difference between two gross quantities, and the 2nd law says that Nature cannot work that way: There is only transfer from-warm-to-cold and there can be no transfer from-cold-to-warm. Radiative heat transfer is always one-way from-warm-to-cold.

CO2 alarmism is thus based on a picture of massive radiative heat transfer back-and-forth between atmosphere and Earth surface (see above picture), as an unstable system threatening to go into "run-away-global-warming" at slightest perturbation.  But there is no true physics behind this picture, only alarmist fiction. 

Real physics indicates that global climate is stable rather than unstable, and as such insensitive to a very small change of the composition of the atmosphere upon doubling of CO2. There is little/no scientific evidence indicating that the effect could be measurable, that is be bigger than 0.5 C.

Note that climate models use Schwarzschild's equations to describe radiative heat transfer and the fact that these equations do not describe true physics is a death-blow to the current practice of climate simulation used to sell CO2 alarmism.

So, when you meet the argument that Pierrehumbert is an authority on infrared radiation and planetary temperature, you can say that this is not convincing because Pierrehumbert is using incorrect physics (which also comes out by the fact that he forgets gravitation as the true origin of the very high temperature on the surface of Venus and not radiation).

If now CO2 alarmism is based on incorrect physics or non-physics, then it may be fair to describe it as "hoax".



Think of it: Suppose that "scientific consensus" through MSM is bombarding you with a message that the Earth has to be evacuated because there is imminent fear that the "sky is going to fall down" because Newton's law of gravitation says that "everything is pulled down". Would you then say that "since it is said so it must be so" or would you say that this is a non-physical misinterpretation of Newton's law?  Think of it!

The edX course Making Sense of Climate Science Denial is a typical example of the CO2 alarmism  based on the incorrect physics of "back radiation", which is forcefully trumpeted by the educational system,  as illustrated in the following key picture of the course:





tisdag 31 januari 2017

The End of CO2 Alarmism

Myron Ebell has formed the new US policy on climate and energy as leader of the EPA transition team and now reveals that indeed Trump will do what he said on that issue. Listen:
  • Climate sensitivity to CO2 emission vastly exaggerated.
  • Climate industrial complex a very dangerous special interest.
And read about this historic press conference:
The question is how long it will take before a complete global exodus from the Paris agreement will take place. It may go very quick, once the ball starts to roll...maybe in days...

Upcoming:

The Trump Administration and the Environment: A Reporter’s Primer Featuring Myron Ebell





Radiation as Superposition or Jumping?

This is a continuation of this post on understanding of atomic radiation of frequency $E_2-E_1$ as resonance of "superposition of two eigenstates" of different frequencies $E_2>E_1$ according to realQM.

In the standard view of the Copenhagen Interpretation by Bohr as stdQM, radiation is instead connected to the "jumping" of electrons between two energies/frequencies $E_2>E_2".

Which is more convincing: Superposition or jumping?

Superposition connects to linearity and realQM, while not linear (for more than one electron), may still show features of "near linearity" and thus allow understanding in the form of  "superposition", while realQM carries full non-linear dynamics.

On the other hand, "jumping" of electrons in stdQM either requires new physics, which is missing, or has no meaning at all.

This connects to the non-physical nature of the atom of stdQM discussed in a previous post presenting a contradiction in particular in the case of atomic radiation, where atoms are observed to interact with the physics of electro-magnetics and thus must be physical, because interaction between non-physics and physics is telekinesis or psychokinesis, which is viewed as pseudo-science:


String theory and multiversa are spin-offs of stdQM with the non-physical aspects driven to an extreme, and accordingly by many physicists viewed as pseudo-science.

PS In Quantum Theory at the Crossroads Reconsidering the Solvay Conference 1927 we read (p 132):
  • In 1926, with the development of wave mechanics, Schrödinger saw a new possibility of conceiving a mechanism for radiation: the superposition of two waves would involve two frequencies and emitted radiation could be understood as some kind of "difference tone" (or beat).
  • In his first paper on quantisation, Schrödinger states that this picture would "much more pleasing than the one of quantum jump".
  • This idea is still the basis of today's semi-classical radiation theory (often used in quantum optics), that is, the determination of classical electromagnetic radiation from the current associated with a charge density proportional to $\vert\psi\vert^2$.
  • The second paper refers to radiation only in passing.
Clearly, Schrödinger was heading in a fruitful direction, but he was stopped by Born, Bohr and Heisenberg.


måndag 30 januari 2017

Towards a Model of Atoms

In my search for a realistic atom model I have found the following pieces:
  1. Atom in ground state as harmonic oscillator: 3d free boundary Schrödinger equation: realQM.
  2. Radiating atom as harmonic oscillator with small Abraham-Lorentz damping: previous post and Mathematical Physics of Black Body Radiation.
  3. Radiating atoms in collective resonance with exterior electromagnetic field with acoustic analog: Piano Secret   
which I hope to assemble into a model which can describe:
  • ground states and excited states as solutions of a 3d free boundary Schrödinger equation 
  • emission and absorption of light by collections of atoms in collective in phase resonance with an exterior electromagnetic field generated by oscillating atomic electric charge and associated Abraham-Lorentz damping.   
The key concepts entering into such a model describing in particular matter-light interaction, are:
  • physical deterministic computable 3d continuum model of atom as kernel + electrons
  • electrons as clouds of charge subject to Coulomb and compression forces
  • no conceptual difference between micro and macro
  • no probability, no multi-d 
  • generalised harmonic oscillator
  • small damping from Abraham-Lorentz force from oscillating electro charge
  • near resonant forcing with half period phase shift
  • collective phase coordination by resonance between many atoms and one exterior field. 
Note that matter-light interaction is the scope of Quantum Electro Dynamics or Quantum Field Theory, which are very difficult to understand and use.

What I seek is something which can be understood and which is useful. A model in the spirit of Schrödinger as a deterministic 3d multi-species continuum mechanical wave model of microscopic atoms interacting with macroscopic electromagnetics. I don't see that anything like that is available in the literature within the Copenhagen Interpretation of Bohr or any of its clones...

Schrödinger passed away in 1961 after a life in opposition to Bohr since 1926 when his equation was hijacked, but his spirit lives...

...compare with the following trivial text book picture of atomic radiation in the spirit of Bohr:




söndag 29 januari 2017

The Radiating Atom

In the analysis on Computational Blackbody Radiation I used the following model of a harmonic oscillator of frequency $\omega$ with small damping $\gamma >0$ subject to near resonant forcing $f(t)$:
  • $\ddot u+\omega^2u-\gamma\dddot u=f(t)$
with the following characteristic energy balance between outgoing and incoming energy:
  • $\gamma\int\ddot u^2dt =\int f^2dt$
with integration over a time period and the dot signifying differentiation with respect to time $t$. 

An extension to Schrödingers equation written as a system of real-valued wave functions $\phi$ and $\psi$ may take the form
  • $\dot\phi +H\psi -\gamma\dddot \psi = f(t)$            (1)
  • $-\dot\psi +H\phi -\gamma\dddot \phi = g(t)$          (2)
where $H$ is a Hamiltonian, $f(t)$ and $g(t)$ represent near-resonant forcing, and $\gamma =\gamma (\dot \rho )\ge 0$ with $\gamma (0)=0$ and $\rho =\phi^2 +\psi^2$ is charge density.

This model carries the characteristics displayed of the model $\ddot\phi+H^2\phi =0$ as the 2nd order in time model obtained after eliminating $\psi$ in the case $\gamma =0$ as displayed in a previous post. 

In particular, multiplication of (1) by $\phi$ and (2) by $-\psi$ and addition gives conservation of charge if $f(t)\phi -g(t)\psi =0$ as a natural phase shift condition. 

Further, multiplication of (1) by $\dot\psi$ and (2) by $\dot\phi$ and addition gives a balance of total energy as inner energy plus radiated energy 
  • $\int (\phi H\phi +\psi H\psi)dt +\gamma\int (\ddot\phi^2 +\ddot\psi^2)dt$
in terms of work of forcing.

lördag 28 januari 2017

Physical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Needed


The standard text book Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics formed by Bohr is a not a realist physical theory about "what is", but instead an idealist/positivist non-physical probabilistic theory of "what we can know".

This has led modern physics into a black hole of endless fruitless speculations with the Many Worlds Interpretation by Everett as the absurd result of anyway seeking to give a physical meaning to the non-physical Copenhagen Interpretation.

Now, it is a fact that the microscopic world of atoms interacts with the macroscopic world we perceive as being real physical. If the microscopic world is declared to be non-real non-physical, then the interaction becomes a mystery. That real physics can interact with real physics is obvious, but to think of interaction between non-real and real physics makes you dizzy as expressed so well by Bohr:
  • Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.
  • Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics whit getting dizzy, hasn't understood it.
The emission spectrum of an atom shows that atom microscopics does interact with electromagnetic macroscopics. Physicists are paid to describe this interaction, but following Bohr this was and still is impossible, and the question is if the pay should continue...

In realQM atoms are real as composed of clouds of electric charge around a kernel and the emission spectrum is explained as the result of charge oscillation within atoms in resonance with exterior electromagnetic waves.

To keep being paid a physicist would say: Look, after all an atom is real as being composed of electron "particles orbiting" a kernel, and the non-real aspect is just that the physics is hidden to inspection and that we cannot know the whereabouts of these particles over time. So atoms are real but the nature of the reality is beyond human perception because you get dizzy when seeking to  understand.

In particular it is to Bohr inexplicable that electron particles orbiting a kernel of an atom in ground state do not radiate and allows the ground state to be stable.

In realQM the charge distribution of an atom in ground state does not change in time and thus is not source of radiation and the atom can remain stable. On the other hand the charge distribution of a superposition of ground and excited states does vary with time and thus may radiate at the beat frequency as the difference between excited and ground frequency.

To Bohr contact with the inner microscopic world of an atom from the macroscopic would take place at a moment of observation, but that leaves out the constant interaction between micro and macro-scopics taking place in radiation.

An atom in ground state is not radiating and the inner mechanics of the atom is closed to inspection.
For this case one could argue that Bohr's view could be upheld, since one would be free to describe the inner mechanics in many different ways, for example in terms of probabilities of electron particle configurations, all impossible to experimentally verify.

The relevant problem is then the radiating atom in interaction with an outer macroscopic world and here Bohr has little to say because he believes that interaction micro-macro takes place only at observation in the form of "collapse of the wave function".  

A real actuality of the inner mechanics of an atom may interact with an actual real outer world, with or without probability, but a probability of an inner particle mechanics of an atom cannot interact with an outer reality, and Bohr discards the first option...actualities can interact but not potentialities...

Let me sum up: The inner microscopics of a radiating atom interacts with outer macroscopics, and the interaction requires the microscopics to share physics with the macroscopics. This not the case in The Copenhagen Interpretation which thus must be false.