måndag 12 februari 2018

Anti-Interpretations of QM

Quantum mechanics QM was formed nearly 100 years ago as the modern physics of atoms and molecules taking the mathematical form of Schrödinger's equation.

But the question of the interpretation of QM as the meaning of solutions of Schrödinger's equation in physical terms, has remained without an answer,  despite heroic efforts by the sharpest of minds.

The Reference Frame takes up the question in a recent post stimulated by the following summary of the situation by Scott Aronson:
  • As for Copenhagen, I’ve described it as “shut-up and calculate except without ever shutting up about it”! I regard Bohr’s writings on the subject as barely comprehensible, and Copenhagen as less of an interpretation than a self-conscious anti-interpretation: a studied refusal to offer any account of the actual constituents of the world, and—most of all—an insistence that if you insist on such an account, then that just proves that you cling naïvely to a classical worldview, and haven’t grasped the enormity of the quantum revolution.
  • But the basic split between Many-Worlds and Copenhagen (or better: between Many-Worlds and “shut-up-and-calculate” / “QM needs no interpretation” / etc.), I regard as coming from two fundamentally different conceptions of what a scientific theory is supposed to do for you. Is it supposed to posit an objective state for the universe, or be only a tool that you use to organize your experiences?
So, the accepted answer is the Copenhagen interpretation associated with Bohr-Born-Heisenberg, but it is an anti-interpretation and as such not an interpretation. The only alternative (except the deBroglie-Bohm interpretation which has been fading away since long) is the Many-Worlds interpretation, but that is simply an inflation of the question to make the search for an answer absurd.

Aronson concludes:
  • Indeed, about the only thing I can think of that might definitively settle the debate, would be the discovery of an even deeper level of description than QM—but such a discovery would “settle” the debate only by completely changing the terms of it.
The block to progress is the multi-dimensionality of Schrödinger's equation leading to the unphysical statistical Copenhagen anti-interpretation or the absurd Many-Worlds interpretation.

Exploration of an alternative physical Schrödinger's equation is presented here as a way to change the terms from statistics which is not physics to real physics which is not statistics.  

tisdag 16 januari 2018

Sanningen vs Faktaresistens

Åsa Wikforss gavs ett nytt tillfälle i söndags att sälja sitt budskap/bok om Faktaresistens till svenska folket i ett nytt avsnitt betitlat Sanningen av SVTs storsatsning Idé-världen, en "tänkande talkshow". Om tidigare tillfälle se här.

Som främsta exempel på medborgare som är faktaresistenta utpekar Åsa s k klimatskeptiker dvs bildade personer som studerat det vetenskapliga underlaget för koldioxidalarmismen och funnit det vara synnerligen bristfälligt och ingalunda giltigt som skäl för att driva mänskligheten mot ett fossilfritt samhälle (Sveriges uttalade mål till 2040) som bara låter de rika överleva.

Jag har tidigare frågat Åsa hur hon kan vara så säker på att hon besitter Sanningen utan att behöva äga kunskap om (något av) alla de fakta som vi klimatskeptiker så hårt sliter med att tillägna oss och rätt tolka. En del av dessa fakta presenterades i de 500 skeptiska artiklar som publicerades 2017.

Jag har ställt frågan igen och även frågat om Åsa skulle vilja komma och ta del av de fakta som kommer att presenteras på det kommande klimatmötet Climate Sense 2018 i Mölndal 16-17/2, där flera världskända forskare presenterar fakta de funnit i noggranna studier.

Åsa har inte svarat på denna fråga. Så har väl då att se fram emot nya presentationer i statlig svensk TV/Radio av Åsa av begreppet faktaresistens med klimatskepticism som skräckexempel.

måndag 15 januari 2018

The Atmosphere Effect vs Climate Sensitivity

The global mean temperature on the Earth surface is about 15 C or 288 K. What would the temperature be if there was no atmosphere on Earth, that is what is the atmosphere effect? Klimatrealistene suggests 90 K after a comparison with an observed mean temperature of the Moon claimed to be 198 K. IPCC suggests 55 K.

But one can also argue that it is about 15 K  based on the attenuation effect of the radiation from the Sun surface at 5778 K spread over the Earth surface in a direct application of Stefan-Boltzmann's radiation law for a black/grey body, see earlier post, which gives Earth a temperature of about 273 K.

For Mars with a very thin atmosphere the same computation gives about 230 K in accordance with observation.

So we have a wide range for the atmosphere effect, from 15 K to 90 K, and one may say that the bigger the atmosphere effect is, the bigger can the effect be from changing properties of the atmosphere such as the amount of so called "green house gases". So which value for the estimated atmosphere effect is more relevant? 15 K or 90 K? Or the IPCC value in between?

The 90 K posted by Klimatrealsitene comes from an estimate of the mean temperature of the Moon (198 K) at the same distance to the Sun as Earth and without atmosphere, seemingly the perfect factual evidence. But the Moon-day is about 28 Earth days and so the temperature from day to night on the Moon varies from 100 K to 400 K (with then a mean of 250 K and not 198 K) and so a mean value may not be very meaningful.

With the evidence from Mars the value 15 K would seem to be a better estimate of the atmosphere effect, suggesting a climate sensitivity 0.15 C as the warming upon doubling of CO2 representing a 1% change of atmosphere properties, compare upcoming talk.

tisdag 19 december 2017

US National Security Strategy: Energy to the Poor

The US National Security Strategy released yesterday, states:
  • Climate policies will continue to shape the global energy system. 
  • U.S. leadership is indispensable to countering an anti-growth energy agenda that is detrimental to U.S. economic and energy security interests. 
  • Given future global energy demand, much of the developing world will require fossil fuels, as well as other forms of energy, to power their economies and lift their people out of poverty. The United States will continue to advance an approach that balances energy security, economic development, and environmental protection. 
  • The United States will remain a global leader in reducing traditional pollution, as well as greenhouse gases, while expanding our economy. 
  • This achievement, which can serve as a model to other countries, flows from innovation, technology breakthroughs, and energy efficiency gains, not from onerous regulation.

We read that the US will counter the anti-growth energy agenda of the rich world embraced by Obama-Merkel and now also Macron along with rich Sweden (see previous post), which is detrimental to US interests as well as to those of the developing world in need of fossil fuels to lift their people out of poverty.

This is Trumps Christmas present to the world and represents a truly remarkable case of independent thinking, probably based on a gut feeling that the scientific support of CO2 alarmism is very weak and thus it is pointless and immoral to require the poor people of the world to stay poor.

torsdag 14 december 2017

Sweden as the First Fossil Free Society

The Independent reported in May 2016 that
  • Sweden phases out fossil fuels in attempt to run completely off renewable energy:
  • Sweden's prime minister announced his country will work towards becoming 'one of the first fossil fuel-free welfare states of the world'.
But we are not yet there; Swedes emit more CO2 in 2017 than in 2016, and so it may take a while before the declaration is turned into reality... 

What will then the Swedish fossil-free society look like? One thing appears clear: It will also be a (welfare) state which is poor-people-free, since only the rich can survive in a fossil-free society. What a happy society is awaiting all the people of Sweden: both fossil-free and poor-people-free and then why not highly educated bad-manner-free as well? What beautiful model for the rest of the world barely surviving on 80% fossil fuel subject to all sorts of uneducated bad manner.

                    The rich educated people of Sweden looking forward to the joy of fossil-free money.

More Voodoo Physics

In the preceding post I gave an example of inventing fictional physics by misinterpreting the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus to have a physical meaning as a Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law in the form
  • $\int_{T_1}^{T_2}f(\nu )\, d\nu =F(T_2)-F(T_1)$   
where $F(T)=\sigma T^4$ is a primitive function of a Planck spectrum $f(\nu )>0$ depending on frequency $\nu$ satisfying $\frac{dF}{d\nu}=f$. Here 
  • $Q=\int_{T_1}^{T_2}f(\nu )\, d\nu$
is the one-way physical radiative heat energy flux from a warm body at temperature $T_2$ to a colder body at temperature $T_2$ expressed as an integral of a spectral radiance, with integration limits scaling with temperature reflecting Wien's displacement law. The misinterpretation is to say that 
  • $Q = \sigma T_2^4 - \sigma T_1^4$
thus expressing the one-way flux $Q$ from warm to cold, as the difference between two-way heat fluxes $\sigma T_2^4$ from warm to cold and $\sigma T_1^4$ from cold to warm, thus freely inventing two-way heat fluxes from one-way physical heat flux.

The arbitrariness of this invention is expressed by the fact the primitive function $F$ is only determined up to a constant (which cancels in the subtraction). Two-way back-and-forth heat fluxes of any size can thus be freely invented, which by itself is too good to be true physics.  

Another example is Einsteins misinterpretation of the Lorentz transformation of mathematical space-time coordinates to have direct physical meaning as distortions of physical space and time, in direct violation of the dictum by Lorentz when introducing his transformation as a mathematical formality without physical meaning. The consequences of this misinterpretation are far-reaching as the revolution (distortion) of our concepts of space and time being forced upon us by the modernity of Einstein's physics. The Nobel Prize in Physics this year to the LIGO recording over a fraction of second of "ripples in the fabric of space-time" of size a fraction of an atomic nucleus over
a distance of the diameter of the Earth from the supposed merger of two black holes 1.3 billion years ago, is a recent example of the grip of a model over reality overwhelming a whole physics community.

The idea of the quantum computer is similarly based on giving the multi-dimensional statistical non-physical Schrödinger equation a direct physical meaning, again in direct violation to the dictum of Schrödinger when introducing his equation. And the quantum computer is still fictional despite major efforts to make it into any from of reality...

All these examples can be viewed to represent Voodoo Physics in the sense of being based on misinterpreting operations on a a doll model to have real physical results.

Here are two quotes by Max Born (Nobel Prize in Physics 1954) expressing the non-physical aspects of Einstein's special theory of relativity expressed in the Lorentz transformation:
  • Length contraction and time dilation are ways of regarding things and do not correspond to physical reality.
  •  It is hardly possible to illustrate Einstein’s kinematics by means of models.
The counter argument is that Maxwell predicted the existence of electro-magnetic waves from the presence of waves in his model equations, and so Voodoo physics can be real physics. That is right, but it does not say that all Voodoo physics is real physics, as for example:

Update of Talk at Climate Sense 2018: Voodoo Physics

I have put up an new version of my upcoming talk at Climate Sense 2018 with the title:
Of particular focus is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus stating that if $F(x)$ is a primitive function of $f(x)$, that is $\frac{dF}{dx}=f$, then 
  • $\int_a^bf(x)\, dx = F(b) - F(a)$.
For example, if $f(x)=1$, then $F(x)=x$, and so we can formally write
  • $1  = \int_{100}^{101} f(x)\, dx = F(101)-F(100)=101 - 100$ 
expressing the positive quantity $\int_{100}^{101} f(x) dx = 1$ as the difference between the two (large) numbers 101 and 100. This is mathematics and not yet physics.

The radiative flux of heat energy $Q$ from a warm body of temperature $T_2$ to a colder body of temperature $T_1 < T_2$ is (essentially) given by the integral
  • $Q = \int_{T_1}^{T_2}f(\nu )\,d\nu$  
where $f(\nu )$ is the Planck spectrum with $\nu$ frequency. Here the limits of the integral scale with temperature reflecting the cut-off in frequency expressed by Wien's displacement law giving the
warm body the "overkill" spectrum $f(\nu )$ above the cut-off $T_1$ for the cold body, with the overkill effectively causing the heating while the shared spectrum below cut-off has no heating effect, as explained in more detail here.

With $F(T)=\sigma T^4$ and $F$ acting as a primitive function of the Planck function $f$, the radiative flux $Q$ can now according to the Fundamental Theorem formally be expressed in the form of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
  • $Q =  \sigma T_2^4 - \sigma T_1^4$      
thus formally expressing the positive quantity $Q$ as the difference between two (large) numbers $\sigma T_2^4$ and $\sigma T_1^4$. 

The Voodoo Physics of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of giving the mathematical identity
  • $\int_{T_1}^{T_2}f(\nu )\,d\nu =  \sigma T_2^4 - \sigma T_1^4$
a physical meaning with the physical one-way flux $Q=\int_{T_1}^{T_2}f(\nu )\,d\nu$ expressed as the difference between the entities $F(T_2)=\sigma T_2^4$ and $F(T_1)=\sigma T_1^4$, now freely invented to be forms of two-way "radiative fluxes" back-and-forth between the bodies. From one-way physical flux are thus created two-way fluxes from a mathematical identity without any proper physical correspondence. Note in particular that $F$ as primitive function of $f$ is undetermined up to a constant, thus allowing fictitious back-and-forth fluxes of any magnitude.

Note that $F(T)=\sigma T^4$ can be interpreted physically as the one-way radiative flux from a body of temperature $T$ into a background at 0 K.  But the physics is missing of viewing the one-way radiative flux between two bodies as a difference between two separate fluxes into a background at 0 K.   

A property (identity) of a mathematical model is thus freely interpreted to be real physics, in the same way as an operation of a voodoo doll is believed to be able to have a real effect on a real person. 

This is nothing but Voodoo Physics, and this is the nature of the Greenhouse Effect based on Back Radiation from cold to warm underlying the CO2-alarmism so forcefully preached by IPCC with now Macron as ardent follower.

Macron, despite (or maybe thanks to) his education in French elite schools with all its mathematics, thus appears to be overwhelmed by the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and cannot separate model from reality.  

                       Voodoo = operation on model believed to have real effect on real person.

PS The Pyrgeometer is a perfect example of a voodoo doll, reporting (non-physical) back radiation $\sigma T_1^4$ from a cold atmosphere at $T_1$ to warmer Earth surface at $T_2$, by measuring $Q$ and (erroneously) viewing $\sigma T_2^4$ to be radiation from the Earth surface, as
if the Earth surface was radiating directly to surrounding space at 0 K and not to the atmosphere at $T_1$ K.

You can buy a pyrgeometer from Kipp and Zonen and play with it as a voodoo doll believing it reports real physics if you want to sell CO2-alarmism. From the above analysis you may understand that in fact it represents a symbiosis of science and commercial industry serving CO2-alarmism by supplying fictional physics.

måndag 13 november 2017

Physics Needs Help

Eric Weinstein delivers as a Big Think the message that
  • Physics needs a new lone genius.
  • Do we need a radical rethinking?
  • Is there something wrong with the fundamentals?
  • Is Einstein in fact wrong to slip in space-time?
  • But the question is, why are they (the physics community) stumped?
  • Is it (the help) going to come from some completely strange source, maybe somebody who is a self-teacher off the grid (like Einstein or Weinstein)?
Is there any reason to listen to (W)einstein, as an outsider? Yes, why not? The scene is open. In particular, Einstein's space-time mix appears to be a stumbling block and may well be ready for revision...compare with Many-Minds Relativity...

söndag 5 november 2017

Undantagstillstånd Behöver Inte Alls Utlysas!

Klimat eller CO2-alarmismen går på högvarv i Expressen och i SvD med följande budskap:
Anders Wijkman lägger ut texten:
  • Fördelen med ett centraliserat toppstyrt system är att när de väl bestämmer sig så går det ganska snabbt. Det finns ingen opposition som bråkar.
SvD fortsätter:
  • En annan förespråkare för ett slags ”klimatdiktatur” är Jørgen Randers som är professor i klimatstrategi vid Handelshögskolan BI i Oslo. Hans huvudpoäng är att problemen med den globala uppvärmningen är så allvarliga och akuta att vi inte kan invänta att demokratin får ha sin gång.
  • Randers slutsats blir alltså att ett elitstyre med flertalets bästa för ögonen vore den ultimata lösningen i kampen för klimatet. Men han tillstår att det är svårt att hitta ett ord som inte skrämmer folk.
Mot detta kan ställas Climate Sense 2018 som ger en helt annan bild av verkligheten: CO2-alarmismen saknar vetenskaplig grund och är ett uppdiktat hot som tjänar krafter som vill knäcka det demokratiska samhället byggt på vetenskap och humanism.