## fredag 13 oktober 2017

### Digitala Läromedel Kan Höja Skolresultat

DN tar idag upp studien Digital Tools in Education utgiven av SNS:
• Nationalekonomen Carla Haelermans sammanfattar lärdomar från den internationella forskningslitteraturen om digitala lärverktyg i skolan.
• Hon har också genomfört åtta olika experiment på högstadieskolor i Nederländerna för att ta reda på hur de digitala verktygen påverkar elevernas skolresultat.
• Hennes studier visar att användning av digitala lärverktyg bidrar till förbättrade skolresultat inom matematik och vissa delar av språkinlärning.
• Störst nytta av digitala lärverktyg har lågpresterande elever.
• Resultaten visar att det särskilt är möjligheterna till individanpassning av uppgifter som gör de digitala verktygen effektiva.
Detta visar att reformprogrammet Matematik-IT har vind i seglen. Matematik-IT fyller den nya läroplanen, med programmering som del av matematikundervisningen, med konkret innehåll. Och visst: Matematik-IT erbjuder helt nya möjligheter för lågpresterande elever att bli högpresterande, och för högpresterande att nå hur långt som helst.

## torsdag 5 oktober 2017

### America First Energy Conference Announced

This looks promising:
• The America First Energy Conference examining the scientific, economic, and political foundations of the America First Energy Plan will be gathering in Houston, Texas at the J.W. Marriott Hotel on Thursday, November 9, 2017.

### LIGO vs Neo-Newtonian Cosmology

 The Earth is pulled in the direction of the present position of the Sun at each  instant, right?

Let us continue our reflections on LIGO recalling my earlier post on Neo-Newtonian Cosmology as an alternative to Einstein's Cosmology based on Einstein's equations with related posts here and the discussion about The Hen and the Egg.

In Neo-Newtonian Cosmology a gravity potential $\phi (x,t)$ (depending on an Euclidean space coordinate $x$ and time $t$) is connected to mass distribution $\rho (x,t)$ through Poisson's equation
• $\Delta\phi =\rho$
which is interpreted as creation of mass $\rho$ by the action of $\Delta$ upon the gravitational potential $\phi$ through a local instant operation of differentiation.

This is different from the standard interpretation in Newtonian cosmology with instead the gravitational potential $\phi$ created from mass $\rho$ by instant action at distance corresponding to solving or integrating Poisson's equation, as if gravitational force/potential is propagated at infinite speed. We thus have:
• Neo-Newtonian Cosmology: matter created from gravitational potential by instant local action.
• Newtonian Cosmology: gravitational potential created from mass by instant action at distance.
Now, the big mystery of Newtonian Gravitation/Cosmology is the instant action at distance, which with the optics of Neo-Newtonian Cosmology is a fictional problem, which thus can be replaced by local instant action, with the mystery of instant action at distance eliminated.

The beauty with both Newtonian and Neo-Newtonian Cosmology, as compared with Einstein's, is that motion of the Earth around the Sun gets an theoretical explanation agreeing with the following observation:
• The Earth accelerates at each instant of time in the direction of the present position of the Sun as if the action of the Sun is instant at distance.
In particular, the Earth does not accelerate in the direction where the Sun is seen, since that position through the finite speed of light, has a delay of 8 minutes. The difference comes out in the thought experiment that the Sun suddenly disappears into nothing: In Neo-Newtonian Cosmology that would mean the instant disappearance of the gravitational field and thus leave the Earth instantly continuing in the tangent direction, while with finite speed of propagation of gravitational force created at distance by the mass of the Sun, that would take 8 minutes and the path would then be different.

In Einstein' Cosmology gravitation is propagated with the finite speed of light, but that does not seem to be the case for the Sun-Earth system.  Right?

Recall that Einstein was obsessed with choice of coordinates in both the special and general theory, as  if this choice has anything to do with physics, as if physics carries around coordinate systems imprinted in the "fabric of space-time" as the name of the game. But coordinate systems are inventions/conventions made by humans and not the Creator of the World, who had no need of such things when putting things together and letting it go...

## tisdag 3 oktober 2017

### LI(e)GO Nobel Physics?

The detected signal of amplitude $10^{-22}$ lasting a fraction of a second supposedly coming from collision of the most violent event of a merger of two massive black holes 1.3 billion years ago.

With the announcement today of the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics:
• "for decisive contributions to the LIGO detector and the observation of gravitational waves"
• On 14 September 2015, the universe’s gravitational waves were observed for the very first time. The waves, which were predicted by Albert Einstein a hundred years ago, came from a collision between two black holes. It took 1.3 billion years for the waves to arrive at the LIGO detector in the USA.
• The signal was extremely weak when it reached Earth, but is already promising a revolution in astrophysics. Gravitational waves are an entirely new way of observing the most violent events in space and testing the limits of our knowledge.

I cannot refrain from recalling my earlier posts on this issue posing some serious questions: How is it possible to connect a largest possible cause (collision/merger of two black holes) to a smallest possible effect (measurement with precision of the thickness of a hair on a distance of 4 light years) according to Einstein's equations which are not understood and cannot be solved, and as an inverse problem draw conclusion about the very big cause from the very small effect? Compare with these questions. See also this detailed criticism. And this analysis with comment here. Also this.

If gravitational waves exist as "ripples in the fabric of space-time", whatever that means, why are they so incredibly tiny? And if they now are so incredibly tiny, what importance do they carry? Can they really be used as carriers of specific information?

LIGO is an example of Big Physics in the sense of Building a Biggest Possible Detector for detection of a Smallest Possible Effect from a Biggest Possible Cause.

Of course, if you build a Biggest Detector like LIGO in search of Smallest Possible Effect, it is only a question of time before you discover Some Small Effect.

But how can you go from there to a Unique Big Cause?

To me it seems to require a mathematical model of infinite precision, and what says that Einstein's (unsolvable) equations carry that precision?

In any case, I remain skeptical until more evidence is presented.  Here is the story we are supposed to buy. Is this real physics, or is it fake physics?

• Gravitational waves are travelling ripples in space-time.
• A passing gravitational wave is expected to distort space-time through the effects of strain in a very specific way, predicted by the general theory of relativity.
• It is easy to reproduce these results qualitatively without detailed calculations using the full power of general relativity.
• The most likely interpretation for this evolution is the inspiral of two orbiting massive bodies, while emitting gravitational radiation.
We see several caveats: "ripples of space.time", "predicted by the general theory", "it is easy...without detailed calculation using the full power...", "the most likely"...

As soon as you hear "it is easy" concerning a mathematical equation, you should be on your guard...since usually it means the opposite...

## tisdag 26 september 2017

### Update of Real Quantum Mechanics: Electron vs Kernel

I have made a discovery resolving an issue with poor correspondence between theory and observation in the new approach to quantum mechanics termed realQM presented here and here and here.

In the original setting of realQM the same set-up was used as in the standard version of quantum mechanics based on the Schrödinger equation as concerns the kernel assumed to act like a point source with no extension with a corresponding potential $-Z/r$ with $Z$ the kernel charge and $r$ the distance to the kernel, thus with a singularity at the kernel with $r=0$.

In this setting realQM gave a ground state energy for Helium (with two electrons meeting the kernel) of about -3.0 which was substantially lower than the observed -2.9034.

Something was thus wrong with realQM in this original form, and I could not figure out what. I have now understood that this mismatch comes from the kernel singularity which, like all singularities, introduces a dark horse into the model, which has to be handled properly to not lead astray. It is thus natural to give the kernel a positive radius and study the dependence of the ground state energy on the kernel radius.

The question of the boundary condition for the electron as it meets the kernel at a positive radius then comes up, something which is hidden if the radius is zero. Recalling that the boundary condition on the free boundary separating different electrons is a homogeneous Neumann condition, it is natural to try the same condition for the kernel, understanding that it requires the kernel to have positive radius.

An alternative is to use a Robin boundary condition of the form $\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial r}=-Z\phi$ for a positive radius. This is the effective condition at zero radius built into the Schrödinger equation with a point source kernel.

And indeed, both approaches seem to work (very similarly) as recorded in the above references.

More specifically, the kernel radius (which comes out to be small (of size 0.05 - 0.01 atomic units for kernel charge 2-10) can be used as a model parameter, which can be adjusted to give exact agreement with observations as a calibration of the realQM model for two electron ions, which can serve to build a model with more electrons in outer shells.

The model of realQM thus opens to inspection of the inner mechanics of an atom, including information on the effective radius of the kernel as seen by an electron in the innermost shell, something which is hidden to direct experimental observation.

We recall that standard quantum mechanics stdQM does not offer a physical model of the atom and thus with stdQM the inner mechanics of an atom is closed to human understanding, a defect made into a virtue in the Copenhagen interpretation of stdQM filling text books.

## onsdag 20 september 2017

### The Future in CFD is Already Here

The following two documents describe the vision of state-of-the-art of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD):
The breakthrough of the G2/Unicorn/FEniCS fluid solver at the 3rd AIAA  HighLift Prediction Workshop (HighLiftPW-3) as documented here (and commented on at The Secret of Flight), shows that the future is already here!

More specifically G2/Unicorn/FEniCS today delivers what is described as Grand Challenge Problem 1
• LES of a powered aircraft configuration across the full flight envelope.
• This case focuses on the ability of CFD to simulate the flow about a complete aircraft geometry at the critical corners of the flight envelope including low-speed approach and takeoff conditions, transonic buffet, and possibly undergoing dynamic maneuvers, where aerodynamic performance is highly dependent on the prediction of turbulent flow phenomena such as smooth body separation and shock-boundary layer interaction.
This is made possible by a combination of the following elements:
1. Euler/Navier-Stokes as parameter free model for high Reynolds number flow.
2. Slip boundary condition as basic simple parameter-free wall model.
3. Time resolved computational solution by G2 as residual-stabilised finite element solver.
4. Automatic turbulence model from computational residual stabilisation.
5. Automatic residual-based tetrahedral mesh adaptivity.
6. Automatic duality-based output error control.

LES by G2/Unicorn/FEniCS of a powered aircraft configuration across the full flight envelope.

## tisdag 12 september 2017

### Lärarna Måste Få Lära Sig Programmera

Lärarnas Riksförbund säger det självklara när nu programmering skall ingå som del av matematikundervisningen:
• Lärarna i matematik måste få lära sig att programmera.
• Hur ska lärarna kunna undervisa i ett ämne de inte behärskar?
• För att satsningen på programmering i skolan ska lyckas måste lärarna först utbildas, enligt Åsa Fahlén, ordförande Lärarnas Riksförbund.
• Det är framför allt matematiklärarna som kommer att få krav på sig att undervisa i programmering. Det innebär ett helt nytt område för många och därför behövs det utbildning.
• När Lärarnas Riksförbund frågar matematiklärare i grundskolan hur de känner inför det nya innehållet svarar mer än åtta av tio lärare att de känner sig osäkra på hur de ska undervisa.
• Det visar sig att nästan sju av tio matematiklärare i högstadiet och fyra av tio lärare i gymnasieskolan inte har någon utbildning alls i programmering.
• Ytterst få lärare i matematik har läst programmering inom sin lärarutbildning.
• Några har läst det inom andra högskoleutbildningar, några har lärt sig det genom andra kurser, men även de som har läst och har kunnat programmera upplever att de har föråldrade kunskaper i ämnet samt att de saknar metodiken, det vill säga hur man lär ut ämnet.
• Det behövs därför en statligt finansierad akademisk utbildning för lärarna som ska undervisa i programmering. Lärarna måste få utbildning dels i ämnet programmering, dels i hur man undervisar i programmering. Denna utbildning ska självklart skötas av universitet och högskolor, precis som den ordinarie lärarutbildningen gör.
Det är här mitt program Matematik-IT kommer in. Läs och begrunda.

## söndag 10 september 2017

### Faktaresistens, Onda Krafter ock Klimatförändringar

Filosofiska Rummet i Sveriges Radio tar idag upp temat Kunskapsresistens med utgångspunkt från Åsa Wikforss bok Alternativa Fakta, Om Kunskap och dess Fiender, utgående från följande analys presenterad av programledaren:
• Frågan om politiken, polariseringen, de sociala medierna och kanske även våra mänskliga kognitiva förmågor, hur allt detta samspelar i skapande av näthat, konspirationsteorier, beskyllningar om lögn och politiskt korrekta mantran, helt enkelt en kris för begrepp som sant och falskt, rätt och fel.
• Den frågan är för och brännande intressant  för att vi skall kunna släppa den. Filosofen Åsa Wikforss kommande bok handlar om detta som har kommit att kallas alternativa fakta, och bokens underrubrik lyder Om Kunskapen och dess Fiender. Det handlar om fakta och om faktaresistens, om evidens, sanning och lögn men också om en demokrati i gungning.
Åsa Wikfors lägger ut texten om varför hon skrev boken i Sveriges Radio och UR Samtiden: Faktaresistens och Alternativa Fakta:
• Droppen var när dom började tala om alternativa fakta, då tänkte jag att nä nu får det vara nog: när centrala påståenden om kunskap och sanning och evidens ifrågasätts på olika sätt, då kände jag att då får en filosof gå in och bidra på olika sätt.
• Det faktum att vi i grunden är rationella utnyttjas också av onda krafter...De desinformationskampanjer som oljeindustrin har ägnas sig har varit effektiva....och fått oss att ifrågasätta vetenskaplig evidens genom att sprida det falska påståendet att vetenskapliga experter är inte ense om att mänsklig aktivitet orsakar klimatförändringar.
Vi kan här se hur Sveriges Radio och TV säljer det nya begreppet "faktaresistens" som kopplas till ledord som "kunskapen och dess fiender", "onda krafter", "näthat" och "konspirationsteorier" med skepticism till klimatalarmism (framförd av "klimatförnekare") som skräckexempel.

Åsa har ingen kunskap om jordens klimat, men låter sig villigt från sin akademiska position som filosof ingå i den statligt understödda propaganda som hjärntvättar svenska folket, där till vokabulären med "klimatförnekare" nu kan läggas  "faktaresistens" och "kunskapens fiender".

Hur har det kunnat bli så galet Åsa att det är Dig själv Du beskriver med dessa ord? Varför sprider Du som filosof farlig politisk propaganda som om 1984 är vår tid?

## onsdag 6 september 2017

### KTH Jagar "Klimatförnekare"

I en pressrelease sänder KTH följande budskap till svenska folket: Klimatförnekare stort problem även i SverigeKTH tar i ordentligt:
• Vår erfarenhet är att förnekelse av vetenskap i klimatfrågan förekommer även i Sverige,
• Klimatförnekare finns inom fossilindustrin, i vissa tankesmedjor och bland populistiska politiker.
• Förnekelsen handlar bland annat om att det pågår en global uppvärmning, att människan bidrar till denna och att effekterna blir negativa.
• Forskningen om vetenskapsförnekelse avslöjar förnekarnas metoder, såsom att plocka russin ur kakan, förvanska statistik, uppträda med vilseledande kompetens eller ifrågasätta forskares motiv och finansiering.
• Kränkande påhopp på forskare är inte ovanliga. På den politiska arenan sprids inte sällan grundlösa argument för att motverka en vetenskapsbaserad policy.
• Enligt KTH-forskarna behövs det nu nya grepp för att motverka vetenskapsförnekelse.
• I forskarnas studie redovisar de olika strategier som föreslagits inom forskningen, men de ser att det saknas mer precis kunskap om varför politiken ibland lyckas hantera vetenskapsförnekelse, och ibland inte. Därför är det viktigt att fortsätta undersöka frågan i nya studier.
KTH beskriver då en person som min som "klimatförnekare" med en terminologi som andas avgrund.

Det finns ingen s k "klimatförnekare" som inte vet att jordens medeltemp har ökat ca 0.5-7 C de senaste 100 åren (knappast mätbart), i en återhämtning efter "lilla istiden", eller förnekar att människan har någon inverkan på jorden vi lever på, eller att det därav kan finnas negativa effekter. Vad en sådan person kan "förneka" är att jordens klimat låter sig styras med hjälp av flygskatt eller att det "fossilfria samhället" nu är ett lämpligt mål för mänskligheten (jfr föregående post).

Problemet med press-releasen från KTH är att det andas censur: All skepsis till klimatalarmism skall  förbjudas! Detta är inte bra för KTH som vetenskaplig institution. KTH skall inte låta sig ledas in i rollen som språkrör för en klimatalarmism som bara är politik med tveksam vetenskaplig grund. Eller vad säger KTHs rektor och fakultetsråd?

PS1 SvD hakar på och trumpetar budskapet: Forskare: Farligt när vetenskapen förnekas.

PS2 Lennart Bengtsson (och Steven Jörsäter) ger replik i SvD Vetenskapen kring klimatet är inte avgjord:
• När det gäller klimatvetenskapen så stämmer det att de flesta beräkningar antyder ett samband mellan förhöjda halter växthusgaser som koldioxid och ett varmare klimat.
• Hur starkt detta samband är debatteras fortfarande livligt.
• Och vi vet att ett stort antal andra faktorer påverkar klimatet. Dit hör moln och partiklar som påverkar jordens strålningsbalans samt havens viktiga roll att reglera klimatet över lång tid.
• Inte minst spelar slumpen en stor roll som kan ge långvariga förändringar utan synbarlig anledning.
• Sammantaget har detta gett upphov till de många och kraftiga klimatförändringar som vi känner ifrån historien.
Här andas lite lätt skepsis till klimatalarmism, men bara lite: Det "flesta beräkningar antyder ett samband mellan mer CO2 och varmare klimat", som kan vara starkt, vem vet...och så faller Bengtssons kritik till marken...vilket väl kanske var avsikten... Bengtsson är ibland skeptiker ibland det motsatta tex som författare till ett uttalande av KVA som ger stöd åt IPCCs klimatalarmism...
Det hade varit bättre med en replik från världens främste expert på havsytans nivå Nils-Axel Mörner, men hans replik refuserades väl av SvD eftersom den var sant skeptisk...

## fredag 1 september 2017

### Die Welt: Imploding German Energiewende

Germany's march towards a fossil free society in 2050 named The Energiewende is imploding according to a recent long detailed article in Die Welt.

## torsdag 31 augusti 2017

### Orwell's 1984 Doublethink vs Copenhagen Interpretation

Here is how Orwell describes doublethink in his famous book 1984:
• Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
• The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated.
• The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt.
• Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty.
• To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies --all this is indispensably necessary.
• Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
• Ultimately it is by means of doublethink that the Party has been able --and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years -- to arrest the course of history.
• All past oligarchies have fallen from power either because they ossified or because they grew soft. Either they became stupid and arrogant, failed to adjust themselves to changing circumstances, and were overthrown; or they became liberal and cowardly, made concessions when they should have used force, and once again were overthrown.
• They fell, that is to say, either through consciousness or through unconsciousness. It is the achievement of the Party to have produced a system of thought in which both conditions can exist simultaneously.
• And upon no other intellectual basis could the dominion of the Party be made permanent. If one is to rule, and to continue ruling, one must be able to dislocate the sense of reality.
Can we see something of doublethink in our present (Western, liberal, democratic) society? Yes, climate alarmism has all the features of doublethink and The Party, and so has quantum mechanics, the incarnation of modern physics, with wave-particle duality, complementarity and denial of reality as flagrant expressions of doublethink, all according to the Copenhagen Interpretation lead by Bohr acting as the Party.

Think of that!

### Yes, Quantum Mechanics Needs to be Rebuilt

The long article Quantum Theory Rebuilt From Simple Physical Principles in Quanta Magazine tells the same old story again:
• Scientists have been using quantum theory for almost a century now, but embarrassingly they still don’t know what it means.
• Some physicists just shrug and say we have to live with the fact that quantum mechanics is weird.
• But some researchers want to dig deeper.
• If these efforts succeed, it’s possible that all the apparent oddness and confusion of quantum mechanics will melt away, and we will finally grasp what the theory has been trying to tell us.
• There’s no guarantee of success — no assurance that quantum mechanics really does have something plain and simple at its heart, rather than the abstruse collection of mathematical concepts used today.
But there is light in the tunnel: Check out
offering a new approach based on classical physical principles, which is not weird and can be understood, presented in the upcoming book Real Quantum Mechanics

As usual Lubos Motel on The Reference Frame rushes to hide the truth about the present state of quantum theory by shouting that the Quanta article is anti-quantum crackpot.

## tisdag 29 augusti 2017

### Klimatvetenskapens Tragedi: Professorernas Svek

Sten Kaijser skriver på Klimatupplysningen att klimatprofessor Lennart Bengtson har fel när han påstår:
• Tragedien med klimatvetenskapen är att den till övermått drabbats av lekmannaintresse...har den allmänna debatten helt spårat ut då det stora flertalet som yttrar sig inte vet ett jota vad de vad de pratar om.
Jag håller med Sten Kaijser: Felet med klimatvetenskapen är inte "lekmannaintresse" utan tvärtom att den "professionella klimatvetenskapen" vid universitet, akademier och forskningsinstitut (som Lennart Bengtsson representerar) legitimerar en politiskt driven koldioxid-alarmism genom att fabricera underlag i form av teori och observation, som är medvetna rena falsarier.

Detta är klimatprofessorernas svek mot mänskligheten och det är "lekmannaintresset" i bloggosfären (representerat av bl a Sten Kaijser) som uppdagat sveket. Domen över den professionella klimatvetenskap som svikit sin uppgift kommer att vara hård.

PS. Jag ingår numera i Klimatrealisternas Vetenskapliga Råd (tillsammans med Wibjörn Karlen och Nils-Axel Mörner). Det gör inte klimatprofessor LB.

## söndag 20 augusti 2017

### Harvard Physicist: Climate Science in Real Trouble

Harvard physicist Willie Soon insists that the American National Academy of Science (NAS) is “100 percent corrupt” in its support of CO2 alarmism and the climate scientists who put up the content at the NAS are”really dangerous”, likening their solution to global warming to amputating a patient’s arms and legs in order to cure his headache.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is in good company with NAS in its unconditional support of the IPCC CO2 alarmism.

## fredag 11 augusti 2017

### New Text Book: Global Warming by Doubled CO2 Not Measurable

The new text book Environmental Aspects of Gas and Oil Production by leading scientists Robertson and Chilingar sends the message based on the "adiabatic theory" of planetary surface temperature, that the warming effect of doubled atmospheric CO2 is at most 0.5 C,  that is, not measurable.

This is the same analysis as that I presented in Slaying the Sky Dragon.

Students learn from text books and text books thus represent the current state of "settled science", which by the new text book then gives no ground for CO2 alarmism.

## måndag 7 augusti 2017

### Den Livsfarliga Svenska Modellen

Åke Sundström skriver idag tänkvärt om Kung Ingves' Livsfarliga Experiment: Negativ ränta kombinerat med en tillväxt av penningmängden på 10% och därmed en reell inflation på kanske 8% med effektiv tillväxt på 2%, dvs ett gap mellan ränta och inflation på uppåt 10%.

I en sund ekonomi är räntan någon procent högre än inflationen, medan vi nu i Sverige tvärtom har en inflation som är betydligt större (uppåt 10%) än räntan.

Detta kan inte hålla i längden, vilket Kung Ingves är den förste att predika (och här), men trots detta är det Ingves som sätter en negativ ränta och samtidigt tillåter att pengar skapas ur intet.

Hur kan det få vara så galet? Sundström jämför med Schweiz.

Se också tidigare post om Ingves misslyckade ambition att styra ett visst fiktivt inflationsmått till 2% via negativ ränta i sitt livsfarliga experiment.

Man kan också jämföra med den svenska modellen under 70-80-talet med en reell inflation på 15% betydligt större än räntan på 10%, som ledde till kollapsen på 90-talet. Men det är nu glömt.

## söndag 16 juli 2017

### Real Quantum Mechanics: Presentation

A draft of my talk at the upcoming 50th Anniversary of Journal of Structural Mechanics is now available for inspection:

## 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.