Why Does a Modern Physicist Buy the CO2 Global Warming Hysteria?

Sabine Hossenfelder on BackReaction claims herself to be a physicist, yet it seems as if she without
thinking buys the CO2 Global Warming Hysteria:

• Climate Change: There are no simple solutions.
• The Earth is warming. Human carbon-dioxide emissions are one of the major culprits. We have known this for a long time. But in the past two decades, evidence for global warming has become more noticeable on local levels, as with seasonal shifts, extreme weather events, declines in biodiversity and, depending on where you live, droughts. And it will get worse.

She does not acknowledge that there are many knowledgeable physicists who do not buy this story, because it has no support in known laws of physics, including Dyson, Happer, Singer and many more. 

So how can it be that she jumps on the climate alarmist wagon? I have asked her, but she does want not to communicate with me, so I have to guess: Is it because of a monumental confusion concerning quantum mechanics, which makes it impossible for a modern physicist to grasp even basic physics of the climate system of the Earth, and what does that then say about modern physics?

Yes, Quantum Mechanics Is Wrong

Sabine Hossenfelder on BackReaction has become a truth-teller about the state of modern physics, and now she tells the truth about quantum mechanics: It is wrong:

• Yes, I am sorry. But I have a message for you from the depth of abstract math: We know that quantum mechanics is wrong. 

The same idea has been expressed by almost every notable physicist, including Roger Penrose:

• Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum Mechanics.

This is a funny situation, unprecedented in the history of science, and it has been like that for now

more than 100 years. 

A restart is obviously needed and my contribution is Real Quantum Mechanics. Take a look! And think! See also recent posts.

But Sabine Hossenfelder is a physicist and thus must seek to rescue the hopeless situation in one way or the other:

• And whatever your misgivings are about quantum mechanics, there is no denying that it is useful.

So quantum mechanics is wrong, but it is nevertheless useful? That does not make sense. A theory which is wrong cannot be truly useful, because from something which is wrong cannot come something which is right. Only if the theory is right in some sense, can it be useful. But no physicist has any clue to what is right about quantum mechanics, only what is wrong!

Sabine Hossenfelder resorts to the common trick of referring to yet a more incomprehensible theory in the form of Quantum Field Theory, when basic Quantum Theory is questioned. This was used by
Einstein when he increased the bet to general relativity when his special theory of relativity was questioned on most rational grounds. This 

Quantum Mechanics Still a Complete Mystery 2

Tim Maudlin introduces his new book Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory with the following credo:

• A physical theory should clearly and forthrightly address two fundamental questions: what there is, and what it does. 
• The answer to the first question is provided by the ontology of the theory, and the answer to the second by its dynamics. 
• The ontology should have a sharp mathematical description, and the dynamics should be implemented by precise equations describing how the ontology will, or might, evolve.
• The Copenhagen Interpretation, in contrast, does not. There is little agreement about just what this approach to quantum theory postulates to actually exist or how the dynamics can be unam- biguously formulated. Nowadays, the term is often used as short-hand for a general instrumentalism that treats the mathematical apparatus of the theory as merely a predictive device, uncommitted to any ontology or dynamics at all.
•  Sometimes, accepting the Copenhagen Interpretation is understood as the decision simply to use the quantum recipe without further question: Shut up and calculate. Such an attitude rejects the aspiration to provide a physical theory, as defined above, at all. 
• Hence it is not even in the running for a description of the physical world and what it does. More specific criticisms could be raised against this legacy of Bohr, but our time is better spent presenting what is clear than decrying what is obscure.

The Copenhagen Interpretation is the text book interpretation of quantum mechanics, which Maudlin thus refutes as meaningless. I agree totally. 

What does then Maudlin offer in the book instead of the Copenhagen Interpretation? Very little: pilot wave theory and many worlds theory, both failed attempts to give meaning to Schrödinger's wave function. The book thus gives yet another account of the mystery of quantum mechanics 100 years after its creation. 

The whole problem comes from the multi-dimensionality of Schrödinger's equation asking for a statistical unphysical interpretation. How many new books will be written on the theme that physicists do not understand the quantum mechanics they preach?

But there is light in the tunnel: Real Quantum Mechanics.

Free Will and Quantum Mechanics

Sabine Hossenfelder on BackReaction believes that quantum mechanics says that humans do not have a free will:

• Physics deals with the most fundamental laws of nature, those from which everything else derives. These laws are, to our best current knowledge, differential equations. Given those equations and the configuration of a system at one particular time, you can calculate what happens at all other times. 
• That is for what the universe without quantum mechanics is concerned. Add quantum mechanics, and you introduce a random element into some events. Importantly, this randomness in quantum mechanics is irreducible. It is not due to lack of information. In quantum mechanics, some things that happen are just not determined, and nothing you or I or anyone can do will determine them.
• Taken together, this means that the part of your future which is not already determined is due to random chance. It therefore makes no sense to say that humans have free will.

This is an expression of the monumental confusion of modern physicists caused by the idea that atoms play games of roulette attributed to quantum mechanics as being based on Schrödinger's multidimensional wave equation, something which Einstein and Schrödinger never accepted.

I have followed a different line of thought viewing physics as forms of analog computation with finite precision, which can be simulated by digital computation with finite precision presented at The World as Computation including a new approach to quantum mechanics as Real Quantum Mechanics without games of roulette. 

In this world there is room for humans with free will, although you cannot control everything in your life, due to lack of precision. If you are not an addicted gambler this may be the world for you.

Determined or Random??

PS The idea that atoms play games of roulette has corrupted modern physics into incomprehensible voodoo-science. Macroscopics as complex systems of simple microscopics can express random behavior, but random microscopics destroys cause-effect and demands contradictory microscopics of microscopics. Contradictory science is voodoo-science, even if it is text book modern physics. 

Quantum Mechanics Still a Complete Mystery 1

Lee Smolins new book Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution (lecture here) repeats yet another time what every physicist already knows:

• I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics. (R. Feynman)
• Quantum mechanics is magic. (Daniel Greenberger) 
• Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real. (Niels Bohr) 
• Those who are not shocked when they first come across quantum theory cannot possibly have understood it. (Niels Bohr) 
• If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it. (John Wheeler)
• If [quantum theory] is correct, it signifies the end of physics as a science. (Albert Einstein) 
• I do not like [quantum mechanics], and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it. (Erwin Schrödinger) 
• Quantum mechanics makes absolutely no sense. (Roger Penrose)

To come to grips with this monumental mess Lee Smolin takes on the role of bringing physics back  to realism and rationality:

• So I have no better answer than to face the blank notebook. 
• Start by writing down what you are confident we know for sure. 
• Ask yourself which of the fundamental principles of the present canon must survive the coming revolution. 
• That’s the first page. Then turn again to a blank page and start thinking.
• It is not just that to try to invent a whole new physics is risky for my career and damaging to my emotional stability. 
• I don’t even know how to begin.

This is not a promising start and the book offers little hope for progress. So there we are today 100 years after the birth of modern physics in the form of quantum mechanics (and relativity theory) which nobody can understand. No wonder that modern physics is in a deep crisis.

My input to a rational realistic quantum mechanics is Real Quantum Mechanics. Take a look and see if it opens a door...

Recall that the whole mystery of quantum mechanics arises from the standard text book formal generalisation of Schrödinger's equation for Hydrogen to atoms with N > 1 electrons resulting in a linear equation in 3N space dimensions, which has no interpretation as a model of any reality only as a form of  statistics in the mind of an observer.  Real Quantum Mechanics explores a different generalisation into a system of non-linear equations in 3 space dimensions which describes a possible reality.   

Greta Thunberg: Farlig Infantil Klimatpropaganda

Klimatalarmismen med Greta Thunberg som utvald portalfigur analyseras av av Klimatrealistene samt den franske filosofen Pascal Bruckner i en stor artikel i Le Figaro (som refereras här):

• Greta Thunberg ou la dangereuse propagande de l’infantilisme climatique

Läs och begrunda!

Breakthrough: DigiMat Wins Vinnova Grant

My mathematics education reform program DigiMat together with Johan Jansson now takes a great leap forward by winning a 1.7 milj Skr grant from Vinnova:

• DigiMat - create motivation and learning through digital mathematics

A first version of DigiMat will be presented in the Fall 2019 in the form of a web course for Swedish mathematics teachers, and pupils. DigiMat offers a concrete realisation of the new national curriculum combining mathematics with programming. Our vision is to bring the joy and power of digital mathematics to young minds.  Stay tuned1 and tuned2 and recall this intro.

Öppet Brev till Norges Statsminister om Klimatalarmismen

Nu har Klimatrealisternes Vetenskapliga Råd (där jag ingår) skickat ett brev till Norges Statsminister (se även här) om det bristande vetenskapliga underlaget för den klimatalarmism som dominerar politik och media med krav på en fossilfri värld, och som hotar med förödande konsekvenser för jordens fattiga flertal.

Ett liknande brev har tidigare skickats till Danmarks Statsminister. Dessa borde läsas även av Stefan Löven.

Design Flaw of 737 Max vs Computational Simulation

Is the reason for the two fatal 737 Max accidents a flaw in the design of the airplane, making it prone to stall (see PS2 below), which was compensated by a possibly over-reacting control system, which the pilots could not turn off? Did FAA authorise the plane without proper safety evaluation?   Questions are piling up: FBI is joining criminal investigation,  Wikipedia,  Boeing,  New York Times, Pilot training, Stability, Aviation expert, Kludge, Aviationcv, Pilots view.

Computational software used by developers of airplanes do not seem to allow simulation of the dynamics of stall and so the impact of stall on aircraft design and safety assessment must be done solely by expensive and time-consuming experiments in flight, and then also the design of the apparently needed control system. This may show to have been insufficient to make the plane safe, something which FAA did not have the capacity to check.

With our new technology of Automated Computational Mathematical Modeling with references here, the full flight of an airplane, like the 737 Max, including the full dynamics of stall, can accurately be computationally simulated as a unique capability shown in the HighLiftPW-3 Workshop, see also front page of Icarus Simulation. Such advanced technology could allow airplane makers better and faster simulations to design aircraft and assess their safety.

PS1 The Jas 39 Gripen is a fighter airplane designed and manufactured by the Swedish aerospace company Sabb, which is inherently unstable (relaxed stability) to allow quick turns and thus needs to be stabilized by automatic active control of small canards (wings) ahead of the main wings. The plane crashed twice from pilot-induced oscillations with a the pilot seeking to compensate an over-reacting control system, in 1989 during landing and in 1993 over central Stockholm.  A commercial aircraft is not designed to be unstable, but to be positively stable.

PS2 Stall means that when the inclination of a wing vs forward motion (angle of attack) is too large (around 20 degrees for a common wing), then the lift to drag ratio suddenly drops from 15 before stall to 2 after stall and the wing drastically loses functionality. The Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System (MCAS) was developed for the 737 MAX to prevent stalls in flaps-retracted, low-speed, nose-up flight.

PS3 Boeing is working on an update of MCAS to get 737 Max approved by FAA to fly again, but the problem may be bigger than just a software update asking for a redesign of the airplane, see here.

Icarus Digital Math

Icarus Digital Math is getting attention at KTH and the world:

Stay tuned! Several exciting projects in pipe line!