torsdag 3 februari 2011

"Backradiation" Confusion from Light as Particles

In the article Computational Blackbody Radiation in Slaying the Sky Dragon I analyze radiative transfer by electromagnetic waves. I find that it is important to make a distinction between
  • two-way propagation of electromagnetic waves
  • one-way heat transfer by electromagnetic waves.
I consider a forced wave equation with radiation combined with a dissipative effect from finite precision computation. I find one-way heat transfer from warm to cold as a result of the dissipative finite precision effect with high-frequency cut-off.

I am thus led to a resolution of the main mystery of classical wave mechanics of the ultra-violet catastrophy based on deterministic finite precision computation, to be compared with Planck's resolution by statistics of energy quanta. I thus use deterministic finite precision wave mechanics along the lines of Planck's first attempts to solve the mystery, which Planck in a "moment of despair" had to give up and replace by particle statistics.

In particular I show that the wave model does not allow any "backradiation" as heat transfer from cold to warm, since that would correspond to an unstable negative dissipative effect. The wave model thus contradicts the basic postulate of climate alarmism of "backradiation" or "downwelling flux of heat energy" from the atmosphere to the Earth surface.

The idea of "backradiation" comes from not making the distinction between (i) propagation of electromagnetic waves and (ii) heat transfer by electromagnetic waves, which is contained in the wave model.

This confusion comes from viewing radiation as streams of photon particles (wave propagation) carrying heat energy (heat transfer), which does not allow making a distinction between two-way wave propagation and one-way heat transfer. With such a particle model one is forced into the two-way transfer of energy because energy is tied to particles and particles must be allowed to propagate two-way.

Thus the idea of "backradiation" and "downwelling flux of heat energy" is born from a primitive particle model of radiative heat transfer, which in the light of a less primitive wave mechanical is shown to be a fictitious non-physical phenomenon.

CO2 climate alarmism is thus based on a fictitious non-physical phenomenon, and thus is entirely "man-made".

4 kommentarer:

  1. Makes sense. The question is, what kind of experiments could be made to prove that your approach is right and that the backradiation postulate is wrong!?


  2. How do you prove that there are no angels? Isn't up to people speaking about "backradiation" to show that it exists? Certainly, there is no "backradiation" in my math model.

  3. The Venus/Earth atmospheric temperatures data is a world-sized experiment, and it definitively shows the backradiation postulate is wrong (and more) as I continue to point out. See my blog article, "Venus: No Greenhouse Effect" at

    At the beginning of your article on blackbody radiation, you quote Einstein from 1954, shortly before his death: "All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken." I encourage all scientists to read your works, to see the little additions like this you put in them. In fact, they should study what others, however few of them, with similar views about the photon have been saying, as far back as the very beginning of the quantum era (starting with Planck's own view, of course).

    The greatest scientists once were comfortable admitting they did not know what photons were, but in the last 30 years especially, the "consensus" in physics has ossified, with students who were never encouraged to probe the foundations of the general belief. The wise scientist retains his respect for past work, but always leaves room to question to the deepest depths of his time-honored guild, because the highest theoretical constructions are founded in the common dirt of hard physical experience. This is all only to say I know well where you are coming from.

    Nevertheless, at the moment, I don't think it is necessary to chop at the very taproot of quantum mechanics in order to correct the climate consensus (although scientists like Curry need to study your derivation, and refrain from dismissing either you or James Clerk Maxwell). Even if photons actually exist (and the younger physics graduates will be shocked and disgusted that I should speak as if there were any doubt), the point I would make is that everyone can agree the photon will have no effect unless and until it is absorbed (or more generally, scattered, but leave that aside and focus on absorption vs. non-absorption). What your derivation boils down to, within the current view of physics (photons exist), is that a photon from a cooler object cannot be absorbed by a warmer object, or more specifically for climate science, radiation emitted from a cooler region of the atmosphere cannot (on a macroscopic scale) be absorbed by a warmer region. Until both consensus believers and critics can come together on this simple point, which even a layperson can understand (if only as "heat always rises"), each camp will appear to the other to be benighted, cretinous, and deluded. I would warn every scientist (but particularly climate scientists now) that he or she is playing with the authority of physical truth among the mass of men (i.e., the very standing of science in a world drilled first in blind faith, over thousands of years). I am always conscious of where I stand, in the world as it is (both inside and outside of science).

  4. Sure, agree but as the discussion showed on Curry’s blog those who had objections about your approach failed to give concrete justifications on their claims. Personally I believe that your approach is correct and don't believe in the backradiation. BUT, it would ALWAYS be good to verify the models with experiments from the real world. Would it be possible for you to open a thread where we could discuss what kind of experiments that could be carried out to verify your models and falsification the backradiation?

    To my understanding the IR meters doesn't measure heat but are instead based on the photoelectric effect, right?

    Are there any experiments that can clearly back up the existence of backradiation?

    Still waiting for the beer cooler that utilizes backradiation!


    P.S Hard for me to prove that there are no angels when I'm married to one