Why You Cannot Heat Yourself by a Mirror

When now winter approaches and energy costs are sky-rocketing, you may find yourself desperately seeking means to survive from freezing to death and all possibilites must be tested. Right?

Here is one possibility which typically can be put forward by anyone who believes that all bodies including your own emit a stream of photons with total heat energy scaling with $T^4$ with $T$ absolute temperature according to the Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann Law PSB independent of the temperature of the surrounding. Although this is a misconception of PSB, which in true form also includes the temperature of the surrounding, it is commonly believed even by physicists to be a fact and as such may propose the following:

Put up mirrors around the walls of your living room, if this is where you plan to hide during the winter (Germany allows only one room to be heated), and say to yourself: All these photons that I emit will be reflected back to me from all the mirrors and so I will be heated as much as I am cooling. This is nothing but the so called "greenhouse effect" heating the Earth surface from "back radiation" from the atmosphere supposedly acting somewhat like a mirror sending back radiation from the surface. 

Before you go buying all these mirrors, let me tell you why this won't work by referring to the analysis presented on Computational BlackBody Radiation: This is because transfer of heat from one body A to another B only occurs when say A is warmer than B, and this is because then A emits radiation with higher frequencies than B and it is these higher frequencies that have a heating effect on B lacking these frequencies.  

It is the same as transfer of knowledge from one person who is more knowledgable to a person less knowledgable. In both cases a threshold effect comes into play with the threshold set by the less knowledgable/cooler body. This effect is not present if you think of radiation as a stream of photons where something very essential is missing.

To those who believe that radiative heat transfer involves a stream of photons back and forth between bodies, I suggest to go to buy the mirrors, make a test and report back to me. Good Luck! 

Or check out Computational BlackBody Radiation and save that effort. You will then understand why you cannot heat yourself by a mirror, or teach yourself all by yourself anything above your threshold, or lift yourself in the hair!

Om KlimatUpplysningen och Cancel Culture

KlimatRealisterna KlimatUpplysningen KU presenterar sig på följande sätt:

• Klimatrealisternas uppfattning är att den vetenskapliga grunden för klimatpolitiken är otillräcklig för att motivera den nedbrytande omställning av samhället som nu pågår.  
• Vi vill visa på den osäkra vetenskapliga grunden och klimatpolitikens negativa konsekvenser. 
• Målet är att bidra till att förhindra denna skadliga och meningslösa politik.

Ingemar Nordin, professor em vid institutionen för kultur och kommunikation vid Linköpings Universitet, har en ledande funktion inom KU. Speciellt kan Ingemar stänga av kommentarer från personer som Ingemar av någon anledning inte gillar. Det gäller speciellt min person som drabbats av denna form av censur efter att ha deltagit med kommentarer till ett inlägg av Gabriel Oxenstierna med den tankeväckande  rubriken

• Atmosfärseffekt i stället för växthuseffekt. –Men hur mäter man den?

Detta är en fråga som jag studerat ingående och mitt arbete (redovisat på denna blogg) har givit mig en plats i Klimatrealistenes Vitenskaplige Råd, detta trots att jag är matematiker och inte fysiker.

Jag har därför en del noga genomtänkt att säga om inlägget ovan om Atmosfärseffekten, speciellt om den massiva sk "återstrålning" från en kallare atmosfär till en varmare jordyta som anses uttrycka en "växthuseffekt" som hotar med katastrofal global uppvärmning. Jag har i mitt arbete visat att denna "återstrålning" representerar  fiktiv icke-fysik som inte kan finnas av flera skäl och speciellt inte därför att den trotsar termodynamikens 2a lag, en av fysikens hörnpelare. Inlägget ovan ifrågasätter också "växthuseffekten".  Mina argument för att "återstrålning" är icke-fysik presenteras här på ett lättsamt sätt.

När jag som kommentar till inlägget uttrycker min åsikt grundad på noggrann analys, att någon "återstrålning" omöjligen kan finnas, så censureras fortsatta kommentarer av Ingemar.  Det är inte roligt att bli utsatt för censur (av vetenskap), vilket jag tyvärr har viss erfarenhet av. 

Det är också kontraproduktivt om man jämför med KUs ovan angivna mål, eftersom jag ger argument som  visar att den vetenskapliga grunden för klimathotet inte bara är osäker utan dessutom grovt felaktig.

Nåväl, jag klarar mig utan KU, men tråkigt är det för den gemensamma saken att stoppa en skadlig och meningslös klimatpolitik. 

Man kan se Ingemars tilltag som ett uttryck för den Cancel Culture som nu florerar på stormedia inkl Wikipedia och Google, där en hord av vakthundar ser till att viss korrekt information effektivt silas bort detta utan motivering. Det kan gälla vaccin, krig, korruption och inte minst klimat. Det främjar inte ett öppet demokratisk samhälle och för vetenskapen är ett fritt meningsutbyte livsviktigt! Låt oss slå vakt om det!

Ingemar uppmanas härmed att motivera sin censur i kommentar till denna post. Censur av vetenskap är emot vetenskapens grundprincip om fritt meningsutbyte, nota bene i ett öppet demokratiskt samhälle.  Censur av vetenskap är både skadlig och meningslös politik.

Stöd för min linje ges speciellt i denna kommentar med intressant förslag! 

Jag uppmanar läsare av denna post att tycka till om "återstrålning" är icke-fysik eller fysik.

PS1 Ingemar motiverar sin censur på följande sätt på KU:

• Du vill att KU skall föra fram dina ofysikaliska åsikter där man förnekar vanlig strålningsfysik, kvantmekaniken och fotoner. Ja, jag vet. Men detta är inte din blogg. På din egen blogg kan du framföra precis vad du vill, men inte här. Adjö!

Skälet skulle alltså vara att jag i kommentar framför ofysikaliska åsikter, som Ingemar tror att jag vill att KU skall föra fram. Men hur vet Ingemar som inte är fysiker att mina åsikter är ofysikaliska? Vilken fysiker har han frågat för att ge denna dom? Och inte kräver jag att KU skall föra fram mina åsikter, det räcker med att jag själv får föra fram dem utan censur.

PS2 För att se klimatalarmism i ett vidare perspektiv lyssna på denna podcast med Matthew Ehret! 

On Elite vs Mass Education

Matthew Ehret gives in The Revenge of the Malthusians and the Science of Limits a mind-boggling review of the role of mathematics in human civilisation and education as fostered by in particular the prominent philosopher and mathematician Betrand Russell with the following key idea/vision expressed in The Scientific Outlook (1930):

• The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. 
• Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. 
• In order to produce it, all the researchers of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play…. 
• All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called `co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. 
• Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.
• Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific technique, and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements.

Today 90 years later Russell's cruel vision has come true. Anything to do about it?  

CERES: Detecting Global Warming without Accuracy

Typical CERES measurement

Earth Energy Budget as derived by CERES

The objective of the CERES Project is to give instrumental evidence of Global Warming by satellite measurements of Earths Energy Budget in terms of 

• average of absorbed solar radiation (ASR) 
• emitted thermal radiation (ETR) to space
• from increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, etc.) trapping more of the emitted thermal radiation from the surface, thereby reducing ETR and leading to a net gain of energy with ASR - ETR  > 0. 
• This is referred to as “Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI)”. 
• Its magnitude is approximately 0.7 Wm2 (or 0.3% of ASR). 
• Most of this excess energy (93%) is stored as heat in the ocean. 
• The remainder warms the atmosphere and land, and melts snow and ice.

The Global Warming is thus measured to be approximately 0.7 W/m2 as 0.3% of ASR, which to be meaningful requires very high accuracy on the level of 0.1% or much less than 1 W/m2. Is this achieved?  

Inspecting the Earth Energy Budget image above we see that Earth surface emits 398 W/m2 while it absorbs 164 W/m2 from the Sun, and 240 W/m2 is leaving the Earth-atmosphere system by LW radiation. We thus see an energy deficit of more than 200 W/m2 on the Earth surface and that the stated accuracy is not smaller than 1 W/m2. 

We also see that the Earth Energy Budget includes massive back radiation from a colder atmosphere to a warmer Earth surface defying the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. 

The previous post addresses another questionable aspect of the energy(heat) flux data delivered by CERES with direct connection to accuracy, namely that CERES primarily through bolometers measures temperature and not heat flux as a derived computed quantity. 

Altogether, CERES is used to deliver observational/instrumental support to Global Warming by atmospheric CO2, but the instrumental accuracy is way too small to give any evidence, and in addition the underlying physics contradicts the 2nd Law. 

On the other hand, CERES can deliver information on the spatial distribution of ETR albeit at low accuracy. 

PS The CERES Project is describes by NASA as follows:

• Climate is controlled by the amount of sunlight absorbed by Earth and the amount of infrared energy emitted to space. 
• These quantities together with their difference define Earth’s radiation budget (ERB). 
• The Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) project provides satellite-based observations of ERB and clouds. 
• It uses measurements from CERES instruments flying on several satellites along with data from many other instruments to produce a comprehensive set of ERB data products for climate, weather and applied science research.

with the following goals:

• Produce a long-term, integrated global climate data record for detecting decadal changes in the Earth’s radiation budget from the surface to the top-of-atmosphere.
• Enable improved understanding of how Earth’s radiation budget varies in time and space and the role that clouds and other atmospheric properties play.
• Support climate model evaluation and improvement through model-observation intercomparisons.
• Produce a long-term, integrated global climate data record for detecting decadal changes in the Earth’s radiation budget from the surface to the top-of-atmosphere.

• 
  

Global Warming: Measuring Temperature vs Flux of Heat Energy vs Radiative Forcing

OLWR (right) as measured by CERES

The central concept in the prediction of global warming from human emissions of CO2 presented by IPCC, is that of radiative forcing as a warming effect of 3-4 W/m2 upon doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial time with corresponding global warming of less than 1 C. From this non-alarming warming is obtained alarming warming by up to 4 C by various positive feed-backs. If the 1 C was instead 0.3 C corresponding radiative forcing of 1 W/m2 instead of 3-4 W/m2, there would be no reason for alarm. And of course not, if feed-backs are smaller (very likely) or even negative. 

Let us now check how IPCC comes up with a radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 as the central argument behind alarm.    

The radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 is obtained from a radiative perturbation computation starting from measured spectra of Outgoing LongWave Radiation OLWR or radiative flux from the Earth into space by bolometers in CERES satellites as shown above. The computation estimates the radiative forcing as the  change of OLWR from doubled CO2. See lecture by Will Happer.

The advantage of this approach is that knowledge of the complex physics of turbulent convective heat transfer and phase change behind the present measured OLWR is not needed. The radiative computation concerns the change of OLWR from a change of radiative properties of the atmosphere from doubled CO2 everything else being the same. The radiative forcing is thus obtained from a radiative heat transfer computation based on radiative properties.    

A bolometer measures temperature (in degrees Kelvin K) through a temperature dependent resistance which is translated to OLWR (in W/m2) through some form of Planck's Law. 

That primarily temperature is measured, is seen from the fact that CERES delivers the altitude from where OLWR is coming, because altitude directly connects to temperature, which would not be possible if OLWR was the prime measurement.

The translation from measured temperature in K to OLWR in W/m2 is tricky. To see the difficulty, let us consider heat conduction with heat flux corresponding to radiance and Planck's Law replaced by Fourier's Law taking the following form (in one space dimension): 

• $Q = C \frac{dT}{dx}$ 

where $T$ is temperature $Q$ heat flux, $x$ a spatial coordinate and $C$ is a coefficient of heat conductivity. Now, temperature can be directly measured by a thermometer corresponding to the bolometer in CERES, while to determine the heat flux Q the coefficient of heat conductivity must be known. Temperature is a primary measured quantity and heat flux is a secondary computed quantity requiring knowledge of a heat conduction coefficient and temperature derivative. 

To measure inside and outside temperature of a wall is direct and precise using a thermometer, while determining the heat flux through the wall requires (i) detailed data on the design of the wall or (ii) experiments with known heat source. 

Measurement of OLWR in CERES carries the same difficulty. What is directly measured by the satellite bolometer are temperatures of different spectral bands as seen from the bolometer, while the translation to OLWR requires detailed knowledge of atmospheric emittance corresponding to heat conductivity of a wall. Measured OLWR is thus subject to large uncertainties as well as the computation of radiative forcing. Experiments corresponding to (ii) cannot be made. 

Total OWLR is about 240 W/m2 and so a radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 is a small perturbation which is difficult to assess. It could as well be 2 or 0 or even negative. The central element of the IPCC global warming message to the World thus cannot be viewed to be scientifically settled. If the estimated radiative forcing was 1 W/m2  instead of 3-4 W/m2, then there would be no alarm.  

Radiative forcing of 3-4 W/m2 is by IPCC presented as the basic scientific argument behind the present march in the West into a fossil free society of pre-industrial standard and population.  The theory and observation supporting the argument is highly uncertain and cannot motivate continued march.   

Corruption of Modern Physics 16: Electron Spin

Scientific American presented yesterday an article about the mystery of electron spin serving a fundamental role in the standard theory of quantum mechanics stdQM:

• Quantum Particles Aren’t Spinning. So Where Does Their Spin Come From?

  with the following contradictory messages typical of modern physics:

• Electrons are proficient little magicians. Electrons always seem to spin. 
• But despite appearances, electrons don’t spin. They can’t spin.
• Proving that it’s impossible for electrons to be spinning is a standard homework problem in any introductory quantum physics course. 
• Yet spin is deeply important.
•  If electrons didn’t seem to spin, your chair would collapse down to a minuscule fraction of its size. 
• In fact, there wouldn’t be any molecules at all. 

Ok, so we learn that electrons spin, although they cannot, and that spinning electrons are necessary for the World to exist: Contradiction. But Contradictory Physics is Corrupted Physics. 

The concept of electron spin, which can take two values say up and down, was introduced when stdQM was formed in the 1920s to satisfy Pauli's Exclusion Principle PEP stating that 

• At most two electrons can occupy the same spot in space-time. 
• If two electrons do so, then they must have different spin.  

This was described by Pauli as a mysterious two-valuedness of stdQM arising already in the case of the Helium Atom with two electrons with key question: 

• How do the two electrons share the space around the kernel? 
• Can they overlap or not? 

The answer by stdQM was that they have to overlap in the ground state of the Helium Atom to make computation of energy fit with observation. But electrons having the same negative charge repel each other and so cannot overlap. Pauli's resolution of this apparent contradiction was to say that they indeed can overlap if only the have different spin, one up and the other down. 

That gave some apparent rationale to the mysterious two-valuedness appearing already for Helium taking the form of PEP. The trouble was and still is that nobody knows what is the physics of electron spin? Is it physics at all, or not just a trick to make stdQM correctly predict the ground state energy of Helium?

RealQM seeks to give a different answer with direct connection to physics. In RealQM the two electrons of Helium divide the space around the kernel into two half-lobes of electron density which do not overlap. This is a classical continuum model in three space dimension which accurately predicts the ground state energy of Helium, as well as other atoms with electrons organised into non-overlapping shells. 

In particular, the mysterious two-valuedness can get an explanation in the form of the two half-lobes model of Helium in RealQM. Take a look and see if you get inspired to uncover the mystery of PEP!

Vill Svenska Folket Leva i Fossilfritt Sverige?

Infångning av utandningsluft kommer att bli nödvändig för att uppnå Klimatmålen

Fossilfritt Sverige är ett Socialdemokratiskt Regeringsinitiativ att göra Sverige till Världens Första Fossilfria Välfärdsland. Vägen stakas ut genom Klimatmål som skall uppnås med en Klimatlag.

Klimatmål:  

• Senast år 2045 ska Sverige inte ha några nettoutsläpp av växthusgaser till atmosfären, för att därefter uppnå negativa utsläpp. Målet innebär att utsläppen av växthusgaser från svenskt territorium ska vara minst 85 procent lägre år 2045 än utsläppen år 1990. De kvarvarande utsläppen ned till noll kan uppnås genom så kallade kompletterande åtgärder. För att nå målet får även avskiljning och lagring av koldioxid av fossilt ursprung räknas som en åtgärd där rimliga alternativ saknas.

Klimatlag (1 januari 2018):

• Lagen ålägger ett ansvar på nuvarande och framtida regeringar att föra en politik som utgår från klimatmålen.

Allmänhetens beredskap att följa vad än Klimatlagen kommer att kräva anges vara stor enligt följande hoppfulla undersökning (om än inte Alla Är Med):

• 8 av 10 tror att de själva kan göra något för att bromsa klimatförändringen.
• Mest positiv är de tillfrågade till att köpa energisnåla hushållsapparater nästa gång de byter, vilket 9 av 10 kan tänka sig.
• 8 av 10 kan tänkta sig att köra bil mer energisnålt, sänka elförbrukningen i hemmet och åka tåg istället för flyg.
• 7 av 10 kan tänka sig att köpa färre saker och att semestra nära istället för att flyga utomlands.
• 6 av 10 respondenter är positiva till att samåka mer, äta mindre kött, välja elbil, ställa bilen till förmån för cykel eller elcykel samt välja klimatsmarta fonder.
• Hälften kan tänka sig att åka mer kollektivt och sänka temperaturen inomhus.

Dessa åtgärder torde inte räcka, men till detta kommer att läggas stora omställningar för industrin som kräver stora investeringar vilket gör produkterna dyra. Men det blir sällan märkbart för slutkonsumenten.

Resan mot ett Fossilfritt Sverige har redan börjat. 

Tempot måste öka, men vi har kommit en bit på vägen. 

Men vill verkligen Svenska Folket vara med på denna resa? Vilken högsta inomhustemperatur kommer att vara tillåten enligt Klimatlagen?  13 C?

Varför skall resan göras? Vad är problemet med fossil energi? Varför skall den bannlysas? För att den ger utsläpp av CO2? Men växterna lever ju av CO2? Vilken vetenskap visar att lite mer utsläpp av CO2 kommer att orsaka märkbar/mätbar global uppvärmning?

Och den mänskliga utandningsluften innehåller ju CO2. Skall den "fångas in" och lagras i marken med CCS, så att växterna inte kommer åt den?

Läs mer på KlimatUpplysningen särskilt om Växthuseffekten med Kommentarer.

Quality of Heat Energy vs Radiative Heat Transfer

One may expect that radiative heat transfer as a basic topic of both fundamental and engineering physics, has been well understood since long and that therefore there are precise mathematical models capturing everything of interest from both theoretical and practical point of view. 

But that does not seem to be the case. The basic model (used in climate science) takes the form of the more than 100 years old Schwarzschild's equations describing radiative heat transfer in terms of streams of particles in different directions carrying energy packest named photons between layers of a gas of different temperature, in the setting of the atmosphere with with both up-welling and down-welling infrared radiation. In particular, the equations express transfer of heat energy from colder layers to warmer layers. 

But we know that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that heat energy cannot by itself (without external forcing) move from cold to warm, and so Schwarzschild's equations are unphysical. If they form the mathematical model of radiative heat transfer, it seems that some understanding is missing. I make an effort to fill this apparent gap as Computational Black Body Radiation.

The 2nd Law is believed to be difficult to understand lacking a good answer to the basic question: Why can heat energy by itself move only from warm to cold and not the other way? 

One way to understand this is to think of quality of energy measured by temperature. The higher temperature the better quality. It can be compared with quality of knowledge. The essential aspect is that transfer of heat energy or knowledge has a direction from higher quality to lower quality,  not the other way around. 

The quality of heat energy as measured by temperature comes to expression as a high frequency cut-off of the radiation spectrum scaling with temperature according to Wien's Law as a threshold phenomenon.  A warm body carries higher frequencies than a colder body and it is these frequencies which can cause a transfer of heat energy from the warm to the cold.  A more knowledgeable person can transfer knowledge to a less knowledgeable. There is a direction from high to lower quality, which in more general terms is direction of time.  

In the hierarchy of energy, heat energy has lowest rank because it cannot fully be transformed to higher ranks of kinetic or potential energy, and is further decreasing in rank with decreasing temperature. This underlies a feared successive degradation of quality into a heat death of the Universe at 3 Kelvin. This can be added to the alarm of CO2 global warming.

Interview on TNT Radio: Corruption of Science

Here is a new interview on the Sky Dragon Slaying show at TNT Radio with focus on Corruption of Modern Physics underlying the return from Enlightenment to the Dark Age of CO2 Climate Alarmism. Enjoy!

See also previous interview and  discussion with Will Happer: here and  here and here.

Corruption of Modern Physics 15: Dogma before Reality?

Galileo in front of the Holy Office forced to give up Reality before Dogma and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. 

The scientific revolution of the Enlightenment was a movement towards realism as a bottom-up process from practice/reality to theory, in opposition to a top-down process from theory/dogma to practice. In religion it took the form of bottom-up Protestantism in opposition to top-down Catholicism, and in politics as democracy with power from the people in opposition to autocracy with power from the King or Pope. From Dark Age to Modern Age.

Modern physics represents a return to a top-down process from Dogma to Reality. It comes to full expression as a Quantum Mechanical Model QMM based on a theoretical mathematical model of atom physics in the form of a multi-dimensional linear Schrödinger wave equation, which does not describe physical actualities (like the state of an atom), but instead possibilities/probabilities. In particular, the linearity of Schrödinger's equation makes QMM include superposition of (many) states as the richness of possibilities, as the Schrödinger cat being alive and dead in all different portions at the same time.

QMM is derived from a classical deterministic wave equation describing actualities in a purely formal procedure into a probabilistic wave equation describing possibilities. The basic dogma is that predictions made by solving QMM always are in precise (probabilistic) agreement with observational reality. If an experiment does not agree with QMM, then something is wrong with the experiment. QMM cannot be falsified by experiment. This is an extreme form of top-down physics from Dogma to Reality away from Enlightenment as a return to Dark Age. The dogma of QMM was formed in the 1930s and still reigns.

That QMM cannot be falsified by experiment hinges on the fact that QMM is uncomputable because of the multi-dimensionalty of the Schrödinger wave equation including (all) possibilities and thus asking for exponentially increasing computing power with polynomially increasing system size, beyond the capacity of any thinkable digital computer of known non-quantum design.

When confronted with this difficulty in the 1960s, Richard Feynman, as the sharpest modern physicist after Schrödinger, came up with the idea of a fictional quantum computer based on QMM as a fictional computer capable of computing possibilities by using the richness of superposition reducing demand of computing resources from exponential to polynomial. Feynman was not sure that such a thing could be realised, and this is still not known. See previous post.

So what are the odds? What do we have? Well, we have QMM as a theoretical model which is not derived from principles of real physics and has no direct physical meaning/interpretation and which is uncomputable on a non-quantum computer. The question is if QMM is computable on a real quantum computer as a physical realisation of QMM? 

We can compare with the following question: Can you build real objects from this design/theory:

Is then modern physics troubled by a return to a Dark Age of Dogma before Reality? If modern physics represents todays modernity, is then modern society a form of 1984 with the following examples of doublethink or doublespeak:

• War is Peace.
• Ignorance is Knowledge.
• True is False.
• Man is Woman.
• Inequality is Equality
• Friend is Foe.
• Dogma is Thought Freedom.
• Death is Life (the cat).
• Consensus is Scientific Debate (climate).
• Trinity is One.
• Wave is Particle.
• Relativity is Uniqueness.
• Body is Soul.
• Love is Hate.
• Democracy is Tyranny (of the majority).
• Black is White.
• Joke Not Funny.
• Dream is Reality.
• Dept is Asset.

Maybe. What do you think? Compare with Real Quantum Mechanics presenting a model of atom physics derived from physical reality which is computable on a standard non-quantum computer and so agrees with observation.

  

Corruption of Modern Physics 14: Prandtl's Boundary Layer Theory

Turbulent solution of Euler's equations with a slip boundary condiition with a turbulent wake arising from opposing flow instability at rear separation creating drag.

Ludwig Prandtl is named Father of Modern Fluid Mechanics motivated by his boundary layer theory with a no-slip boundary condition as key element,  which has dominated fluid mechanics since the 1920s. No-slip means that a fluid meets a fixed solid boundary with zero velocity thus creating a boundary layer connecting free flow velocity away from the boundary with thickness scaling with $\sqrt{\nu}$ with $\nu$ fluid viscosity of typical size $0.000001$. A typical boundary layer is thus very thin of size $0.001$ which requires so many mesh points in computation that the required computational power is far away still today. In addition, small viscosity fluid mechanics is turbulent with small scales also asking for resolution.

Father Prandtl with his no-slip boundary condition thus forced modern fluid mechanics into a fruitless  search for wall models seeking to circumvent the need of boundary layer resolution, which made modern fluid mechanics into a nightmare of wall modeling.

How could this be? The reason is that with the no-slip condition Prandtl could present a resolution of d'Alembert's Paradox remaining unresolved since its formulation in 1755, with the paradox comparing prediction of zero drag or resistance to motion in theoretical potential flow satisfying a slip boundary condition as a model of small skin friction of size $0.001$ allowing the fluid to slide without friction along a solid boundary, with observation of real flow with substantial drag. 

As noted by Nobel Laureate Hinshelwood, this made fluid mechanics from start into a joke when divided into

• practical fluid mechanics or hydraulics observing phenomena which cannot be explained (non-zero drag) 
• theoretical fluid mechanics explaining phenomena which cannot be observed (zero drag).    

Prandtl suggested to resolve the paradox by declaring potential flow satisfying Euler's equations for slightly viscous flow as an illegal solution because of violation of the no-slip condition. This simple trick brought relief to fluid mechanics from start viewed as a joke, but it came with the side effect of making fluid mechanics instead into a computational night-mare. From ashes into the fire.

In 2010 I published together with Johan Hoffman a real resolution of d'Alembert's paradox in the prestigious Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, which showed that the reason the zero-drag potential solution with slip cannot be observed, is that it is unstable and so is replaced by a turbulent solution of Euler's equations with slip but non-zero drag from a turbulent wake. Main drag is thus not an effect of skin friction as Prandtl claimed, but from free flow turbulence as shown in the fig above.  

This work changed the premises for fluid mechanics freeing it for the computational impossibility of no-slip, since slip does not generate any boundary layer. The full potential is exposed in Euler Right! Prandtl Wrong? including a revelation of the Secret of Flight. Take a look and free yourself from the prison of no-slip.

Corruption of Modern Physics 13: Quantum Computer?

A quantum computer with a few qubits is not small.

Quantum computing is a hype of modern physics supposed to deliver unbounded computing power.  The standard digital computer computes with bits, each taking either the value 0 or 1, while a quantum computer with qubits, each taking the values of two different quantum states in superposition, thus carrying both the value 0 and 1; with bits (1,0) and (0,1), while with qubits (1,1), (1,0), (0,1) and (0,0), thus increasing the number of degrees of freedom from 2 to $4=2^2$, or more generally from $n$ to  $2^n$ which quickly gets huge with increasing $n$.    

Certain operations can be performed on qubit quantum states to form quantum logical gates. Quantum measurement of the state of a qubit destroys the superposition into one of the two states like a projection onto coordinate axes representing probability. Quantum entanglement is supposed to correlate the state of two cubits separated in space. 

It is not known if it is possible to construct a quantum computer capable of performing real tasks of interest. What are then the odds? The idea of superposition of states, like the Schrödinger cat being in superposition of being a bit alive and a bit at the same time, is central. Or an atom in superposition of ground state and excited state. Superposition is an expression of the linearity of the multi-dimensional Schrödinger equation supposed to model atomic physics. But the physical meaning and modeling capacity of a linear multi-dimensional Schrödinger equation is a main unresolved problem of modern physics as made clear in Corruption 3. 

 Key question: Is real atomic physics linear allowing superposition? 

Efforts continue. In particular at Wallenberg Centre for Quantum Technology (at Chalmers my Alma Mater) with the following caveat:

• Unfortunately, there is no simple guide on how to build a quantum computer as it is a very difficult and complex task.

Many cellos as supercomputer

We can compare with a vibrating string governed by a linear wave equation creating after excitation by finger or bow a tone with specific timbre as a superposition of harmonics with different amplitudes. This offers a rich expression of varying timbre from different forms of excitation opening to use the string for some form of computation. The output timbre can be measured through its spectrum in a frequency analysis, while the physics of input excitation of a specific timbre may be difficult to realise. But using a cello as a computer may be easier than building a quantum computer...

Corruption of Modern Physics 12: Cognitive Dissonance?

Students in schools and universities suffer from cognitive dissonance by being exposed to contradictory information. Students have to learn that the Earth climate system is at a tipping point about to collapse unless they take action, but they cannot see the tipping point and they do not know what action to take. This is striking dissonance from pure fiction creating fear and despair. The parents cannot help because they have to obey under the authority of the school and media. Teachers who seek to deliver realistic understandable education are incompatible with the School.

Modern physics serves as a fundamental source of cognitive dissonance by presenting quantum mechanics as the perfect model of small scale atomic physics even if describing very strange phenomena, which can neither be observed nor understood. The same for large scale physics of a Universe filled with unknown dark matter/energy and black holes supposedly being described by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which cannot be understood nor observed/visualised, since four-dimensional curved space-time is beyond human comprehension. 

Modern physicists pay little attention to all the intermediate scales of the physics of fluids and solids forming the World we live in, physics which can be observed and understood. Instead they propagate incomprehensible and contradictory physics and so add to the fire of cognitive dissonance. Why? Is it to form obedient citizens unable to comprehend that they are being fooled?  

School mathematics is also a source of cognitive dissonance for many students because it is presented as being very clear and logical and so easily understandable to everybody with a brain and in addition most useful, while the student perception is the opposite. This is inherited from the assumed unique capacity of mathematicians to understand and work with both the infinitely small and the infinitely large way beyond comprehension of even modern physicists, as an expression of the hierarchy of science with mathematics on top followed by physics. 

Leibniz World of Math presents a new approach to math education combining understandable with useful without cognitive dissonance.   

Corruption of Modern Physics 11: Gravitation vs Mass

In the common rubber sheet gravitational model the ball is instantly reacting to the gradient of the deflection field (no action at distance). 

Gravitation is the great unresolved problem of physics. When Newton presented his law of gravitation stating that the gravitational force $F$ between two point masses $M_1$ and $M_2$ at distance $R$ is given by the Law of Gravitation:

• $F=G\frac{M_1M_2}{R^2}$  

where $G$ is a universal gravitation constant, his adversary Leibniz did not question the Law itself, but was not at all happy with the fact that the physics of the creation of the gravitational force from the presence of mass was not addressed by Newton. This question has still no answer as the main conundrum of modern physics. The idea of force carrying particles as gravitons has been tried but no such thing has been discovered. 

The mathematician Laplace gave the Law of Gravitation another form of Poisson's equation involving the Laplacian differential operator $\Delta$:

• $\Delta \phi = \rho$    (1)

where $\rho (x,t)$ is mass density at position $x$ at time $t$ and $\phi (x,t)$ is the corresponding gravitational field with $\nabla \phi (x,t)$ the gravitational force, with the standard view that 

• Gravitational field/force is created by the presence of mass.  

Leibniz asked about the physics of this process of creation of gravitational field/force from presence of mass, but got no answer. If there are no gravitons, then what?  Why is it so difficult to answer? Is the question incorrectly posed? 

In Many-Minds Relativity the question is turned around to ask if it may be so that mass is created from the presence of gravitational field? The equation (1) connecting gravitational field $\phi (x,t)$ to mass density $\rho (x,t)$, can be viewed in two ways: (see also previous posts):

• The standard way viewing $\rho$ as given an $\phi$ the resulting gravitational obtained by solving Poisson's equation, which is a global process as integration requiring instant action at distance.
• The new alternative way is to view $\phi$ as given and $\rho =\Delta\phi$ is obtained by a local process of differentiation thus without action at distance.    

The main difficulty in the standard view is the instant action at distance. That action is instant follows from the observed fact that the Earth is attracted by the gravitational force in the direction of the present (as measured by $t$) position  of the Sun, and not the position 8 minutes before seen in the sky, which would be the case if gravitational force traveled by the speed of light. In the alternative way action is local and the unresolved problem of instant action at distance does not come up. 

The reason a problem cannot be solved can be that the problem is incorrectly formulated. Would Leibniz have been less unhappy with the new formulation without instant action at distance? Maybe he would have said that it connects to an idea of Best Possible of Worlds or Perfect Harmony of gravitational force and mass distribution.

In the setting of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (if it makes sense) the alternative would take the form of curvature of space-time as creating mass by differentiation as a local operation. 

War Irreversibility and Direction of Time

There are physical processes which are reversible, like the clock pendulum swinging back and forth without stop, and there are processes which are irreversible, like starting a war ending in mutual large scale destruction without possibility of return. What is the difference? This connects to the previous post on a proof of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics as the main unresolved question of physics (modulo the resolution/proof suggested in Computational Thermodynamics).

The Clock and the Arrow: A Short Theory of Time seeks the reason why physical processes move forward in time, including all forms of life showing progress from birth to death, thus expressing irreversibility, as a combination of (i) finite precision computation and (ii) increasing tension/difference. 

Time reversal of smashing an egg is impossible because of lack of precision in a restoration/reconstruction process. This is different from the standard explanation based on statistical mechanics claiming that time moving forward is more likely than backward, which is not illuminating.

A basic model combines (i) convection, (ii) diffusion and (iii) reaction = production/destruction, into a system with competing processes of:

• increasing tension/difference: convection + production  
• decreasing tension/difference: diffusion + destruction. 

As an urgent example, a war is the (inevitable) consequence of an arms race a during pre-war phase building tension/difference until so large that any little spark sets (lack of precision) off an avalanche of  destruction. Here displacement of weapons into local accumulation building tension as an anabol process corresponds to convection (assembling Uranium 238 to an atomic bomb), and levelling everything to gravel (pressing the button) corresponds to diffusion/desstruction in a metabol process.

Another example is the transition from laminar fluid flow with diffusion no longer strong enough to control tension/difference created by convection into turbulent flow with small scale motion turned into heat in turbulent diffusion. 

Irreversibility with a direction of time is here expressed by the fact that an anabol process as a construction process requiring precision, is slow (brick by brick building a house or letter by letter writing a book), while a metabol process like burning a book can be quick because coarse precision is enough. The reason unburning of a book is impossible is that the fine precision required cannot be met in finite time. 

The ocurrence of irreversibility is an inevitable consequence of increasing tension from convection + production creating increasingly sharp differences, which ultimately have to be broken down in some form of destructive Reset.  In the Green Reset the Industrial Society built by fossil fuel over a period of 100 years creating increasing inequality will have to be destroyed into a New Fossil-Free Society of equality, according to Agenda 2030.   

  

Destruction of human civilisation in a nuclear power exchange is a matter of minutes, does not require precision bombing and is irreversible. 

Life is irreversible because the anabol process of building a living organism cell by cell with finite precision is slow, while the metabol process required to sustain growth is quick and so cannot be reversed with finite precision. 

Corruption of Modern Physics 10: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Energy Crisis

The birth of modern physics is often described as Boltzmann's (attempted and failed) mathematical proof of a 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as the outstanding open problem of late 19th century physics, which introduced a new form of physics as statistical mechanics. This was picked up by Planck in his (attempted) proof of black body radiation, which led into the Born/Bohr Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics based on statistics of atoms playing dice. 

The 2nd Law gives time a direction through the existence of irreversible processes characterised by an inevitable increase of a (mystical) quantity named entropy, which Boltzmann gave a statistical meaning as a tendency of physical processes to move from less probable to more probable states. Boltzmann struggled with the proof through all his life without coming to a resolution. 

In Computational Thermodynamics a New Proof of the 2nd Law is presented, which is not based on statistics but instead on the nature of turbulence as disordered small scale kinetic motion. 

The 2nd Law originally represented an empirical finding expressed by Carnot concerning the maximal efficiency $\eta$ of a heat engine such as a steam engine converting heat to mechanical energy when operating between temperatures $T_h$ and $T_c$ in Kelvin with $T_h>T_c$, of the form 

• $\eta =\frac{T_h-T_c}{T_h}$.  (0)  

This relation can be derived from the thermodynamic relation between change of internal (heat) energy $dE$ and mechanical work $pdV$ with $p$ pressure and $dV$ change of volume, of the form 

• $dE + pdV =0$.   (1)

stating that heat can be transferred to mechanical work only in expansion with $pdV>0$ and then $dE<0$.

We read from (0) that the efficiency $\eta$ of a heat engine increases with temperature difference $T_h-T_c$ (modulo losses).  Conversely, for a heat pump as a heat engine in reverse the efficiency $\frac{1}{\eta}$ decreases with increasing temperature difference. This makes a heat pump, in strong demand to meet the present Energy Crisis, inefficient when delivering hot water from outside air temperature below 0, while rather efficient (modulo losses) when delivering room temperature from ground temperature above 0.

Here (1) represents the balance of heat energy and work for an ideal process absent of losses. For a physical system it takes the following classical form used by Boltzmann

• $dE + pdV =TdS$,   (2)

where $T$ is temperature and $dS$ change of entropy $S$, while in the New Proof it takes the form

• $dE + pdV =Q$,   (3)

where $Q>0$ represents losses of turbulent nature. The essence of the 2nd Law in the form (2) is that $dS>0$ as inevitable increase of entropy. On the other hand, in the form (3) $Q>0$ expresses the inevitable appearance of turbulent dissipation as large scale kinetic motion turned into small scale kinetic motion appearing as heat energy which because of finite precision cannot be reversed, as an explanation of the direction of time exposed in The Clock and The Arrow; A Brief Theory of Time.

The basic problem confronting Boltzmann starting from (2) was to motivate why $dS>0$ and to this end he resorted to statistics seeking to connect a physical meaning to entropy $S$ as a measure of order with less ordered systems corresponding to more microstates $W$ being more probable than more ordered systems corresponding to fewer microstates, expressed on his grave stone as $S =\kappa logW$ with $\kappa$ Boltzmann's constant. This brought him into a lifelong struggle which ended in ultimate disorder hanging from a rope. 

The tragic continued with Planck followed by Born also resorting to statistics leading modern physics into a quagmire of roulette games. 

Bottom line: Nobody knows what is entropy based on statistics. Everybody can understand what is turbulent dissipation into heat. Atoms do what they have to do and are not left to decide themselves by playing dice. Compare with Corruption 5.

The main deficiency of classical thermodynamics based on (2), as compared to (3) with its New Proof, is that it considers different possible states with more or less entropy, but not the dynamics between states characterised by more or less entropy production, which is captured computationally in (3) as turbulent dissipation.