tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:39:12 +0000theory of flightclimate sciencegreenhouse effectmathematics educationclimate politicsmyth of backradiationquantum mechanicsRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciencesblack body radiationmatematik-ITAIAAKTH-gateDLRclimate simulationQuantum Contradictionsclimate sensitivityKTH-gate3physical quantum mechanicstheory of relativityphysicsscienceengineering education reformsimulation technologyBodyandSoulKammarrättenmathematicsPlanck's LawStefan-Boltzmann's Lawthermodynamics of global climateIPCCLennart BengtssonSchrödinger's equationHögsta FörvaltningsdomstolenKTH-gate2CO2Einsteinradiative heat transfergravitation2nd law of thermodynamicscosmologyemissivityRealQMclay problemNew View on gravitationSky DragonKVAfinite precision computationinterviewsMattelyftetPlanck's constantfluid mechanicsclimategatenew quantum mechanicsStandard Caculusatom modelmysticism of modern physicsradiating atomFalse-SBOLRmany-minds relativityCFDFundamental Theorem of CalculusKTHOffentlighetsprincipenbig bluffsvensk klimatpolitikinfrared thermometerpyrgeometermodtranturbulenceIPCC Trickphotonsphysics illusionsroy spencerPrandtlJudy CurryStefan Lövendark energyfred singerradiative forcinguncertainty principleclimate modelsclimate skepticfinite element quantum mechanicsresonanceNADAPrandtl Medalbolometerdark matterlapse ratemany-minds physicsCERESKVAs klimatuttalandeMuir Russell InquiryNavier-Stokesarrow of timelindzenpiano acousticssecret of separationteknikdelegationentheory of sailingIR cameraMSTdAlembertgatephotoelectric effectDr FaustusFEniCSFakultetsnämnden KTHLaplace demonRoyal SocietySVTSvenska Mekanikdagareconomical crisisfree willrelativityBert Bolin Centre for Climate ResearchCMBEquivalence PrincipleGlenn Research CenterKirchhoff's lawSvenska Matematikersamfundetazarcensorshipcosmological principledirection of timeextended Newtonian gravitationibookkollegialt lärandephlogistonthermal imaging3rd Nobel SymposiumAcademic Rights WatchAnders ÅngströmBergsonEuler equationsFreedom FestHubble's LawKlimatupplysningenLIGOLorentz transformationOckham's razorP = NP?Penguin logicRiksbankenSchwarzschildZeno's arrow paradoxboundary layerconstructive physicscrisis in physicsdefinition vs physical factiducationperiodic tableprinciple of least actionrepo rateshorttime vs longtime accuracystring instrumentsBig PhysicsChandrasekharFinal SolutionHans RoslingHelmholtz ReciprocityHiggs mechanismMacchiariniMargot WallströmMichelson-MorleyPopperQEDSMHISULFdigitaliseringskommissionenentropyfaint sun paradoxfinite elementinstant action at distancelord moncktonnobel prizenumerical analysisstellar aberrationwave-particle duality2nd lawBig BangCJ70Copenhagen InterpretationDNDeleuzeDiracDiscussion ForumEinstein's equationFeynmanGoogle BooksHamstenHawkingHeisenbergHelium mysteryKTH-studenterKarolinskaKiehl-TrenberthKnut ÅngströmKodcentrumKutta-ZhukovskyMOOCMagnus effectMaxwell's equationsN=NP? 2nd LawNewton's 2nd lawP=NP? 2nd lawSRSagnac effectTheoryOfEverythingUlf DanielssonUnicornWien's displacement lawabsolute simultaneityaeroacousticsaniconismatmosphere spectrumaugmented realitybigbrunobutterfly effectchaotic systemconduction vs radiationcopernicuscosmological modelcritical thinkingdark age of sciencedefinition as factdynamical systememission spectrumemissvitygalileohäggströminteractive computationlogical fallacymattekomissionenmillikanpeer reviewpokerprypyrgeomterscientific methodseminarssimultaneityspiral galaxystability-wellposednessstring theorysvarta håltim balltyndallvon NeumannwellposednessÖppna GöteborgClaes Johnson on Mathematics and Sciencetowards understanding by critical constructive inquiryhttp://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)Blogger1605125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-5542049947544307408Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:21:00 +00002017-03-20T14:08:04.562+01:00climate politicsclimate scienceClimate Change Programmes: Waste of Money<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-budget-white-house-director-climate-change-combat-waste-money-us-president-epa-a7635826.html">The Independent</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2017/mar/17/white-house-climate-change-funding-waste-money-video">The Guardian</a> reports:<br /><ul><li><i>Donald Trump's budget director calls efforts to combat climate change "waste of money".</i></li><li><i>The budget proposal calls for deep cuts across various federal agencies responsible for different climate change actions.</i></li></ul><div>This means a historic shift from inhuman irrational political ideological extremism of CO2 climate change hysteria to science, rationality and humanity.</div><div><br /></div><div>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). </div><div><br /></div><div>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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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...)</div><div><br /></div><div>It remains for the EU to come to the same conclusion...and that will come even if the awakening will take some time...<br /><br /><b>PS</b> 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... </div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/03/climate-change-programmes-waste-of-money.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-3957916922789097954Sun, 19 Mar 2017 18:03:00 +00002017-03-20T11:04:59.099+01:00augmented realityfinite precision computationRealQMThe World as Analog Computation?!<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZtBGjc-w5A0/WM7RBppCrGI/AAAAAAAA99s/b01eACF4IO43BKmbLeLqjHWsMJD0rJ8AgCEw/s1600/augmentedreality.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="191" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZtBGjc-w5A0/WM7RBppCrGI/AAAAAAAA99s/b01eACF4IO43BKmbLeLqjHWsMJD0rJ8AgCEw/s320/augmentedreality.jpg" width="320" /></a></div> Augmented reality by digital simulation of analog reality.<br /><br /><a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.se/2017/03/no-we-probably-dont-live-in-computer.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Backreaction+(Backreaction)">Sabine Hossenfelder expresses on Backreaction:</a><br /><ul><li><i>No, we probably don’t live in a computer simulation!</i></li></ul><div>as a reaction to the <i>Simulation Hypothesis:</i></div><div><ul><li><i>According to Nick Bostrom of the Future of Humanity Institute, <a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/01/do-we-live-in-computer-simulation.html">it is likely that we live in a computer simulation</a>. And <a href="http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html">one of our biggest existential risks</a> is that the superintelligence running our simulation shuts it down. </i></li></ul></div><div>Sabine starts her discussion with</div><div><ul style="font-style: italic;"><li><i>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.</i></li></ul><div>And she gets support from <a href="http://motls.blogspot.se/2017/03/hossenfelder-sensibly-critical-of-our.html">Lubos Motl stating:</a></div><ul><li><i>Hossenfelder sensibly critical of our "simulated" world.</i></li></ul>Is it then meaningless to view the World as the result of analog computation? I don't think so, with arguments presented at <a href="https://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/">The World as Computation.</a></div><div><br /></div><div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>And the other way: If the world is not analog computation, then chances for simulation by digital computation are slim, and then what? </div><div><br /></div><div>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: <i>The World as a Clock</i> according to Laplace. Or more precisely, <i>The World as a Clock of Infinite Precision, </i>since the laws of physics are supposed to be satisfied exactly.</div><div><br /></div><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>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 <i>The World as a Clock of Finite Precision </i>and by giving Schrödinger's equation an alternative three-dimensional form <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26550356/realquantum.pdf">as realQM</a>, both inviting to simulation by digital computation. </div><div><br />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...<br /><br />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...</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><div><br /></div><div style="font-style: italic;"><br /></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-world-as-analog-computation.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-5762405134229697710Thu, 09 Mar 2017 19:37:00 +00002017-03-10T00:04:36.292+01:00matematik-ITRegeringen Beslutar om Programmering i Matematikämnet<a href="http://www.regeringen.se/pressmeddelanden/2017/03/starkt-digital-kompetens-i-laroplaner-och-kursplaner/">Regeringen har idag beslutat om förtydliganden och förstärkningar i bland annat läroplaner, kursplaner och ämnesplaner för grundskolan och gymnasieskolan</a>:<br /><ul><li><i>Syftet är att tydliggöra skolans uppdrag att stärka elevernas digitala kompetens.</i></li><li><i><b>Programmering införs</b> som ett tydligt inslag i flera olika ämnen i grundskolan, <b>framför allt i teknik och matematik.</b></i></li><li><i>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.</i></li></ul><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>Mitt bidrag för detta ändamål finns i form av <a href="http://matematik-it./">Matematik-IT.</a> </div><div><br /></div><div>Det finns starka konservativa krafter inom matematikutbildning från grundskola till universitet, som inte vill medverka till att bredda matematikämnet med programmering. </div><div><br /></div><div>Det finns starka krafter inom datalogi att ta hand om programmeringen i skolan enligt en princip av "datalogiskt tänkande".</div><div><br /></div><div>Matematikämnet står därmed inför det vägskäl som präglat hela mitt akademiska liv: </div><div><ol><li>Förnya/utvidga traditionell analytisk matematik med programmering = Matematik-IT.</li><li>Bevara traditionell matematikutbildning och låt inte programmering störa bilden.</li></ol><div>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...</div></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/03/regeringen-beslutar-om-programmering-i.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-5514657512178525088Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:32:00 +00002017-02-28T11:39:31.869+01:00RealQMUpdate of realQMI have put up an <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26550356/realquantum.pdf">update of realQM</a> for inspection, with Chapter 6 presenting the basic model.<br />It includes in particular the following remark on the difference between realQM and the stdQM of text books:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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! <br /><div><br /></div><br />http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/02/update-of-realqm.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-871702048933228677Fri, 24 Feb 2017 08:32:00 +00002017-02-26T09:25:06.942+01:00climate politicsclimate scienceSkeptics Letter Reaches the White House<a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-urged-by-climate-skeptics-to-exit-un-climate-pact/article/2615578">The Washington Examiner reports</a>:<br /><ul><li style="font-style: italic;"><i>Hundreds of scientists skeptical of <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/climate-change">climate change</a> urged <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/donald-trump">President Trump</a> on Thursday to withdraw from the United Nations framework on <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/global-warming">global warming</a>, arguing that doing so would support the administration's pro-jobs agenda and help "people bootstrap themselves out of poverty."</i></li><li style="font-style: italic;">The letter asserts that carbon dioxide, considered by many scientists to be the primary cause of <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/climate-change">climate change</a>, "is not a pollutant" at all, but a necessary ingredient for nourishing life on Earth.</li><li style="font-style: italic;"><i>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 <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/section/climate-change">Climate Change</a>.</i></li><li style="font-style: italic;">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.</li></ul><div>I was one of the 300 scientists signing the letter (<a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/25/richard-lindzen-petition-to-president-trump-withdraw-from-the-un-convention-on-climate-change/">here</a>).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/23/hundreds-scientists-urge-trump-withdraw-un-climate/">Also Washington Times reports on this historic letter</a>:<br /><ul><li><i>Hundreds of scientists urge Trump to withdraw from U.N. climate-change agency</i></li><li><i>MIT’s Richard Lindzen says policies cause economic harm with ‘no environmental benefits’.</i></li></ul></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/02/skeptics-letter-reaches-white-house.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-4115566320588065714Sat, 18 Feb 2017 12:16:00 +00002017-02-18T15:56:13.583+01:00climate politicsclimate scienceScott Pruitt New Director of EPA <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9vQx9G2zEfA/WKg6UuYymvI/AAAAAAAA9tw/TZeNP5Yv-PcOiM_98V4n97yKUb54GJ-FwCLcB/s1600/161207f-scott-pruitt.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="260" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9vQx9G2zEfA/WKg6UuYymvI/AAAAAAAA9tw/TZeNP5Yv-PcOiM_98V4n97yKUb54GJ-FwCLcB/s400/161207f-scott-pruitt.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div><br /></div><i><a href="http://dc-calamity.blogspot.se/2016/12/trumps-pick-for-epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html">Trump's Pick for EPA Chief Scott Pruitt: Climate Change Dissent Is Not a Crime</a></i><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://time.com/4675195/scott-pruitt-epa-confirmation/">Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has been sworn in to lead the Environmental Protection Agency</a> (EPA). </div><div><br /></div><div>Pruitt is expected to scrap the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan">Clean Power Plan</a> (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.</div><div><br /></div><div>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. </div><div><br /></div><div>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.<br /><br />This brings hope to the all poor people of the world that there can be energy and food for everybody! </div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/02/scott-pruitt-new-director-of-epa.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-2788170458360432982Sat, 11 Feb 2017 10:14:00 +00002017-02-11T19:24:50.961+01:00QM: Waves vs Particles: Schrödinger vs Born<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SwagfMq7qkE/WJ7jysikkaI/AAAAAAAA9sA/L1TkQb4ffiEADqi2ZW3awuVcmQBbG9HAACLcB/s1600/quote-his-erwin-schrodinger-s-private-life-seemed-strange-to-bourgeois-people-like-ourselves-max-born-68-4-0424.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="187" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SwagfMq7qkE/WJ7jysikkaI/AAAAAAAA9sA/L1TkQb4ffiEADqi2ZW3awuVcmQBbG9HAACLcB/s400/quote-his-erwin-schrodinger-s-private-life-seemed-strange-to-bourgeois-people-like-ourselves-max-born-68-4-0424.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />From <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Quantum-Mechanics-Interpretations-Perspective/dp/0471439584/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486808116&sr=1-1&keywords=jammer+quantum">The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics The Interpretations of QM in Historical Perspective by Max Jammer</a>, we collect the following account of Schrödinger's view of quantum mechanics as wave mechanics, in full correspondence with <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26550356/realquantum.pdf">realQM</a>:<br /><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><ul><li><i>Schrödinger interpreted quantum theory as a simple classical theory of waves. In his view, physical reality consists of waves and waves only. </i></li><li><i>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.</i></li><li><i>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). </i></li><li><i>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. </i></li><li><i>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." </i></li><li><i>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.</i></li></ul><div>We contrast with the following account of Born's view of quantum mechanics as particle statistics:</div><ul><li><i>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.</i></li><li><i>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: </i></li><li><i>"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."</i></li><li><i>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.</i></li><li><i>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. </i></li><li><i>Born's probability interpretation of quantum mechanics thus owes its existence to Einstein, who later became one of its most eloquent opponents.</i></li></ul><div>We<i> </i>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.<i> </i></div><div><i><br /></i></div>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:</div><div class="column"><ul><li><i>Born's original probabilistic interpretation <b>proved a dismal failure</b> if applied to the explanation of diffraction phenomena such as the diffraction of electrons. </i></li><li><i>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. </i></li><li><i>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, <b>disproves Born's original version of his probabilistic interpretation. </b></i></li><li><i>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. <b>The wave function must therefore be something physically rea</b>l and not merely a representation of our knowledge, if it refers to particles in the classical sense.</i></li></ul></div>Summing up: </div><div class="layoutArea"><ul><li>Real wave mechanics in the spirit of Schrödinger makes a lot of sense, and that is the starting point of realQM.</li><li>Born's particle statistics does not make sense, and the big trouble is that this is the text book version of quantum mechanics.</li></ul><div>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.<br /><br />In the end Schrödinger may be expected to take the game because <i>he has a most perfect and efficient brain</i>, according to Born.<br /><br />To get more perspective let us quote from Born's 1954 Nobel Lecture:<br /><ul><li><i>Einstein, De Broglie, and <b>Schrödinger</b> have <b>unceasingly stressed the unsatisfactory features of quantum mechanics and called for a return to the concepts of classical, Newtonian physics </b>while proposing ways in which this could be done without contradicting experimental facts. Such weighty views cannot be ignored. <b>Niels Bohr has gone to a great deal of trouble to refute the objections.</b> I, too, have ruminated upon them and believe I can make some contribution to the clarification of the position.</i></li><li><i><b>Schrödinger </b>thought that his wave theory made it possible to <b>return to deterministic classical physics</b>. He proposed (and he has recently emphasized his proposal anew’s), to dispense with the particle representation entirely, and <b>instead of speaking of electrons as particles, to consider them as a continuous density distribution or electric density. </b></i></li><li><i>To us in Göttingen this interpretation <b>seemed unacceptable</b> in face of well established experimental facts. At that time it was already possible to count particles by means of scintillations or with a <b>Geiger counter,</b> and to photograph their tracks with the aid of a <b>Wilson cloud chamber.</b></i></li></ul><div>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"...<br /><br />Born ends with:<br /><ul><li><i>How does it come about then, that great scientists such as Einstein, Schrö- dinger, and De Broglie are nevertheless dissatisfied with the situation? </i></li><li><i>Of course, all these objections are levelled not against the correctness of the formulae, but against their interpretation.</i></li><li><i>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 <b>somewhere in our doctrine is hidden a concept</b>, unjustified by experience, <b>which we must eliminate to open up the road.</b></i></li></ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y87W-fvSkbU/WJ9W4JaoltI/AAAAAAAA9sQ/fccVSsdzr_c62j3xOBsM5Aq3sETLNZ72ACLcB/s1600/whip.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Y87W-fvSkbU/WJ9W4JaoltI/AAAAAAAA9sQ/fccVSsdzr_c62j3xOBsM5Aq3sETLNZ72ACLcB/s320/whip.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div><b><i><br /></i></b></div></div></div><div class="page" title="Page 27"><div class="section" style="background-color: rgb(100.000000%, 100.000000%, 100.000000%);"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"></div></div></div></div></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/02/qm-waves-vs-particles-schrodinger-vs.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-4131534578676668972Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:39:00 +00002017-02-10T13:11:24.850+01:00RealQM2500 Years of Quantum Mechanics<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8ndZ6cRxrwo/WJ2lsq49VRI/AAAAAAAA9rs/3p-_4UEjq6kDUi5Z3yDH1C5pJxJuOLVugCLcB/s1600/atomism.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8ndZ6cRxrwo/WJ2lsq49VRI/AAAAAAAA9rs/3p-_4UEjq6kDUi5Z3yDH1C5pJxJuOLVugCLcB/s400/atomism.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div><br /></div>Erwin Schrödinger connects in <i>Nature and the Greeks</i> (1954) and in <i>2400 Jahre of Quantenmechanik</i> (1948) the standard Copenhagen Interpretation of his wave function of quantum mechanics, back to the Greek atomists Leucippus and Democritus (born around 460 BC) preceded by the view of Anaximenes (died about 526) disciple of Anaximander of matter as collections of "particles" as "indivisible smallest bodies separated by void" subject to "rarefaction and condensation". <br /><br />In the Copenhagen Interpretation wave functions are supposed to represent probability distributions of collections of electrons viewed as "particles in void" in the same way as the Greek atomists did 2500 years ago.<br /><br />The contribution from modern physics to this ancient view is the element of probability eliminating causality by stating that "particles" are supposed to "jump around", or "jiggle" in the terminology of Feynman, without cause and thus always be nowhere and everywhere in the void at the same time. <br /><br />Schrödinger compares this ancient "particle" view boosted by probability with his own opposite view that "all is waves without void obeying causality" as possibly a true advancement of physics. This is the starting point of <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26550356/realquantum.pdf">realQM</a>...as ontic/realistic/objective rather epistemic/idealistic/subjective... <br /><br />Recall Roger Penrose in Foreword to <i>Nature and the Greeks and Science and Humanism</i>:<br /><ul><li><i>Moreover, in my personal view, the more "objective" philosophical standpoints of Schrõdinger and Einstein with respect to quantum mechanics, are immeasurably superior to "subjective" ones of Heisenberg and Bohr. </i></li><li><i>While it is often held that the remarkable successes of quantum physics have led us to doubt the very existence of an "objective reality" at the quantum level of molecules, atoms and their constituent particles, the extraordinary precision of the quantum formalism - which means, essentially, of the Schrõdinger equation - signals to us that there must indeed be a "reality" at the quantum level, albeit an unfamiliar one, in order that there can be a "something" so accurately described by that very formalism.</i></li></ul><br />http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/02/2500-years-of-quantum-mechanics.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-2845355328400494384Tue, 07 Feb 2017 09:30:00 +00002017-02-07T10:31:42.387+01:00climate politicsclimate skepticTowards a New EPA Without CO2 AlarmismThe US Environmental Protection Agency EPA is facing a complete revision along a <a href="http://nordic.businessinsider.com/united-states-will-change-course-on-climate-policy-trump-official-myron-ebell-says-2017-1?r=US&IR=T">plan drawn by CO2 alarmism skeptic Mylon Ebell</a>, but EPA still trumpets the same old CO2 alarmism of the Obama administration under the head lines of<a href="https://www.epa.gov/climatechange"> Climate Change</a>:<br /><ul><li><i><b>Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change.</b></i></li><li><i>Over the past century, human activities have released<b> large amounts of carbon dioxide</b> and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. </i></li><li><i><b>Greenhouse gases act like a blanket</b> around Earth,<b> trapping energy</b> in the atmosphere and <b>causing it to warm.</b> This phenomenon is called <b>the greenhouse effect</b>... and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup of greenhouse gases can change Earth's climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and to ecosystems.</i></li></ul><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/emissions-at-sunset.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/emissions-at-sunset.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />The reason that this propaganda is still on the EPA web page can only be that the new director of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/18/scott-pruitt-confirmation-hearing-epa-key-points">EPA Scott Pruitt has not yet been confirmed</a>. It will be interesting to see the new web page after Pruitt has implemented the plan of Ebell to dismantle CO2 alarmism...in the US...and then...http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/02/towards-new-epa-without-co2-alarmism.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-992599184185486967Sun, 05 Feb 2017 10:24:00 +00002017-02-06T21:03:17.527+01:00RealQMFrom Meaningless Towards Meaningful QM?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vatcm5Jq7Uc/WJb-GyL6iLI/AAAAAAAA9qo/BQCBeP6QmesdwobMOaqY7LHfiePLyk3fwCLcB/s1600/quote-i-think-i-can-safely-say-that-nobody-understands-quantum-mechanics-richard-feynman-228654.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="187" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vatcm5Jq7Uc/WJb-GyL6iLI/AAAAAAAA9qo/BQCBeP6QmesdwobMOaqY7LHfiePLyk3fwCLcB/s400/quote-i-think-i-can-safely-say-that-nobody-understands-quantum-mechanics-richard-feynman-228654.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />The Schrödinger equation as the basic model of atom physics descended as a heavenly gift to humanity in an act of godly inspiration inside the mind of Erwin Schrödinger in 1926.<br /><br />But the gift showed to hide poison: Nobody could give the equation a physical meaning understandable to humans, and that unfortunate situation has prevailed into our time as <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02537">expressed by Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg</a> (and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lectures-Quantum-Mechanics-Steven-Weinberg/dp/1107028728">here</a>):<br /><ul><li><i>In searching for an interpretation of quantum mechanics we seem to be faced with <b>nothing but bad choices.</b></i></li><li><i>My own conclusion (not universally shared) is that today there is <b>no interpretation of quantum mechanics that does not have serious flaws</b>, and that we ought to take seriously the possibility of finding some more satisfactory other theory, to which quantum mechanics is merely a good approximation.</i></li></ul><div>Weinberg's view is a theme on the educated physics blogosphere of today:</div><ul><li><a href="http://backreaction.blogspot.se/2017/02/testing-quantum-foundations-with-atomic.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+Backreaction+(Backreaction)">Testing Quantum Foundations With Atomic Clocks</a> (Sabine)</li><li><a href="http://motls.blogspot.se/2017/02/lindblad-equation-cant-solve-any.html">Lindblad equation can't solve any "problems" of quantum mechanics</a> (Lubos)</li></ul><div>Sabine agrees with Weinberg that "there are serious problems", while Lubos insists that "there are no problems".</div><div><br /></div><div>There are two approaches to mathematical modelling of the physical world:</div><div><ol><li>Pick symbols to form a mathematical expression/equation and then try to give it a meaning.</li><li>Have a meaningful thought and then try to express it as a mathematical expression/equation. </li></ol><div>Schrödinger's equation was formed more according to 1. rather than 2. and has resisted all efforts to be given a physical meaning. Interpreting Schrödinger's equation has shown to be like interpreting the Bible as authored by God rather than human minds.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>What makes Schrödinger's equation so difficult to interpret in physical terms, is that it depends on $3N$ spatial variables for an atom with $N$ electrons, while an atom with all its electrons seems to share experience in a common 3-d space. Here is how Weinberg describes the generalisation from $N=1$ in 3 space dimensions to $N>1$ in $3N$ space dimensions as "obvious": <br /><ul><li><i>More than that, Schrödinger’s equation had an <b>obvious generalisation to general systems.</b></i></li></ul></div><div>Weinberg takes for granted that what "is obvious" does not have to be explained. But everything in rational physics needs rational argumentation and nothing "is obvious", and so this is where quantum mechanics branches off from rational physics. If what is claimed to be "obvious" in fact lacks rational argument, then it may simply be all wrong. The generalisation of Schrödinger's equation to $N>1$ fell into that trap, and that is the tragedy of modern physics.<br /><br />There is nothing "obvious" in the sense of "frequently encountered" in the generalisation of Schrödinger's equation from 3 space dimensions to 3N space dimension, since it is a giant leap away from reality and as such utterly "non-obvious" and "never encountered" before.<br /><br />In <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26550356/realquantum.pdf">realQM</a> I suggest a different form of Schrödinger's equation as a system in 3d with physical meaning.</div><div><br /><b>PS</b> Note how <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Lectures-Quantum-Mechanics-Steven-Weinberg/dp/1107028728">Weinberg describes</a> the foundation of quantum mechanics:<br /><ul><li><i>The first postulate of quantum mechanics is that physical states can be represented as vectors in a <b>sort of abstract space known as Hilbert space</b>.</i></li><li><i>According to the second postulate of quantum mechanics, observable physical quantities like position, momentum, energy, etc., are represented as <b>Hermitian operators on Hilbert space.</b> </i></li></ul>We see that these postulates are purely formal and devoid of physics. We see that the notion of <i>Hilbert space</i> and <i>Hermitian operator</i> are elevated to have a mystical divine quality, as if Hilbert and Hermite were gods like Zeus (physics of the sky) and Poseidon (physics of the sea)...much of the mystery of quantum mechanics comes from assigning meaning to such formalities without meaning...<br /><br />The idea that the notion of Hilbert space is central to quantum mechanics was supported by an idea that Hilbert space as a key ingredient in the "modern mathematics" created by Hilbert 1926-32 should be the perfect tool for "modern physics", an idea explored in von Neumann's monumental <a href="https://books.google.se/books?id=JLyCo3RO4qUC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false">Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics</a>. Here the linearity of Schrödinger's equation is instrumental and its many dimensions doesn't matter, but it appears that von Neumann missed the physics:<br /><br /><ul><li><i>I would like to make a confession which may seem immoral: I do not believe absolutely in Hilbert space no more. </i>(von Neumann to Birkhoff 1935)</li></ul></div><div><br /></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/02/towards-meaningful-qm.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-8497481534815209993Fri, 03 Feb 2017 13:20:00 +00002017-02-07T09:13:50.445+01:00Kiehl-Trenberthmyth of backradiationradiative heat transferStefan-Boltzmann's LawUnphysical Basis of CO2 Alarmism = Hoax<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s5B-voJEHrk/WJSBC1Jv1gI/AAAAAAAA9qM/6gcb1o-RMI4uJovzjPcvMBtT62f7WPwngCLcB/s1600/Kiehl.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="293" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s5B-voJEHrk/WJSBC1Jv1gI/AAAAAAAA9qM/6gcb1o-RMI4uJovzjPcvMBtT62f7WPwngCLcB/s400/Kiehl.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />CO2 alarmism is based on an unphysical version of Stefan-Boltzmann's Law and associated Schwarzschild equations for radiative heat transfer stating a two-way radiative heat transfer from-warm-to-cold and from-cold-to-warm with net transfer as the difference between the two-way transfers.<br /><br />This is expressed as "back radiation" from a colder atmosphere to warmer Earth surface in Kiehl-Trenberth's Global energy budget (above) and in Pierrehumbert's <a href="https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf">Infrafred radiation and planetary temperature</a> based on Schwarzschild's equations, presented as the physical basis of CO2 alarmism.<br /><br />In extended writing I have exposed the unphysical nature of radiative heat transfer from-cold-to-warm as violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, see e.g.<br /><ul><li><a href="http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf">Mathematical Physics of Blackbody Radiation</a></li><li><a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2015/04/unphysical-schwarzschild-vs-physical.html">Unphysical Schwarzschild vs Physical Model for Radiative Transfer</a></li></ul><div>Massive two-way radiative heat transfer between two bodies is unphysical because it is unstable, with the net transfer arising from the difference between two gross quantities, and the 2nd law says that Nature cannot work that way: There is only transfer from-warm-to-cold and there can be no transfer from-cold-to-warm. Radiative heat transfer is always one-way from-warm-to-cold.</div><div><br /></div><div>CO2 alarmism is thus based on a picture of massive radiative heat transfer back-and-forth between atmosphere and Earth surface (see above picture), as an unstable system threatening to go into "run-away-global-warming" at slightest perturbation. But there is no true physics behind this picture, only alarmist fiction. </div><div><br /></div><div>Real physics indicates that global climate is stable rather than unstable, and as such insensitive to a very small change of the composition of the atmosphere upon doubling of CO2. There is little/no scientific evidence indicating that the effect could be measurable, that is be bigger than 0.5 C.</div><div><br /></div><div>Note that climate models use Schwarzschild's equations to describe radiative heat transfer and the fact that these equations do not describe true physics is a death-blow to the current practice of climate simulation used to sell CO2 alarmism.<br /><br />So, when you meet the argument that Pierrehumbert is an authority on infrared radiation and planetary temperature, you can say that this is not convincing because Pierrehumbert is using incorrect physics (which also comes out by the fact that he forgets gravitation as the true origin of the very high temperature on the surface of Venus and not radiation).<br /><br />If now CO2 alarmism is based on incorrect physics or non-physics, then it may be fair to describe it as "hoax".<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EM-SXFmuLeY/WJmBrpY_B_I/AAAAAAAA9rU/sGojvKFokasYuysXvY6HTYSL8amBFzUzgCLcB/s1600/climate-change-hoax.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="248" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-EM-SXFmuLeY/WJmBrpY_B_I/AAAAAAAA9rU/sGojvKFokasYuysXvY6HTYSL8amBFzUzgCLcB/s320/climate-change-hoax.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br />Think of it: Suppose that "scientific consensus" through MSM is bombarding you with a message that the Earth has to be evacuated because there is imminent fear that the "sky is going to fall down" because Newton's law of gravitation says that "everything is pulled down". Would you then say that "since it is said so it must be so" or would you say that this is a non-physical misinterpretation of Newton's law? Think of it!<br /><br />The <a href="https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-2">edX course Making Sense of Climate Science Denial</a> is a typical example of the CO2 alarmism based on the incorrect physics of "back radiation", which is forcefully trumpeted by the educational system, as illustrated in the following key picture of the course:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qe5cRKPJing/WJl2u2s-2BI/AAAAAAAA9rE/CPl-Vn_beYQ-gWsND2a_hqqpxZ3jcO1TQCLcB/s1600/GHG3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qe5cRKPJing/WJl2u2s-2BI/AAAAAAAA9rE/CPl-Vn_beYQ-gWsND2a_hqqpxZ3jcO1TQCLcB/s400/GHG3.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /><br /></div><div><br /></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/02/unphysical-basis-of-co2-alarmism.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-6005288808877291105Tue, 31 Jan 2017 21:14:00 +00002017-02-02T21:02:54.939+01:00The End of CO2 Alarmism<a href="https://cei.org/expert/myron-ebell">Myron Ebell</a> has formed the new US policy on climate and energy as leader of the EPA transition team and now reveals that indeed Trump will do what he said on that issue. <a href="http://www.thegwpf.com/trump-to-honour-pledge-to-withdraw-from-paris-agreement-ebell-says/">Listen</a>:<br /><ul><li><i>Climate sensitivity to CO2 emission vastly exaggerated.</i></li><li><i>Climate industrial complex a very dangerous special interest.</i></li></ul>And read about this historic press conference:<br /><ul><li><a href="http://joannenova.com.au/2017/02/trump-moves-hands-on-doomsday-clock-for-the-epa-and-the-paris-climate-agreement/">Trump moves hands on Doomsday clock for the EPA and the Paris Climate Agreement</a></li><li><a href="http://www.breitbart.com/london/2017/01/31/delingpole-trumps-climate-plans-made-medias-heads-explode/">DELINGPOLE: Trump’s Climate Plans Just Made the Media’s Heads Explode</a></li><li><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/donald-trump-myron-ebell-theresa-may-climate-change-global-warming-environment-a7555371.html">Donald Trump advisor and climate change denier Myron Ebell goes to Number 10</a></li><li><a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/56877460.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst">US will change course on climate policy, says EPA's Myron Ebell </a></li><li><a href="http://nordic.businessinsider.com/united-states-will-change-course-on-climate-policy-trump-official-myron-ebell-says-2017-1?r=US&IR=T">Trump's former EPA transition head has a 'message of hope' about how the government will dismantle environmental policies</a></li><li><a href="http://www.dw.com/en/climate-skeptic-advisor-says-trump-could-pull-out-of-paris-climate-agreement-in-days/a-37351108">Climate skeptic advisor says Trump could pull out of Paris climate agreement in days</a></li><li><a href="https://cei.org/content/former-trump-official-says-white-house-will-back-out-paris-agreement-very-soon">Former Trump Official Says White House Will Back Out Of Paris Agreement Very Soon</a></li></ul>The question is how long it will take before a complete global exodus from the Paris agreement will take place. It may go very quick, once the ball starts to roll...maybe in days...<br /><br />Upcoming:<br /><br /><a href="https://cei.org/content/trump-administration-and-environment-reporter%E2%80%99s-primer-featuring-myron-ebell">The Trump Administration and the Environment: A Reporter’s Primer Featuring Myron Ebell</a><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k1x7c1v8Qoo/WJGbr1C41qI/AAAAAAAA9pg/7QmLnSCRjggC3fHxcwBf-coqxlz_UYe8gCLcB/s1600/Fun-Panikken-over-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-k1x7c1v8Qoo/WJGbr1C41qI/AAAAAAAA9pg/7QmLnSCRjggC3fHxcwBf-coqxlz_UYe8gCLcB/s400/Fun-Panikken-over-2.jpg" width="303" /></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-end-of-co2-alarmism.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-1370150576563431602Tue, 31 Jan 2017 19:03:00 +00002017-02-06T13:29:21.580+01:00RealQMRadiation as Superposition or Jumping?This is a continuation of <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2017/01/why-atomic-emission-spectrum-as-e2-e1h.html">this post</a> on understanding of atomic radiation of frequency $E_2-E_1$ as resonance of "superposition of two eigenstates" of different frequencies $E_2>E_1$ according to realQM.<br /><br />In the standard view of the Copenhagen Interpretation by Bohr as stdQM, radiation is instead connected to the "jumping" of electrons between two energies/frequencies $E_2>E_2".<br /><br />Which is more convincing: Superposition or jumping?<br /><br />Superposition connects to linearity and realQM, while not linear (for more than one electron), may still show features of "near linearity" and thus allow understanding in the form of "superposition", while realQM carries full non-linear dynamics.<br /><br />On the other hand, "jumping" of electrons in stdQM either requires new physics, which is missing, or has no meaning at all.<br /><br />This connects to the non-physical nature of the atom of stdQM <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2017/01/physical-interpretation-of-quantum.html">discussed in a previous post</a> presenting a contradiction in particular in the case of atomic radiation, where atoms are observed to interact with the physics of electro-magnetics and thus must be physical, because interaction between non-physics and physics is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis">telekinesis or psychokinesis</a>, which is viewed as pseudo-science:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Cm1W7W1YyfM/WJDkbCw5P4I/AAAAAAAA9pM/tEP67P9BxgQ7RceKxV_8E5nIFS0MFwEAACLcB/s1600/shutterstock_4477507.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Cm1W7W1YyfM/WJDkbCw5P4I/AAAAAAAA9pM/tEP67P9BxgQ7RceKxV_8E5nIFS0MFwEAACLcB/s400/shutterstock_4477507.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />String theory and multiversa are spin-offs of stdQM with the non-physical aspects driven to an extreme, and accordingly by many physicists viewed as pseudo-science.<br /><br /><b>PS</b> In <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0609184v2.pdf">Quantum Theory at the Crossroads Reconsidering the Solvay Conference 1927</a> we read (p 132):<br /><ul><li><i>In 1926, with the development of wave mechanics, Schrödinger saw a new possibility of conceiving a mechanism for radiation: the superposition of two waves would involve two frequencies and emitted radiation could be understood as some kind of "difference tone" (or beat).</i></li><li><i>In his first paper on quantisation, Schrödinger states that this picture would "much more pleasing than the one of quantum jump".</i></li><li><i>This idea is still the basis of today's semi-classical radiation theory (often used in quantum optics), that is, the determination of classical electromagnetic radiation from the current associated with a charge density proportional to $\vert\psi\vert^2$.</i></li><li><i>The second paper refers to radiation only in passing.</i></li></ul><div>Clearly, Schrödinger was heading in a fruitful direction, but he was stopped by Born, Bohr and Heisenberg.</div><br /><br />http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/radiation-as-superposition-or-jumping.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-5690530275833123361Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:09:00 +00002017-01-31T10:06:10.016+01:00RealQMTowards a Model of AtomsIn my search for a realistic atom model I have found the following pieces:<br /><ol><li>Atom in ground state as harmonic oscillator: 3d free boundary Schrödinger equation: <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26550356/realquantum.pdf">realQM.</a></li><li>Radiating atom as harmonic oscillator with small Abraham-Lorentz damping: <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2017/01/model-of-radiating-atom.html">previous post</a> and <a href="http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/ambsblack.pdf">Mathematical Physics of Black Body Radiation.</a></li><li>Radiating atoms in collective resonance with exterior electromagnetic field with acoustic analog: <a href="https://itunes.apple.com/se/app/piano-secret-newmath/id1095111029?l=en&mt=8">Piano Secret</a> </li></ol><div>which I hope to assemble into a model which can describe:</div><div><ul><li>ground states and excited states as solutions of a 3d free boundary Schrödinger equation </li><li>emission and absorption of light by collections of atoms in collective in phase resonance with an exterior electromagnetic field generated by oscillating atomic electric charge and associated Abraham-Lorentz damping. </li></ul><div>The key concepts entering into such a model describing in particular matter-light interaction, are:</div></div><div><ul><li>physical deterministic computable 3d continuum model of atom as kernel + electrons</li><li>electrons as clouds of charge subject to Coulomb and compression forces</li><li>no conceptual difference between micro and macro</li><li>no probability, no multi-d </li><li>generalised harmonic oscillator</li><li>small damping from Abraham-Lorentz force from oscillating electro charge</li><li>near resonant forcing with half period phase shift</li><li>collective phase coordination by resonance between many atoms and one exterior field. </li></ul></div><div>Note that matter-light interaction is the scope of Quantum Electro Dynamics or Quantum Field Theory, which are very difficult to understand and use.<br /><br />What I seek is something which can be understood and which is useful. A model in the spirit of Schrödinger as a deterministic 3d multi-species continuum mechanical wave model of microscopic atoms interacting with macroscopic electromagnetics. I don't see that anything like that is available in the literature within the Copenhagen Interpretation of Bohr or any of its clones...<br /><br />Schrödinger passed away in 1961 after a life in opposition to Bohr since 1926 when his equation was hijacked, but his spirit lives...<br /><br />...compare with the following trivial text book picture of atomic radiation in the spirit of Bohr:<br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ijn4ykxSiTY/WI-cDc1uniI/AAAAAAAA9o0/-FlmCqVxxiQVvyN7HEajRnOgHauwn5zLgCLcB/s1600/atomic-emission-spectra-mechanism.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="113" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Ijn4ykxSiTY/WI-cDc1uniI/AAAAAAAA9o0/-FlmCqVxxiQVvyN7HEajRnOgHauwn5zLgCLcB/s320/atomic-emission-spectra-mechanism.gif" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-radiating-atom-2.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-7005420024990645775Sun, 29 Jan 2017 08:56:00 +00002017-01-30T18:55:36.729+01:00black body radiationRealQMThe Radiating Atom In the analysis on <a href="https://computationalblackbody.wordpress.com/">Computational Blackbody Radiation</a> I used the following model of a harmonic oscillator of frequency $\omega$ with small damping $\gamma >0$ subject to near resonant forcing $f(t)$:<br /><ul><li>$\ddot u+\omega^2u-\gamma\dddot u=f(t)$</li></ul><div>with the following characteristic energy balance between outgoing and incoming energy:</div><div><ul><li>$\gamma\int\ddot u^2dt =\int f^2dt$</li></ul><div>with integration over a time period and the dot signifying differentiation with respect to time $t$. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>An extension to Schrödingers equation written as a system of real-valued wave functions $\phi$ and $\psi$ may take the form</div><div><ul><li>$\dot\phi +H\psi -\gamma\dddot \psi = f(t)$ (1)</li><li>$-\dot\psi +H\phi -\gamma\dddot \phi = g(t)$ (2)</li></ul><div>where $H$ is a Hamiltonian, $f(t)$ and $g(t)$ represent near-resonant forcing, and $\gamma =\gamma (\dot \rho )\ge 0$ with $\gamma (0)=0$ and $\rho =\phi^2 +\psi^2$ is charge density.</div><div><br /></div><div>This model carries the characteristics displayed of the model $\ddot\phi+H^2\phi =0$ as the 2nd order in time model obtained after eliminating $\psi$ in the case $\gamma =0$ as displayed in a <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2015/01/physical-quantum-mechanics-4.html">previous post.</a> </div><div><br /></div><div>In particular, multiplication of (1) by $\phi$ and (2) by $-\psi$ and addition gives conservation of charge if $f(t)\phi -g(t)\psi =0$ as a natural phase shift condition. </div><div><br /></div><div>Further, multiplication of (1) by $\dot\psi$ and (2) by $\dot\phi$ and addition gives a balance of total energy as inner energy plus radiated energy </div></div><div><ul><li>$\int (\phi H\phi +\psi H\psi)dt +\gamma\int (\ddot\phi^2 +\ddot\psi^2)dt$</li></ul><div>in terms of work of forcing.</div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/model-of-radiating-atom.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-2984138759742302774Sat, 28 Jan 2017 13:00:00 +00002017-01-29T20:14:00.809+01:00RealQMPhysical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Needed<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nEkGEi59XGE/WI0Ii76ZxMI/AAAAAAAA9oY/LUC-gPq6fTM4Z_Vl07ER-Z0t9nXdC-mWgCLcB/s1600/quote-an-independant-reality-in-the-ordinary-physical-sense-can-neither-be-ascribed-to-the-niels-bohr-53-3-0351.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="187" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nEkGEi59XGE/WI0Ii76ZxMI/AAAAAAAA9oY/LUC-gPq6fTM4Z_Vl07ER-Z0t9nXdC-mWgCLcB/s400/quote-an-independant-reality-in-the-ordinary-physical-sense-can-neither-be-ascribed-to-the-niels-bohr-53-3-0351.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />The standard text book Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics formed by Bohr is a not a realist physical theory about "what is", but instead an idealist/positivist non-physical probabilistic theory of "what we can know".<br /><br />This has led modern physics into a black hole of endless fruitless speculations with the Many Worlds Interpretation by Everett as the absurd result of anyway seeking to give a physical meaning to the non-physical Copenhagen Interpretation.<br /><br />Now, it is a fact that the microscopic world of atoms interacts with the macroscopic world we perceive as being real physical. If the microscopic world is declared to be non-real non-physical, then the interaction becomes a mystery. That real physics can interact with real physics is obvious, but to think of interaction between non-real and real physics makes you dizzy as expressed so well by Bohr:<br /><ul><li><i>Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.</i></li><li><i>Anyone who can contemplate quantum mechanics whit getting dizzy, hasn't understood it.</i></li></ul>The emission spectrum of an atom shows that atom microscopics does interact with electromagnetic macroscopics. Physicists are paid to describe this interaction, but following Bohr this was and still is impossible, and the question is if the pay should continue...<br /><div><br /></div><div>In <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26550356/realquantum.pdf">realQM</a> atoms are real as composed of clouds of electric charge around a kernel and the emission spectrum is explained as the result of charge oscillation within atoms in resonance with exterior electromagnetic waves. <br /><br />To keep being paid a physicist would say: Look, after all an atom is real as being composed of electron "particles orbiting" a kernel, and the non-real aspect is just that the physics is hidden to inspection and that we cannot know the whereabouts of these particles over time. So atoms are real but the nature of the reality is beyond human perception because you get dizzy when seeking to understand.<br /><br />In particular it is to Bohr inexplicable that electron particles orbiting a kernel of an atom in ground state do not radiate and allows the ground state to be stable.<br /><br />In realQM the charge distribution of an atom in ground state does not change in time and thus is not source of radiation and the atom can remain stable. On the other hand the charge distribution of a superposition of ground and excited states does vary with time and thus may radiate at the beat frequency as the difference between excited and ground frequency.<br /><br />To Bohr contact with the inner microscopic world of an atom from the macroscopic would take place at a moment of observation, but that leaves out the constant interaction between micro and macro-scopics taking place in radiation.<br /><br />An atom in ground state is not radiating and the inner mechanics of the atom is closed to inspection.<br />For this case one could argue that Bohr's view could be upheld, since one would be free to describe the inner mechanics in many different ways, for example in terms of probabilities of electron particle configurations, all impossible to experimentally verify.<br /><br />The relevant problem is then the radiating atom in interaction with an outer macroscopic world and here Bohr has little to say because he believes that interaction micro-macro takes place only at observation in the form of "collapse of the wave function". <br /><br />A real actuality of the inner mechanics of an atom may interact with an actual real outer world, with or without probability, but a probability of an inner particle mechanics of an atom cannot interact with an outer reality, and Bohr discards the first option...actualities can interact but not potentialities...<br /><br />Let me sum up: The inner microscopics of a radiating atom interacts with outer macroscopics, and the interaction requires the microscopics to share physics with the macroscopics. This not the case in The Copenhagen Interpretation which thus must be false. </div><div><br /> </div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/physical-interpretation-of-quantum.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-4444485629319254415Thu, 26 Jan 2017 14:21:00 +00002017-01-28T10:01:45.384+01:00emission spectrumWhy Atomic Emission at Beat Frequencies Only?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8RhDFu80Yrs/WIo-9s35L5I/AAAAAAAA9oA/O7N7iGAfsTwLS8y4Ezh4D5Nmq15oyGGVACLcB/s1600/slide_80.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-8RhDFu80Yrs/WIo-9s35L5I/AAAAAAAA9oA/O7N7iGAfsTwLS8y4Ezh4D5Nmq15oyGGVACLcB/s320/slide_80.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />An atom can emit radiation of frequency $\nu =E_2-E_1$ (with Planck's constant $h$ normalized to unity and allowing to replace energy by frequency) and $E_2>E_1$ are two frequencies as eigenvalues $E$ of a Hamiltonian $H$ with corresponding eigenfunction $\psi (x)$ depending on a space coordinate $x$ satisfying $H\psi =E\psi$ and corresponding wave function $\Psi (x,t)=\exp(iEt)\psi (x)$ satisfying Schrödingers wave equation<br /><ul><li>$i\frac{\partial\Psi}{\partial t}+H\Psi =0$</li></ul><div>and $t$ is a time variable.</div><div><br /></div>Why is the emission spectrum generated by differences $E_2-E_1$ of frequencies of the Hamiltonian as "beat frequencies" and not the frequencies $E_2$ and $E_1$ themselves? Why does an atom interact/resonate with an electromagnetic field of beat frequency $E_2-E_1$, but not $E_2$ or $E_1$?<br /><br />In particular, why is the ground state of smallest frequency stable by refusing electromagnetic resonance? <br /><br />This was the question confronting Bohr 1913 when trying to build a model of the atom in terms of classical mechanics terms. Bohr's answer was that "for some reason" only certain "electron orbits" with certain frequencies "are allowed" and that "for some reason" these electron orbits cannot resonate with an electromagnetic field, and then suggested that observed resonances at beat frequencies came from "electrons jumping between energy levels". This was not convincing and prepared the revolution into quantum mechanics in 1926.<br /><br /><a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26550356/realquantum.pdf">Real Quantum Mechanics</a> realQM gives the following answer: The charge density $\vert\Psi (t,x)\vert^2=\psi^2(x)$ of a wave function $\Psi (x,t)=\exp(iEt)\psi (x)$ with $\psi (x)$ satisfying $H\psi =E\psi$, does not vary with time and as such does not radiate.<br /><br />On the other hand the difference $\Psi =\Psi_2-\Psi_1$ between two wave functions $\Psi_1(x,t)=\exp(iE_1t)\psi_1(x)$ and $\Psi_2(x,t)=\exp(iE_2t)\psi_2(x)$ with $H\psi_1=E_1$ and<br />$H\psi_2=E_2\psi_2$, is a solution to Schrödinger's equation and can be written<br /><ul><li>$\Psi (x,t)=\exp(iE_1t)(\exp(i(E_2-E_1)t)\psi_2(x)-\psi_1(x))$</li></ul><div>with corresponding charge density</div><div><ul><li>$\vert\Psi (t,x)\vert^2 = \vert\exp(i(E_2-E_1)t)\psi_2(x)-\psi_1(x)\vert^2$</li></ul><div>with a visible time variation in space scaling with $(E_2-E_1)$ and associated radiation of frequency $E_2-E_1$ as a beat frequency. </div><div><br /></div><div>Superposition of two eigenstates thus may radiate because the corresponding charge density varies in space with time, while pure eigenstates have charge densities which do not vary with time and thus do not radiate.<br /><br />In realQM electrons are thought of as "clouds of charge" of density $\vert\Psi\vert^2$ with physical presence, which is not changing with time in pure eigenstates and thus does not radiate, while superpositions of eigenstates do vary with time and thus may radiate, because a charge oscillating at a certain frequency generates a electric field oscillating at the same frequency.<br /><br />In standard quantum mechanics stdQM $\vert\Psi\vert^2$ is instead interpreted as probability of configuration of electrons as particles, which lacks physical meaning and as such does not appear to allow an explanation of the non-radiation/resonance of pure eigenstates and radiation/resonance at beat frequencies. In stdQM electrons are nowhere and everywhere at the same time, and it is declared that speaking of electron (or charge) motion is nonsensical and then atom radiation remains as inexplicable as to Bohr in 1913. <br /><br />So the revolution of classical mechanics into quantum mechanics driven by Bohr's question and unsuccessful answer, does not seem to present any real answer. Or does it?<br /><br /><b>PS</b> I have already written about The Radiating Atom in a <a href="http://laesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/radiating%20atom">sequence of posts 1-11</a> with in particular <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2014/11/the-radiating-atom-3-resolution-of.html">3: Resolution of Schrödinger's Enigma</a> connecting to this post.<br /><br /></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/why-atomic-emission-spectrum-as-e2-e1h.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-142139048960164442Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:22:00 +00002017-01-25T19:30:37.988+01:00matematik-ITNy Läroplan med Programmering på Regeringens Bord<a href="http://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/gavleborg/programmering-allt-viktigare">SVT Nyheter i Gävleborg</a> meddelar att den nya läroplanen med programmering som nytt studieämne nu ligger på Regeringens bord för beslut och att flera skolor i Gävle och Sandviken redan rivstartat och infört ämnet.<br /><br />Snart måste övriga skolor följa efter. Mitt bidrag för att möta behovet av nya läromedel är <a href="https://matematikit.wordpress.com/">Matematik-IT</a>, färdigt att provas!http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/ny-laroplan-med-programmering-pa.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-6610999003042807799Tue, 24 Jan 2017 20:40:00 +00002017-01-25T22:40:54.657+01:00black body radiationfinite precision computationRealQMIs the Quantum World Really Inexplicable in Classical Terms?Peter Holland describes in the opening statement of <a href="http://www.cambridge.org/se/academic/subjects/physics/theoretical-physics-and-mathematical-physics/quantum-theory-motion-account-de-broglie-bohm-causal-interpretation-quantum-mechanics?format=PB&isbn=9780521485432">The Quantum Theory of Motion</a> the state of the art of modern physics in the form of quantum mechanics, as follows:<br /><ul><li><i>The quantum world is <b>inexplicable in classical terms.</b></i></li><li><i>The predictions pertaining to the interaction of matter and light embodied in Newton's laws of motion and Maxwell's equations governing the propagation of electromagnetic fields, are in <b>flat contradiction with the experimental facts at the microscopic scale.</b></i></li><li><i>A key feature of quantum effects is their apparent indeterminism, that individual atomic events are <b>unpredictable, uncontrollable and literally seem to have no cause.</b></i></li><li><i>Regularities emerge onlywhen one considers a large ensemble of such events.</i></li><li><i>This indeed is <b>generally considered</b> to constitute the heart of the conceptual problems posed by quantum phenomena, necessitating a<b> fundamental revision of the deterministic classical world view.</b></i></li></ul><div>No doubt this describes the predicament of modern physics and it is a sad story: It is nothing but a total collapse of rationality, and as far as I can understand, there are no compelling reasons to give up the core principles of classical continuum physics so well expressed in Maxwell's equations. </div><div><br /></div><div>If classical continuum physics is modified just a little by adding a new element of <i>finite precision computation,</i> then the apparent contradiction of the ultra-violet catastrophe of black-body radiation as the root of "quantization", can be circled and rationality maintained. You can find these my arguments by browsing the labels to this post and the web sites <a href="https://computationalblackbody.wordpress.com/">Computational Black Body Radiation</a> and <a href="https://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/">The World as Computation</a> with further development in the book <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26550356/realquantum.pdf">Real Quantum Mechanics.</a><br /><br />And so No, it may not be necessary to give up the deterministic classical world view when doing atom physics, the view which gave us Maxwell's equations and opened a new world of electro-magnetics connecting to atoms. It may suffice to modify the deterministic classical view just a little bit without losing anything to make it work also for atom physics.<br /><br />After all, what can be more deterministic than the ground state of a Hydrogen atom?<br /><br />Of course, this is not a message that is welcomed by physicists, who have been locked since 90 years into finding evidence that quantum mechanics is inexplicable, by inventing contradictions of concepts without physical reality. The root to such contradictions (like wave-particle duality) is the linear multi-d Schrödinger equation which is picked from the air as a formality without physics content, but just because of that being inexplicable. To advance, it seems that a new Schrödinger equation with physical meaning should be derived...<br /><br />The question is how to generalise Schrödinger's equation for the Hydrogen atom with one electron, which works fine and can be understood, to Helium with two electrons and so on...The question is then how the two electrons of Helium find co-existence around the kernel. In Real Quantum Mechanics they split 3d space without overlap....like East and West of global politics or Germany...<br /><br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oOKBKkvme9M/WIivOULSs-I/AAAAAAAA9nc/IA1dm2IXly80YByRd-6KhTwpWpxS6TlRgCLcB/s1600/resized_image2_0b9b3f159bb85f858648493f58b6ab53.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oOKBKkvme9M/WIivOULSs-I/AAAAAAAA9nc/IA1dm2IXly80YByRd-6KhTwpWpxS6TlRgCLcB/s320/resized_image2_0b9b3f159bb85f858648493f58b6ab53.jpg" width="244" /></a></div><br /><br /></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/is-quantum-world-really-inexplicable-in.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-4881334346531704400Tue, 24 Jan 2017 09:21:00 +00002017-01-24T13:54:30.088+01:00Copenhagen Interpretationquantum mechanics Quantum Mechanics as Retreat to (German) Romantic Irrational Ideal<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-brOYiXtVLXk/WIcdBlnY6rI/AAAAAAAA9m0/9t1dpd0DuBU60qorVXFAeXoUu5_6n-NngCLcB/s1600/5150e3y%252BkkL._SX331_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-brOYiXtVLXk/WIcdBlnY6rI/AAAAAAAA9m0/9t1dpd0DuBU60qorVXFAeXoUu5_6n-NngCLcB/s400/5150e3y%252BkkL._SX331_BO1%252C204%252C203%252C200_.jpg" width="266" /></a></div><br /><i><b>Quantum theory is widely held to resist any realist interpretation</b> and to mark the advent of a ‘postmodern’ science characterised by paradox, uncertainty, and the limits of precise measurement. Keeping his own realist position in check, Christopher Norris provides a remarkably detailed and incisive account of the positions adopted by parties on both sides of this complex debate. </i><br /><br />James Cushing gives in <a href="http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780792340287">Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory (1996): An Appraisal</a>, an account of the rise to domination of the Born-Heisenberg-Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics:<br /><ul><li><i>Today it is generally assumed that the success of quantum mechanics demands that we accept a world view in which physical processes at the most fundamental level are seen as being irreducibly and ineliminably indeterministic. </i></li><li><i>That is, one of the great watersheds in twentieth-century scientific thought is the "Copenhagen" insight that empirical evidence and logic are seen as necessarily implying an indeterministic picture of nature. </i></li><li><i>This is in marked contrast to any classical representation of a clockwork universe. </i></li><li><i>A causal program would have been a far less radical departure from the then-accepted framework of classical physics than was the so-called <b>Copenhagen version of quantum mechanics</b> that rapidly gained ascendancy by the late 1920s and has been <b>all-but universally accepted</b> ever since. </i></li><li><i><b>How could this happen? </b></i></li><li><i>It has been over twenty years now since the dramatic and controversial "Forman thesis" was advanced that acausality was embraced by German quantum physicists in the Weimar era as a reaction to the hostile intellectual and cultural environment that existed there prior to and during the formulation of modem quantum mechanics. </i></li><li><i>The goal was to establish a causal connection between this social intellectual milieu and the content of science, in this case quantum mechanics. </i></li><li><i>The general structure of this argument is the following. Causality for physicists in the early twentieth century "meant complete lawfulness of Nature, determinism [(i.e., event-by-event causality)]". </i></li><li><i>Such lawfulness was seen by scientists as absolutely essential for science to be a coherent enterprise. </i><i>A scientific approach was also taken to be necessarily a rational one. </i></li><li><i>When, in the <b>aftermath of the German defeat in World War I, science was held responsible (not only by its failure, but even more because of its spirit) for the sorry state of society, there was a reaction against rationalism and a return to a romantic, "irrational" ideal.</b></i></li></ul><div>Yes, quantum mechanics (in its Copenhagen Interpretation forcefully advocated by Bohr under influence from the anti-realist positivist philosopher Höffding) was a product of<b style="font-style: italic;"> </b>German physics in the Weimar republic of the 1920s, by Heisenberg and Born. </div><div><br /></div><div>It seems reasonable to think that if the defeat of Germany in World War I was blamed on a failure of "rationality" and "realism", then a resort to "irrationality" and "anti-realism" would be rational in particular in Germany...and so quantum mechanics in its anti-realist form took over the scene as Germany rebuilt its power...<br /><br />But maybe today Germany is less idealistic and anti-realistic (although the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende_in_Germany">Energiewende</a> is<a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-power-of-nationalism"> romantic anti-realism</a>) and so maybe also a more realistic quantum mechanics can be allowed to develop...without the standard "shut-up and calculate" suppression of discussion...<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NBrF3zgk0WA/WIdNM2EvXuI/AAAAAAAA9nE/jdBOO9Fy1r4-oT8HOkQ_l6aAm39IY1NVgCLcB/s1600/bfm279102.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="451" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NBrF3zgk0WA/WIdNM2EvXuI/AAAAAAAA9nE/jdBOO9Fy1r4-oT8HOkQ_l6aAm39IY1NVgCLcB/s640/bfm279102.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><a href="http://www.hegelpd.it/hegel/conference-nature-and-the-philosophy-of-nature-in-german-idealism-and-romanticism-sydney-june-15-17-2015/">CONFERENCE: NATURE AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF NATURE IN GERMAN IDEALISM AND ROMANTICISM (SYDNEY, JUNE 15-17, 2015)</a></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/quantum-mechanics-as-retreat-to.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-6278096022507899538Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:00:00 +00002017-01-23T16:21:41.869+01:00RealQMQuantum Mechanics as Classical Continuum Physics and Not Particle Mechanics<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vEgSVoCGBUw/WIX8oVBDiGI/AAAAAAAA9mk/ykIuWBAo0nsQpDqoqq2PrhrjTLv9c_zeQCLcB/s1600/einstein_planck.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="232" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vEgSVoCGBUw/WIX8oVBDiGI/AAAAAAAA9mk/ykIuWBAo0nsQpDqoqq2PrhrjTLv9c_zeQCLcB/s320/einstein_planck.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><i>Planck (with eyes shut) presents Einstein with the Max Planck medal of the German Physical Society, 28 June 1929, in Berlin, as the highest award of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft, for Einstein's idea of light as particles, which Planck did not believe in (and did not want to see).</i><br /><br />Modern physics in the form of quantum mechanics was born in 1900 when Planck in a desperate act introduced the idea of smallest packet of energy or quanta to explain black-body radiation followed up in 1905 by Einstein's equally desperate attempt to explain photo-electricity by viewing light as a stream of light particles of energy quanta $h\nu$ where $\nu$ is frequency and $h$ Planck's constant.<br /><br />Yes, Einstein was desperate, because he was stuck as patent clerk in Bern and his academic career was going nowhere. Yes, Planck was also desperate because his role at the University of Berlin as the successor of the great Kirchhoff, was to explain blackbody radiation as the most urgent unsolved problem of physics and thereby demonstrate the scientific leadership of an emerging German Empire.<br /><br />The "quantisation" into discrete smallest packets of energy and light was against the wisdom of the continuum physics of the 19th century crowned by Maxwell's wave equations describing all of electro-magnetics as a system of partial differential equations over 3d-space as a continuum over real numbers as the ultimate triumph of the infinitesimal Calculus of Leibniz and Newton.<br /><br />The "quantisation" of energy and light thus meant a partial retreat to the view of the early Greek atomists with the world ultimately built from indivisible particles or quanta and not waves, also named particle physics.<br /><br />But the wave nature was kept in Schrödinger's linear multi-d equation as the basis of quantum mechanics, but then not in physical form as in Maxwell's equations, but as probability waves supposedly describing probabilities of particle configurations. The mixture was named wave-particle duality, which has been the subject of endless discussion after its introduction by Bohr.<br /><br />Schrödinger never accepted a particle description and stuck to his original idea that waves are enough to explain atom physics. The trouble with this view was the multi-d aspect of Schrödinger's equation which could not be given a meaning/interpretation in terms of physical waves, like Maxwell's equations. This made Schrödinger's waves-are-enough idea impossible to defend and Schrödinger's equation was hijacked Bohr/Born/Heisenberg and twisted into a physical particle - probabilistic wave Copenhagen Interpretation as the textbook truth.<br /><br />But blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect can be explained by wave mechanics without any form of particles in the form of <a href="https://computationalblackbody.wordpress.com/">Computational Blackbody Radiation</a> with the new element being <i>finite precision computation. </i><br /><i><br /></i>The idea of a <i>particle</i> is contradictory, as something with physical presence without physical dimension. Atom physics can make sense as wave mechanics but not as particle mechanics. It is important to remember that this was the view of Schrödinger when he formulated his wave equation in 1925 for the Hydrogen atom. What is needed is an extension of Schrödinger's equation to atoms with several electrons which has a physical meaning, maybe as <a href="https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26550356/realquantum.pdf">Real Quantum Mechanics</a>, and this is not the standard linear multi-d Schrödinger equation with solutions interpreted as probability distributions of particle configurations in the spirit of Born-Bohr-Heisenberg but not Schrödinger.<br /><br />Recall that <i>particle motion</i> is also a contradictory concept, as shown in Zeno's paradox: At each instant of time the particle (Zeno's arrow) is still at a point in space, and thus cannot move to another point. On the other hand, <i>wave motion</i> as the translatory motion of a water wave across a water surface of water, is possible to explain as the result of (circular) transversal water oscillation without translation. Electro-magnetic waves are propagating by transversal oscillation of electric-magnetic fields.<br /><br /><div>And do not believe that Zeno's paradox was ever solved. It expresses the truly contradictory nature of the concept of particle, which cannot be resolved. Ponder the following "explanation" on <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/">Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</a>:<br /><ul><li><i>Think about it this way: time, as we said, is composed only of instants. No distance is traveled during any instant. So when does the arrow actually move? How does it get from one place to another at a later moment? </i></li><li><i>There's only one answer: the arrow gets from point X at time 1 to point Y at time 2 simply in virtue of being at successive intermediate points at successive intermediate times—the arrow never changes its position during an instant but only over intervals composed of instants, by the occupation of different positions at different times. </i></li><li><i>In Bergson's memorable words—which he thought expressed an absurdity—‘movement is composed of immobilities’ (1911, 308): getting from X to Y is a matter of occupying exactly one place in between at each instant (in the right order of course). </i></li></ul>As you understand, this is just nonsense:<br /><br />Particles don't exist, and if they anyway are claimed to exist, they cannot move.<br /><br />Waves do exist and can move. It is not so difficult to understand!<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/quantum-mechanics-as-classical.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-3462950179646968469Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:22:00 +00002017-01-25T15:05:03.575+01:00climate politicsclimate skepticDeconstruction of CO2 Alarmism Started<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UYSuwq8VoKA/WIM2_lERSJI/AAAAAAAA9mI/x91S_PUNpFUMXBYO2ay-cghki7aykm-zwCLcB/s1600/saupload_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="225" src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UYSuwq8VoKA/WIM2_lERSJI/AAAAAAAA9mI/x91S_PUNpFUMXBYO2ay-cghki7aykm-zwCLcB/s400/saupload_1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />Directly after inauguration the White House web site changes to a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy">new Energy Plan</a>, where all of Obama's CO2 alarmism has been completely eliminated:<br /><div><ul><li><i>Energy is an essential part of American life and a staple of the world economy. The Trump Administration is committed to energy policies that lower costs for hardworking Americans and maximize the use of American resources, freeing us from dependence on foreign oil.</i></li><li><i>For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry. President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.</i></li><li><i>Sound energy policy begins with the recognition that we have vast untapped domestic energy reserves right here in America. </i></li><li><i>The Trump Administration will embrace the shale oil and gas revolution to bring jobs and prosperity to millions of Americans.</i></li></ul><div>Nothing about dangerous CO2! No limits on emission! Trump has listened to science! CO2 alarmism will be defunded and why not then also other forms of<a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2017/01/the-origin-of-fake-physics.html"> fake physics.</a>..</div><div><br /></div><div>This is the first step to the Fall of IPCC and the Paris agreement and liberation of resources for the benefit of humanity, <a href="https://phys.org/news/2017-01-trump-big-shift-energy-climate.html">see phys.org</a>.<br /><br />The defunding of CO2 alarmism will now start, and then why not other forms of fake science?<br /><br /><b>PS1</b> Skepticism to CO2 alarmism expressed by <a href="http://www.klimarealistene.com/2017/01/21/nettavisen-intervjuet-stein-bergsmark/">Klimatrealisterna</a> is now getting <a href="http://www.klimarealistene.com/2017/01/21/nettavisen-intervjuet-stein-bergsmark/">published in media in Norway</a>, while in Sweden it is fully censored. I have recently accepted an invitation to become a member of the scientific committee of this organisation (not yet visible on the web site).<br /><br /><b>PS2</b> Read Roy Spencer's analysis of the Trump Dump:<br /><ul><li><i>As Bjorn Lomborg has recently <a href="http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/cost-climate-change-1-5-trillion-year-reduce-global-warming-0-048c/">estimated</a>, efforts to “fight” global warming under the U.N.’s Paris Agreement could cost the world $100 Trillion in lost wealth by the end of this century. </i></li><li><i>That, I guarantee you, will lead to (preventable) deaths, due to poverty and all problems stemming from poverty.</i></li><li><i>And for what gain? An unmeasurable decrease in further warming of maybe 0.1 deg. C at best (and that’s assuming climate sensitivity is high and that we are in for several deg. C of future warming — which I don’t). As someone who knows how temperatures trends are measured on the ground (I’ll bet none of the thermometer climate data “experts” passed NWS weather observer certification exams like I did) and by satellite (I’m the co-inventor), I can say that this level of future temperature reduction is unmeasurable by any system we have.</i></li></ul><div>Bottomline: With plenty of energy, poverty can be eliminated. Unstopped CO2 alarmism will massively increase poverty with no gain whatsoever. Trump is the first state leader to understand that the Emperor of CO2 Alarmism is naked, and other leaders will now open their eyes to see the same thing...and skeptics may soon say mission complete...<br /><br />See also <a href="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/25/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-epa/">The Beginning of the End of EPA.</a></div></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/deconstruction-of-co2-alarmism-started.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-1563976977481107296Sat, 21 Jan 2017 10:03:00 +00002017-01-22T11:34:41.482+01:00Quantum ContradictionsRealQMThe Origin of Fake Physics<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xP-WdZbMHtk/WIMxytcW7OI/AAAAAAAA9l4/s9uKDR7VwLsyx-_n4PFUS3ga6hgYdqXZwCLcB/s1600/Theory-of-Inflation-Gives-Weight-to-Multiverse-Hypothesis-e1395671866582.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="237" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xP-WdZbMHtk/WIMxytcW7OI/AAAAAAAA9l4/s9uKDR7VwLsyx-_n4PFUS3ga6hgYdqXZwCLcB/s320/Theory-of-Inflation-Gives-Weight-to-Multiverse-Hypothesis-e1395671866582.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />Peter Woit on gives on <a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9053">Not Even Wrong a list of fake physics</a> most of which can be traced back to the fake physics character of Schrödinger's linear multi-dimensional equation, as exposed in recent posts.<br /><br />Woit's list of fake physics thus includes different fantasies of <a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9053">multiversa</a> all originating from the multi-dimensional form of Schrödinger's equation giving each electron its own separate 3d space/universe to dwell in.<br /><br />But the linear multi-d Schrödinger equation is a postulate of modern physics picked from out of the blue as a ready-made and as such like a<a href="http://guardianlv.com/2014/06/god-versus-the-multiverse/"> religious dogma beyond human understanding and rationality.</a><br /><br />Why modern physics has been driven into such an unscientific approach remains to be understood and exposed, and discussed...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9788847052161">The standard view is presented by David Gross as follows</a>:<br /><ul><li><i>Quantum mechanics emerged in 1900, when Planck first quantized the energy of radiating oscillators.</i></li><li><i>Quantum mechanics is the most successful of all the frameworks that we have discovered to describe physical reality. It works, it makes sense, and it is hard to modify. </i></li><li><i>Quantum mechanics does make sense, although the transition, a hundred years ago, from classical to quantum reality was not easy. </i></li><li><i> The freedom one has to choose among different, incompatible, frameworks does not influence reality—one gets the same answers for the same questions, no matter which framework one uses. </i></li><li><i>That is why one can simply “shut up and calculate.” Most of us do that most of te time. </i></li><li><i>By now...we have a completely coherent and consistent formulation of quantum mechanics that corresponds to what we actually do in predicting and describing experiments and observations in the real world. </i></li><li><i>For most of us there are no problems.</i></li><li><i>Nonetheless, there are dissenting views. </i></li></ul><div>So, the message is that quantum mechanics works if you simply shut up and calculate and don't ask if it makes sense, as physicists are being taught to do, but here are dissenting views...<br /><br />Note that the standard idea ventilated by Gross is that quantum mechanics somehow emerged from Planck's desperate trick of "quantisation" of blackbody radiation 1900 when taking on the mission of explaining the physics of radiation while avoiding the "ultra-violet catastrophe" believed to torpedo classical wave mechanics. Planck never believed that his trick had a physical meaning and in fact the trick is not needed because an explanation can be given within classical wave mechanics in the form of <a href="https://computationalblackbody.wordpress.com/">computational blackbody radiation</a> with the ultraviolet catastrophe not showing up.<br /><br />This is what Anthony Leggett, Nobel Laureate and speaker at the <a href="http://www.ntu.edu.sg/ias/upcomingevents/QM90/Pages/default.aspx">90 Years of Quantum Mechanics Conference, Jan 23-26, 2017,</a> says (in 1987):<br /><ul><li><i>If one wishes to provoke a group of normally phlegmatic physicists into a state of high animation—indeed, in some cases strong emotion—there are few tactics better guaranteed to succeed than to introduce into the conversation the topic of the foundations of quantum mechanics, and more specifically the quantum measurement problem.</i></li><li><i>I do not myself feel that any of the so-called solutions of the quantum measurement paradox currently on offer is<b> in any way satisfactory.</b></i></li><li><i>I am personally convinced that the problem of making a consistent and philosophically acceptable 'join' between the quantum formalism which has been so spectacularly successful at the atomic and subatomic level and the 'realistic' classical concepts we employ in everyday life can have no solution within our current conceptual framework; </i></li><li><i>We are still, after three hundred years, only at the beginning of a long journey along a path whose twists and turns promise to reveal vistas which at present are beyond our wildest imagination. </i></li><li><i>Personally, I see this as not a pessimistic, but a highly optimistic, conclusion. In intellectual endeavour, if nowhere else, it is surely better to travel hopefully than to arrive, and I would like to think that the generation of students now embarking on a career in physics, and their children and their children's children, will grapple with questions at least as intriguing and fundamental as those which fascinate us today—questions which, in all probability, their twentieth-century predecessors did not even have the language to pose.</i></li></ul><ul></ul>The need of a revision, now 30 years later, of the very foundations of quantum mechanics is even more clear, 90 years after conception. The starting point must be the wave mechanics of Schrödinger without particles, probabilities, multiversa, measurement paradox, particle-wave duality, complementarity and quantum jumps with atom microscopics described by the same continuum mathematics as the macroscopic world. <br /><br /><b>PS</b> Is quantum computing fake physics or possible physics? Nobody knows since no quantum computer has yet been constructed. <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23130894-000-revealed-googles-plan-for-quantum-computer-supremacy/">But the hype/hope is inflated</a>: <i>perhaps by the end of the year</i>...<br /><br /><br /></div><div><i><br /></i></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-origin-of-fake-physics.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-436997032461330812Fri, 20 Jan 2017 12:00:00 +00002017-01-24T19:58:39.915+01:00Quantum ContradictionsRealQMShaky Basis of Quantum Mechanics<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9e-XFvzUc8U/WIIA-MDix1I/AAAAAAAA9lo/7WwelwOi82MF-Uy07qETk44-wVusaOQCwCLcB/s1600/17d912013fd1ec7876b5a97c1090ee0e.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="371" src="https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-9e-XFvzUc8U/WIIA-MDix1I/AAAAAAAA9lo/7WwelwOi82MF-Uy07qETk44-wVusaOQCwCLcB/s400/17d912013fd1ec7876b5a97c1090ee0e.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><i>Schrödinger's equation! Where did we get that equation from? Nowhere. It is not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrodinger.</i> (Richard P. Feynman)<br /><br /><i>In the final analysis, the quantum mechanical wave equation will be obtained by a postulate, whose justification is not that it has been deduced entirely from information already known experimentally </i>(Eisberg and Resnick in Quantum Physics)<br /><div><br />Schrödinger's equation as the basic mathematical model of quantum mechanics is obtained as follows:<br /><br />Start with classical mechanics with a Hamiltonian of the following form for a system of $N$ interacting point particles of unit mass with positions $x_n(t)$ and momenta $p_n=\frac{dx_n}{dt}$ varying with time $t$ for $n=1,...N$:<br /><ul><li>$H(x_1,...,x_N)=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^Np_n^2+V(x_1,....,x_N)$ </li></ul><div>where $V$ is a potential depending on the particle positions $x_n$, with the corresponding equations of motion</div><div><ul><li>$\frac{dp_n}{dt}=\frac{\partial V}{\partial x_n}$ for $n=1,...,N$. (1)</li></ul></div><div>Proceed by formally replacing momentum $p_n$ by the differential operator $-i\nabla_n$ where $\nabla_n$ is the gradient operator acting with respect to $x_n$ now viewed as the coordinates of three-dimensional space (and $i$ is the imaginary unit), to get the Hamiltonian </div><div><ul><li>$H(x_1,...,x_N)=-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^N\Delta_n +V(x_1,...,x_N)$</li></ul><div>supposed to be acting on a wave function $\psi (x_1,...,x_N)$ depending on $N$ 3d coordinates $x_1,...,x_N$, where $\Delta_n$ is the Laplacian with respect to coordinate $x_n$. Then postulate Schrödinger's equation with a vague reference to (1) as a linear multi-d equation of the form:</div><div><ul><li>$i\frac{\partial \psi}{\partial t}=H\psi$. (2)</li></ul><div>Schrödinger's equation thus results from inflating single points to full 3d spaces in a purely formal twist of classical mechanics by brutally changing the meaning of $x_n$ from point to full 3d space and then twisting (1) as well. The inflation gives a wave function which depends on $3N$ space coordinates and as such has no physicality and is way beyond computability.<br /><br />The inflation corresponds to a shift from <i>actual position</i>, which may be of interest, to <i>possible position</i> (which can be anywhere), which has no interest. </div><div><br /></div><div>The inflation from point to full 3d space has become the trade mark of modern physics as expressed in Schrödinger's multi-d linear equation, with endless speculation without conclusion about the possible physics of the inflation and the meaning of (2). </div><div><br /></div><div>The formality and lack of physicality of the inflation of course should have sent Schrödinger's multi-d linear equation (2) to the waste-bin from start, but it didn't happen with the argument that even if the physics of the equation was beyond rationale, predictions from the equation always (yes, always!!) agree with observation. The lack of scientific logic was thus acknowledged from start, but it was taken for granted that anyway the equation describes physics very accurately. If a prediction from computation with Schrödinger's equation does not compare well with observation, there must be something wrong with the computation or comparison, never with the equation itself...</div><div><br /></div><div>But solutions of Schrödinger's multi-d equation cannot be computed in any generality and thus claims of general validity has no real ground. It is simply a postulate/axiom and as such true by assumption as a tautology which can only be true.<br /><br />The main attempts to give the inflation of classical mechanics into Schrödinger's multi-d linear equation a meaning, are:<br /><ul><li>Copenhagen Interpretation CI (probabilistic)</li><li>Many World Interpretation MWI (infinitely many parallel universa in certain contact) </li><li>Pilot-Wave (Bohm) </li></ul></div><div>with no one explanation gathering clear acceptance. In particular, Schrödinger did not like these interpretations of his equation and dreamed of a different version in 3d with physical "anschaulich" meaning, but did not find it...<br /><br />In the CI the possibilities become an actualities by observation, while in MWI all possibilities are viewed as actualities and in Bohmian mechanics the pilot wave represents the possibilities with a particle somehow carried by the wave representing actuality...all very strange... </div><div></div><div> </div><div><br /></div></div></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/shaky-basis-of-quantum-mechanics.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-856382519621393574Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:58:00 +00002017-01-18T22:58:43.662+01:00Quantum ContradictionsRealQMMany Worlds Interpretation vs Double Slit Experiment<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YkY1O-rN270/WH_M0ThO2ZI/AAAAAAAA9lM/ls6OgISOER4gifLMzs3u_ZEC86zS9VkPgCLcB/s1600/206px-Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="137" src="https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YkY1O-rN270/WH_M0ThO2ZI/AAAAAAAA9lM/ls6OgISOER4gifLMzs3u_ZEC86zS9VkPgCLcB/s400/206px-Double-slit_experiment_results_Tanamura_2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />When I ask David Deutsch what his basic motivation is to believe that the Many Worlds Interpretation MWI of the multi-d linear Schrödinger equation describes real physics, I get the response that it is in particular the <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/what-does-the-new-double-slit-experiment-actually-show/">single electron double slit experiment</a>, which he claims is difficult to explain otherwise.<br /><br />But is this so difficult to explain assuming that electrons are always waves and never particles? I don't think so. Here is my argument:<br /><br />In the <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/what-does-the-new-double-slit-experiment-actually-show/">single electron double slit experiment</a> a screen displays an interference pattern created by a signal passing through a double slit, even with the input so weak that the interference pattern is created dot by dot as if being hit by a stream of single electron particles.<br /><br />This is presented as a mystery, by arguing that an electron particle must chose one of the slits to pass through, and doing so cannot create an interference pattern because that can only arise if the single electron is a wave freely passing through both slits. So the experiment cannot be explained which gives evidence that quantum mechanics is a mystery, and since it is a mystery anything is possible, like MWI.<br /><br />But there is no mystery if following Schrödinger we understand that electrons are always waves and never particles, and that the fact that the effect on the screen of an incoming wave on may be a dot somewhere on the screen triggered by local perturbations. A dot as effect does not require the cause to be dot-like.<br /><br />It is thus possible to understand the single electron double slit experiment under the assumption that electrons are always wave-like and always pass through both slits and thus can create an interference pattern, in accordance with the original objective of Schrödinger to describe electrons as waves, and then physical waves and not probability waves as in the Copenhagen Interpretation as another form of MWI.<br /><br />The trouble with quantum mechanics is the multi-d linear Schrödinger equation which describes probability waves or many worlds waves, which are not physical waves. The challenge is to formulate a Schrödinger equation which describes physical waves, that is to reach the objective of Schrödinger, which may possibly be done with something like realQM...<br /><br />Ironically, Schrödinger's equation for just one electron is a physical wave equation, and so if anything can be explained by that equation it is the single electron double slit experiment and its mystery then evaporates...<br /><br /><b>PS</b> The fact that putting a detector at one of the slits destroys the interference pattern, is also understandable with the electron as wave, since a detector may affect a wave and thus may destroy the subtle interference behind the pattern.http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2017/01/many-worlds-interpretation-vs-double.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0