tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:14:42 +0000theory of flightgreenhouse effectclimate sciencemathematics educationmyth of backradiationquantum mechanicsclimate politicsRoyal Swedish Academy of Sciencesblack body radiationAIAADLRKTH-gateclimate simulationmatematik-ITclimate sensitivityQuantum ContradictionsKTH-gate3physicssciencetheory of relativityengineering education reformsimulation technologyKammarrättenmathematicsthermodynamics of global climateBodyandSoulPlanck's LawStefan-Boltzmann's LawIPCCLennart BengtssonHögsta Förvaltningsdomstolenphysical quantum mechanicsCO2KTH-gate2Schrödinger's equationradiative heat transfercosmologyemissivity2nd law of thermodynamicsSky DragongravitationEinsteinKVAinterviewsMattelyftetPlanck's constantfluid mechanicsclimategateStandard CaculusFalse-SBOLRfinite precision computationradiating atomCFDFundamental Theorem of CalculusKTHOffentlighetsprincipenbig bluffmysticism of modern physicsmany-minds relativitysvensk klimatpolitikclay probleminfrared thermometerpyrgeometermodtranIPCC TrickNew View on gravitationphotonsphysics illusionsroy spencerturbulenceJudy CurryPrandtlStefan Lövenfred singerradiative forcinguncertainty principleclimate modelsNADAPrandtl Medalbolometerfinite element quantum mechanicslapse rateresonanceCERESKVAs klimatuttalandeMuir Russell Inquirylindzenmany-minds physicssecret of separationteknikdelegationentheory of sailingIR cameraMSTdAlembertgatedark energyphotoelectric effectDr FaustusFEniCSFakultetsnämnden KTHLaplace demonRoyal SocietySVTSvenska Mekanikdagararrow of timeclimate skepticeconomical crisisfree willBert Bolin Centre for Climate ResearchCMBGlenn Research CenterKirchhoff's lawSvenska Matematikersamfundetazarcensorshipcosmological principledark matteribookkollegialt lärandephlogistonthermal imaging3rd Nobel SymposiumAcademic Rights WatchAnders ÅngströmFreedom FestHubble's LawKlimatupplysningenOckham's razorPenguin logicRiksbankenSchwarzschildboundary layerconstructive physicscrisis in physicsdefinition vs physical factdirection of timeiducationperiodic tablepiano acousticsprinciple of least actionrepo rateshorttime vs longtime accuracyBig PhysicsChandrasekharFinal SolutionHans RoslingHelmholtz ReciprocityHiggs mechanismLIGOLorentz transformationMichelson-MorleyPopperQEDSMHISULFZeno's arrow paradoxfaint sun paradoxlord moncktonnobel prizenumerical analysisrelativitystellar aberrationstring instrumentswave-particle dualityCJ70DNDiracDiscussion ForumEquivalence PrincipleFeynmanGoogle BooksHeisenbergKTH-studenterKnut ÅngströmMOOCMagnus effectMaxwell's equationsNewton's 2nd lawSRSagnac effectTheoryOfEverythingUlf DanielssonUnicornWien's displacement lawaeroacousticsaniconismatmosphere spectrumbigbrunobutterfly effectconduction vs radiationcopernicuscritical thinkingdark age of sciencedefinition as factdynamical systememissvityentropyfinite elementgalileohäggströmmillikanpeer reviewpokerprypyrgeomterscientific methodseminarsstability-wellposednessstring theorysvarta håltyndallvon NeumannwellposednessÖppna GöteborgClaes Johnson on Mathematics and Sciencetowards understanding by critical constructive inquiryhttp://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)Blogger1462125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-5529907948480350157Sun, 04 Oct 2015 06:34:00 +00002015-10-09T19:12:39.360+02:00matematik-ITTest av Matematik-IT för Grundskolan Denna vecka börjar jag tillsammans med en grupp elever i åk4 samt lärare vid Lugnets grundskola i Hammarby Sjöstad undersöka om skolmatematiken kan ges en ny mening, innehåll och form genom att utgå från att dagens IT-värld bygger på matematik + datorberäkning.<br /><br />Min ambition är att visa att elever i åk4 i grundskolan med lämplig IT-matematik kan nå bättre färdighet vad gäller matematisk datorsimulering än teknologer i åk4 på KTH. <br /><br />Om detta visar sig vara riktigt kan det ge argument som stödjer mitt tidigare framförda förslag att ersätta nuvarande skolmatematik med ett nytt kärnämne i form av <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/matematik-IT">Matematik-IT.</a><br /><br />Som plattform kommer jag att använda<a href="http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/"> Codea</a> som är ett verktyg för programmering av datorspel eller mer allmänt för datorsimulering av fenomen inom den verkliga värld som omger oss eller de tänkta världar som fantasin kan skapa. Möjligheterna är obegränsade. <br /><br />Jag kommer här att kontinuerligt rapportera om hur detta test framskrider och jag hoppas kunna stimulera eleverna att dokumentera sina framsteg på lämplig websida.<br /><br />Mer konkret kommer jag alltså att testa om reformprogrammet BodyandSoul, som användes under min tid på Chalmers 2000-2007, i modifierad form kan användas för att reformera en död skolmatematik i desperat behov av förnyelse och vitalisering.<br /><br />Mitt mål är, i samband med detta test vid Lugnets grundskola, att med iPad utforma en ny version av BodyandSoul för iPad för skolan. Ledorden är alltså:<br /><ul><li>simuleringsteknik som teknik <i>för </i>simulering och teknik <i>med</i> simulering</li><li>simuleringsteknik <i>för</i> iPad <i>med</i> iPad.</li></ul><div><b>PS1</b> Jag har lagt upp en<a href="https://matematikit.wordpress.com/"> ny blogg Matematik-IT</a> som kommer att samla erfarenheterna från detta projekt, med förhoppningsvis input från elever och rektor, som öppnat skolan och som själv deltar som elev.<br /><br /><b>PS2 </b>Det återstår att se om KTHs långa arm kan stoppa även detta mitt initiativ till reform av en föråldrad matematikundervisning.</div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/10/test-av-matematik-it-for-grundskolan.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-3342812567849749311Fri, 02 Oct 2015 08:17:00 +00002015-10-04T08:00:58.077+02:00Quantum Contradictionstheory of relativityTheoryOfEverythingWhy Not TOE?<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iSqJ-bHS2R0/Vg-XdymRTyI/AAAAAAAA65g/ml3kgTaeWEM/s1600/religionvscience.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="256" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iSqJ-bHS2R0/Vg-XdymRTyI/AAAAAAAA65g/ml3kgTaeWEM/s400/religionvscience.png" width="400" /></a></div><br />Lawrence Krauss summaries the present state of physics in <a href="http://nautil.us/issue/29/scaling/the-trouble-with-theories-of-everything">The Trouble with Theories of Everything</a>:<br /><ul><li><i>There is no known physics theory that is true at every scale—there may never be.</i></li><li><i>When quantum mechanics is combined with relativity, it turns out, rather unexpectedly in fact, that the detailed nature of the physical laws that govern matter and energy actually depend on the physical scale at which you measure them.</i></li><li><i>So, what is going on? Is a universal theory a legitimate goal, or will scientific truth always be scale-dependent?</i></li></ul><div>The trouble Krauss is here talking about is that relativity theory and quantum mechanics are contradictory, a deep trouble which has brought modern physics into a deep crisis. Krauss asks if a universal theory as a theory somehow without contradictions, is thinkable and then crushes all hope that it could take the form of string theory: </div><div><ul><li><i>There is no example so far where an extrapolation as grand as that associated with string theory, not grounded by direct experimental or observational results, has provided a successful model of nature. In addition, the more we learn about string theory, the more complicated it appears to be, and many early expectations about its universalism may have been optimistic.</i></li></ul></div><div>Krauss concludes with the pessimistic message that a universal theory as a theory without internal contradictions, is beyond reach for the human mind. The logic is that since both relativity and quantum theory are correct but unfortunately contradictory, no universal theory theory without contradiction is possible.<br /><br />But why is it not thinkable that relativity or quantum theory is not correct physics? My bet is relativity theory is incorrect physics, supported by in particular the fact that while quantum mechanics has been awarded a countless number of Nobel Prizes, none has been awarded to relativity theory, of course because nobody in the Nobel committee could ever understand anything of Einstein's curved space-time.<br /><br /></div><div>Another obstacle to a universal theory is that the nature of quantum mechanics is postulated to be fundamentally different from the continuum mechanics of macroscopic phenomena and as such is beyond description in terms of concepts understandable to the human mind such as the partial differential equations making continuum mechanics understandable. But this is an ad hoc postulate blocking progress. How come that physicists can be so sure that the world of atoms is beyond human comprehension as expressed by Richard Feynman:<br /><ul><li><i>I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.</i></li></ul>So, after all a TOE may be thinkable, if only we do not limit the thinking by relativity and quantum theory beyond reach for the human mind.</div><br />It is maybe not necessary as scientist to be paralyzed by ideas and concepts beyond human understanding as characteristics of religion.http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-not-toe.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-8202755974474838857Sat, 26 Sep 2015 07:05:00 +00002015-09-26T09:12:47.563+02:00climate politicsVolkswagen Emission Scandal vs German Political Correctness Leadership <br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hz0VWxfstx8/VgZFOuXB19I/AAAAAAAA65I/aSnTUMk7H4A/s1600/2CAFD29300000578-3246844-image-a-1_1443047739373.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="255" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Hz0VWxfstx8/VgZFOuXB19I/AAAAAAAA65I/aSnTUMk7H4A/s400/2CAFD29300000578-3246844-image-a-1_1443047739373.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />Germany with Angela Merkel is actively seeking to take the leading role in a giant transformation of the world economy into a new green economy with reductions of CO2 emissions to preindustrial levels as prime goal. In this giant transformation German car industry has promoted the diesel engine as being more fuel efficient with less CO2 emission than the gasoline engine under strong support from German governmental political correctness.<br /><br />The Volkswagen emission scandal shows the hollowness and hypocrisy of this grand scale religion: To meet the strict demands of political correctness and moral leadership set by Germany, grand scale cheating is necessary and is accordingly delivered by Germany.<br /><br />The world is watching with amazement. And in China a new coal power plant is opened every day.http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/09/volkswagen-emission-scandal-vs-german.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-8845018313126828890Thu, 24 Sep 2015 18:48:00 +00002015-09-25T16:41:47.228+02:00finite element quantum mechanicsphysical quantum mechanicsFinite Element Quantum Mechanics 6: Basic Analysis vs ObservationLet us now inspect the basics of the atomic model considered in <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/finite%20element%20quantum%20mechanics">this sequence of posts.</a><br /><br />Consider then a neutral atom of kernel charge $Z$ with $N=Z$ electrons occupying non-overlapping domains in space. Assume that the electrons are partitioned into a sequence of shells $S_m$ of increasing radius $r_m$ with corresponding widths $d_m$ each shell being filled by $2m^2$ electrons, for $m=1,...,M,$ with $M$ the number of shells. We consider a hypothetic atom with all shells fully filled with $2, 8, 18, 32, 50,...,$ electrons in successive shells displaying a basic aspect of the periodicity of the periodic table of elements.<br /><div><br />Consider now the case $d_m\sim m$ with $r_m\sim m^2$, and assume $r_1=d_1\sim\frac{1}{Z}$. The electron density $\rho_m$ in $S_m$, assumed to be spherically symmetric, then satisfies<br /><ul><li>$\rho_mr_m^2d_m\sim m^2$</li></ul><div>from which follows that </div><div><ul><li>$\rho_m\sim \frac{m^3}{r_m^3}$. (1)</li></ul><div>We now compute the following characteristics of this model:<br /><ol><li>$M^3\sim Z$, that is $M\sim Z^{\frac{1}{3}}$</li><li>potential energy in $S_1\sim Z^2$</li><li>potential energy in $S_m\sim m^2Z/r_m\sim Z/d_1\sim Z^2$</li><li>total potential energy and thus total energy $\sim Z^{\frac{7}{3}}$. (2)</li></ol></div><div>We check that indeed there is room for $m^2$ electrons in shell $S_m$, because the volume of $S_m$ is $r_m^2d_m\sim m^5$, while the volume of an electron $\sim d_m^3\sim m^3$.<br /><br />We observe that (2) fits with observations. We understand that the electronic density is distributed so that the potential energy and thus total energy in each full shell is basically the same, which may be viewed to be a heavenly socialistic organization of the shell structure of an atom.<br /><br />Numerical computation seeking the ground state energy by relaxation in the Schrödinger <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2015/09/finite-element-quantum-mechanics-5-1d.html">model of post 5</a> starting from an initial density distribution according to (1), shows good correspondence with observation, supporting the basic analysis of this post. Numbers will be presented in an upcoming post.<br /><br />The basic aspect of this model as a form of electron density model, is that electrons (or shells in the present spherically symmetric case) keep individuality by occupying different domains of space, which makes it possible to accurately represent electron-electron repulsion.<br /><br />This feature is not present in standard density models such as Thomas-Fermi and Density Functional Theory. In these models electrons lack individuality as parts of electron clouds, which makes it difficult to represent electron-electron repulsion ab ibnitio.<br /><br />Recall also that in the standard Schrödinger equations wave functions appear as multi-dimensional linear combinations of products of one-electron wave functions defined in all of space by separate spatial variables, thus with each electron "both nowhere and everywhere" without individuality, which requires a statistical interpretation of the wave function as a multi-dimensional uncomputable monster. <br /><br />Another basic aspect of the presented model is continuity of electron density across inter-electron or inter-shell boundaries for the electron configuration of ground states. This allows atoms to have stable ground states as non-dissipative periodic states of minimal energy.<br /><br />Notice further that the size of the atom as $r_M\sim Z^{-\frac{1}{3}}$ with decreasing size as $Z$ increases, corresponds to the observed decrease of size moving to the right in each row of the periodic table:<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WhfCmlFiD04/VgUA35NYscI/AAAAAAAA640/hiC-ad4aBG4/s1600/atomic_radii.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-WhfCmlFiD04/VgUA35NYscI/AAAAAAAA640/hiC-ad4aBG4/s400/atomic_radii.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /><br /></div></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/09/finite-element-quantum-mechanics-6.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-7849393358526478372Fri, 18 Sep 2015 14:28:00 +00002015-09-28T07:00:33.567+02:00Big PhysicsLIGORipples in the Fabric of Space and Time?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZaLrwlpME-g/Vfwe45DaMaI/AAAAAAAA634/Rkx7wfNMbag/s1600/ripples.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="80" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZaLrwlpME-g/Vfwe45DaMaI/AAAAAAAA634/Rkx7wfNMbag/s400/ripples.gif" width="400" /></a></div><br />The code word of modern physics is:<br /><ul><li><i><b>fabric of space and time</b></i></li></ul><div>which is <a href="http://www.caltech.edu/news/advanced-ligo-begin-operations-47898">the subject of study of the Advanced LIGO project designed to</a></div><div><ul><li><i>observe gravitational waves—<b>ripples in the fabric of space and time. </b></i></li></ul></div><div>If we dare to ask what the meaning of "fabric of space and time" may be, we get the following <a href="https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/q909.html">illuminating lesson by leading physicists</a>:</div><div><ul><li><i><b>First of all, space-time is not a fabric.</b> Space and time are not tangible 'things' in the same way that water and air are. It is incorrect to think of them as a 'medium' at all. </i></li><li><i>No physicist or astronomer versed in these issues considers space-time to be <b>a truly physical medium,</b> however, that is the way in which our minds prefer to conceptualize this concept, and has done so since the 19th century. </i></li><li><i><b>We really do not know what space-time is</b>, other than two clues afforded by quantum mechanics and general relativity.</i></li><li><i>Space-time does <b>not</b> claim <b>existence in its own right</b>, but only as a structural quality of the [gravitational] field.</i> (Einstein)</li><li><i>Space and time coordinates are just four out of many degrees of freedom we need, to specify a self-consistent theory. What we are going to have [in any future Theory of Everything] is not so much a <b>new view of space and time, but a de-emphasis of space and time.</b></i> (Steven Weinberg)</li><li><i>In the theory of gravity, you can't really separate the structure of space and time from the particles which are associated with the force of gravity [ such as gravitons]. <b>The notion of a string is inseparable from the space and time in which it moves.</b> </i>(Michael Greene)</li></ul><div>The punch line of this educational experience is presented in this way: </div></div><div><ul><li><i>So, the question about <b>what happens to space-time when a particle moves through it</b> at near the speed of light is answered by saying that <b>this is the wrong question to ask</b>. Just because the brain can construct a question doesn't mean that the question has a physical answer!</i></li></ul><div>We understand that LIGO in its search for "ripples in the fabric of space and time" is studying "the wrong question" and thus can be viewed as a study into the ""fabric of fantasy" which has become such a fundamental part of modern physics demanding full devotion by the sharpest brains of modern physicists (see also <a href="http://news360.com/digestarticle/r6EFabXg9USQmXg4pT_jRA">here</a> ):<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U-OKg6qbThk/VfwobQ3qBSI/AAAAAAAA64I/gh_cT9dz38k/s1600/fabric-of-cosmos-vi.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="180" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-U-OKg6qbThk/VfwobQ3qBSI/AAAAAAAA64I/gh_cT9dz38k/s320/fabric-of-cosmos-vi.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /></div></div><br />http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/09/ripples-in-fabric-of-space-and-time.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-311910708544545414Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:59:00 +00002015-09-18T16:28:40.667+02:00Big PhysicsLIGOLIGO: Absurdity of Big Physics<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-faKrczz9d4s/Vfqq72DvjJI/AAAAAAAA63Q/jp05_a0cxmE/s1600/hireslivingston_5-large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-faKrczz9d4s/Vfqq72DvjJI/AAAAAAAA63Q/jp05_a0cxmE/s320/hireslivingston_5-large.jpg" width="319" /></a></div><br /><a href="http://www.caltech.edu/news/advanced-ligo-begin-operations-47898">The Advanced LIGO Project has now been launched</a> as the largest single experiment ever funded by NSF at $0.365 billion:<br /><ul><li><i>The LIGO scientific and engineering team at Caltech and MIT has been leading the effort over the past seven years to build Advanced LIGO, <b>the world's most sensitive gravitational-wave detector.</b></i></li><li><i>Gravitational waves were predicted by Albert Einstein in 1916 as a consequence of his general theory of relativity, and are emitted by violent events in the universe such as exploding stars and colliding black holes. </i></li><li><i>Experimental attempts to find gravitational waves have been on going for over 50 years, <b>and they haven't yet been found.</b> They're both very rare and possess signal amplitudes that are exquisitely tiny.</i></li><li><i>Although <a href="https://ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20150807">earlier LIGO runs</a> revealed no detections, Advanced LIGO, also funded by the NSF, increases the sensitivity of the observatories by a factor of 10, resulting in a thousandfold increase in observable candidate objects. </i></li><li><i>The original configuration of LIGO was sensitive enough to detect a change in the lengths of the 4-kilometer arms by a distance one-thousandth the diameter of a proton; this is like <b>accurately measuring the distance from Earth to the nearest star—over four light-years—to within the width of a human hair. </b></i></li><li><i>Advanced LIGO, which will utilize the infrastructure of LIGO, is <b>much more powerful.</b></i></li><li><i>The improved instruments will be able to look at the<b> last minutes of the life of pairs of massive black holes</b> as they spiral closer together, coalesce into one larger black hole, and then vibrate much like two soap bubbles becoming one. </i></li><li><i>In addition, Advanced LIGO will be used to search for the gravitational cosmic background, allowin</i><i style="font-weight: bold;">g tests of theories about the development of the universe only </i>$10^{-35}$<i style="font-weight: bold;"> seconds after the Big Bang.</i></li></ul><div>Read these numbers: The accuracy of old LIGO was </div><div><ul><li>the diameter of a human hair over a distance of 4 light-years, </li><li>$10^{-35}$ seconds after Big Bang,</li></ul><div>and yet not the slightest little gravitational wave signal was recorded from even the most violent large scale phenomena thinkable. The conclusion should be clear: There are no gravitational waves. After all, why should there be any? By Einstein's general relativity which nobody claims to grasp?</div><div><br /></div><div>But this is not the way Big Physics works: The fact that nothing was found by the infinitely sensitive LIGO requires an even more infinitely sensitive Advanced LIGO at a cost of a half a billion to be built by eager physicists, and after Advanced LIGO has found nothing, funding for an Advanced Advanced LIGO will be requested and so on...but why are tax payers supplying this Big Money? </div></div><div><b><i><br /></i></b></div><br /><br />http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/09/ligo-absurdity-of-big-physics.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-310481290356199958Sat, 05 Sep 2015 10:21:00 +00002015-09-05T13:52:01.440+02:00finite element quantum mechanicsphysical quantum mechanicsGerhard 't Hooft: Improved Understanding of Quantum Mechanics Needed<br /><div class="page" title="Page 2"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lNV-YCy2Mgs/VerBmZvGKuI/AAAAAAAA6kk/B_L54HIK1N0/s1600/t%2527Hooft8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lNV-YCy2Mgs/VerBmZvGKuI/AAAAAAAA6kk/B_L54HIK1N0/s320/t%2527Hooft8.jpg" width="213" /></a></div><div class="column"><br /></div><div class="column"><br /></div>Gerhard 't Hooft is one of the Nobel Laureates in Physics who is not happy with the present state of understanding of quantum mechanics and seeks to do something about it: Hooft starts out in <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0212095">Determinism beneath Quantum Mechanics</a> with:<br /><ul><li><span style="font-family: CMR12; font-size: 12pt;"><i>The need for an improved understanding of what Quantum Mechanics really is, needs hardly be explained in this meeting. </i></span></li><li><span style="font-family: CMR12; font-size: 12pt;"><i>My primary concern is that Quantum Mechanics, in its present state, appears to be mysterious.</i></span></li><li><span style="font-family: CMR12; font-size: 12pt;"><i>It should always be the scientists’ aim to take away the mystery of things. </i></span></li><li><span style="font-family: CMR12; font-size: 12pt;"><i>It is my suspicion that there should exist a quite logical explanation for the fact that we need to describe probabilities in this world quantum mechanically. </i></span></li><li><span style="font-family: CMR12; font-size: 12pt;"><i>This explanation presumably can be found in the fabric of the Laws of Physics at the Planck scale.</i></span></li><li><span style="font-family: CMR12; font-size: 12pt;"><i>However, if our only problem with Quantum Mechanics were our desire to demystify it, then one could bring forward that, as it stands, Quantum Mechanics works impeccably. </i></span></li><li><span style="font-family: CMR12; font-size: 12pt;"><i>It predicts the outcome of any conceivable experiment, apart from some random ingredient. This randomness is perfect. There never has been any indication that there would be any way to predict where in its quantum probability curve an event will actually be detected. </i></span></li><li><span style="font-family: CMR12; font-size: 12pt;"><i>Why not be at peace with this situation? </i></span></li><li><span style="font-family: CMR12; font-size: 12pt;"><i>One answer to this is Quantum Gravity. Attempts to reconcile General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics lead to a jungle of complexity that is difficult or impossible to interpret physically. In a combined theory, we no longer see “states” that evolve with “time”, we do not know how to identify the vacuum state, and so on. </i></span></li><li><span style="font-family: CMR12; font-size: 12pt;"><i>What we need instead is a unique theory that not only accounts for Quantum Mechanics together with General Relativity, but also explains for us how matter behaves. </i></span></li><li><span style="font-family: CMR12; font-size: 12pt;"><i>We should find indications pointing towards the correct unifying theory underlying the Standard Model, towards explanations of the presumed occurrence of supersymmetry, as well as the mechanism(s) that break it. We suspect that deeper insights in what and why Quantum Mechanics is, should help us further to understand these issues. </i></span></li></ul>Hooft thus acknowledges that quantum mechanics is mysterious, which all prominent physicists do, but Hooft is not at peace with this situation, since after all the essence of science is understanding, although most of his colleagues seem to have accepted once and for all that quantum mechanics cannot be understood and cannot be reconciled with general relativity.<br />Hooft then proceeds to seek a <a href="http://arxiv.org/pdf/1207.3612v2.pdf">determinism behind quantum mechanics in the form of cellular automatons</a> (also <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1548">here</a>).<br /><br />I am pursuing another route to an understandable form of quantum mechanics as <b>analog computation with finite precision</b>, which in a way connects to Hooft's cellular automaton's, but is expressed by Schrödinger type wave equations in a continuum mechanics framework. <br /><br />In this framework the finite precision computation makes a difference between smooth (strong) solutions and non-smooth (weak) solutions of the wave equations: Smooth solutions satisfy the wave equations exactly (with infinite precision), while non-smooth solutions satisfy the equations only in a weak sense with finite precision and loss of information as a form of dissipative radiation. <br /><br />This allows the ground state of an atom as a smooth solution without dissipation to be stable over time without dissipation, while an excited state as a non-smooth solution will return to the ground state under dissipative radiation.<br /><br />The situation is analogous to that described in my work together with Johan Hoffman on fluid mechanics, with turbulent solutions as non-smooth dissipative solutions of formally inviscid Euler equations, which allowed us to <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00021-008-0290-1">resolve d'Alembert's paradox</a> (J Math Fluid Mech 2008) and formulate a <a href="http://www.csc.kth.se/~jhoffman/Johan_Hoffman_KTH/Pub_files/kth-ctl-4044.pdf">new theory of flight</a> (to appear in J Math Fluid Mech 2015), among other things. </div></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/09/gerhard-t-hooft-improved-understanding.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-1677981075659783502Wed, 02 Sep 2015 06:44:00 +00002015-09-05T08:28:56.724+02:00finite element quantum mechanicsphysical quantum mechanicsFinite Element Quantum Mechanics 5: 1d Model in Spherical SymmetryThe new Schrödinger equation I am studying in this sequence of posts takes the following form, in spherical coordinates with radial coordinate $r\ge 0$ in the case of spherical symmetry, for an atom with kernel of charge $Z$ at $r=0$ with $N\le Z$ electrons of unit charge distributed in a sequence of non-overlapping spherical shells $S_1,...,S_M$ separated by spherical surfaces of radii $0=r_0<r_1<r_2<...<r_M=\infty$, with $N_j>0$ electrons in shell $S_j$ corresponding to the interval $(r_{j-1},r_j)$ for $j=1,...,M,$ and $\sum_j N_j = N$:<br /><br />Find a complex-valued differentiable function $\psi (r,t)$ depending on $r≥0$ and time $t$, satisfying for $r>0$ and all $t$,<br /><ul><li>$i\dot\psi (r,t) + H(r,t)\psi (r,t) = 0$ (1)</li></ul><div>where $\dot\psi = \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial t}$ and $H(r,t)$ is the Hamiltonian defined by</div><div><ul><li>$H(r,t) = -\frac{1}{2r^2}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}(r^2\frac{\partial }{\partial r})-\frac{Z}{r}+ V(r,t)$,</li><li>$V(r,t)= 2\pi\int\vert\psi (s,t)\vert^2\min(\frac{1}{r},\frac{1}{s})R(r,s,t)s^2\,ds$,</li><li>$R(r,s,t) = (N_j -1)/N_j$ for $r,s\in S_j$ and $R(r,s,t)=1$ else,</li></ul><div>and </div><ul><li>$4\pi\int_{S_j}\vert\psi (s,t)\vert^2s^2\, ds = N_j$ for $j=1,...,M$. (2)</li></ul><div>Here $-\frac{Z}{r}$ is the kernel-electron attractive potential and $V(r,t)$ is the electron-electron repulsive potential computed using the fact that the potential $W(s)$ of a spherical uniform surface charge distribution of radius $r$ centered at $0$ of total charge $Q$, is given by $W(s)=Q\min(\frac{1}{r},\frac{1}{s})$, with a reduction for a lack of self-repulsion within each shell given by the factor $(N_j -1)/N_j$.<br /><br />The $N_j$ electrons in shell $S_j$ are thus homogenised into a spherically symmetric charge distribution of total charge $N_j$.<br /><br />This is a free boundary problem readily computable on a laptop, with the $r_j$ representing the free boundary separating shells of spherically symmetric charge distribution of intensity $\vert\psi (r,t)\vert^2$ and a free boundary condition asking continuity and differentiability of $\psi (r,t)$. </div><div><br /></div><div>Separating $\psi =\Psi +i\Phi$ into real part $\Psi$ and imaginary part $\Phi$, (1) can be solved by explicit time stepping with (sufficiently small) time step $k>0$ and given initial condition (e.g. as ground state):<br /><ul><li>$\Psi^{n+1}=\Psi^n-kH\Phi^n$, </li><li>$\Phi^{n+1}=\Phi^n+kH\Psi^n$, </li></ul><div>for $n=0,1,2,...,$ where $\Psi^n(r)=\Psi (r,nk)$ and $\Phi^n(r)=\Phi (r,nk)$, while stationary ground states can be solved by the iteration</div><div></div><ul><li>$\Psi^{n+1}=\Psi^n-kH\Psi^n$, </li><li>$\Phi^{n+1}=\Phi^n-kH\Phi^n$, </li></ul><div>while maintaining (2).<br /><br />A remarkable fact is that this model appears to give ground state energies as minimal eigenvalues of the Hamiltonian for both ions and atoms for any $Z$ and $N$ within a percent or so, or alternatively ground state frequencies from direct solution in time dependent form. Next I will compute excited states and transitions between excited states under exterior forcing.<br /><br />Specifically, what I hope to demonstrate is that the model can explain the periods of the periodic table corresponding to the following sequence of numbers of electrons in shells of increasing radii: 2, (2, 8), (2, 8, 8), (2, 8, 18, 8), (2, 8, 18, 18, 8)... which to be true lacks convincing explanation in standard quantum mechanics (<a href="http://www.chem.ucla.edu/dept/Faculty/scerri/">according to E. Serri</a> among many others).<br /><br />The basic idea is thus to represent the total wave function $\psi (r,t)$ as a sum of shell wave functions<br />with non-overlapping supports in the different in shells requiring $\psi (r,t)$ and thus $\vert\psi (r,t)\vert^2$ to be continuous across inter-shell boundaries as free boundary condition, corresponding to continuity of charge distribution as a classical equilibrium condition.<br /><br />I have also with encouraging results tested this model for $N\le 10$ in full 3d geometry without spherical shell homogenisation with a wave function as a sum of electronic wave functions with non-overlapping supports separated by a free boundary determined by continuity of wave function including charge distribution.<br /><br />We compare with the standard (Hartree-Fock-Slater) Ansatz of quantum mechanics with a multi-dimensional wave function $\psi (x_1,...,x_N,t)$ depending on $N$ independent 3d coordinates $x_1,...,x_N,$ as a linear combination of wave functions of the multiplicative form<br /><ul><li>$\psi_1(x_1,t)\times\psi_2(x_2,t)\times ....\times\psi_N(x_N,t)$, </li></ul><div>with each electronic wave function $\psi_j(x_j,t)$ with global support (non-zero in all of 3d space). Such multi-d wave functions with global support thus depend on $3N$ independent space coordinates and as such defy both direct physical interpretation and computability, as soon as $N>1$, say. One may argue that since such multi-d wave function cannot be computed, it does not matter that they have no physical meaning, but the net output appears to be nil, despite the declared immense success of standard quantum mechanics based on this Ansatz.</div></div></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/09/finite-element-quantum-mechanics-5-1d.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-4756902202746545033Sun, 30 Aug 2015 12:07:00 +00002015-09-01T14:47:04.807+02:002nd law of thermodynamicsarrow of timefinite element quantum mechanicsfinite precision computationphysical quantum mechanicstheory of flightQuantum Information Can Be Lost<br /><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-POwX2OE3svI/VeLvbulKPPI/AAAAAAAA6hc/QS5bl4XzODc/s1600/Fil-2015-08-24-19-51-26.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-POwX2OE3svI/VeLvbulKPPI/AAAAAAAA6hc/QS5bl4XzODc/s400/Fil-2015-08-24-19-51-26.png" width="400" /></a></div><br /><a href="http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/212968-stephen-hawking-may-have-finally-solved-the-black-hole-information-problem">Stephen Hawking claimed in lecture at KTH in Stockholm last week</a> (watch the lecture <a href="https://www.kth.se/en/aktuellt/nyheter/hawking-offers-new-solution-to-black-hole-mystery-1.586546">here</a> and check <a href="https://www.kth.se/en/aktuellt/nyheter/hawking-conference-takes-aim-at-paradox-of-black-hole-theory-1.585138">this announcement</a>) that he had solved the "black hole information problem":<br /><ul><li><i>The information is not stored in the interior of the black hole as one might expect, but in its boundary — the event horizon,” he said. Working with Cambridge Professor Malcolm Perry (who spoke afterward) and Harvard Professor Andrew Stromberg, Hawking formulated the idea hat information is stored in the form of what are known as super translations.</i></li></ul><div>The problem arises because quantum mechanics is viewed to be reversible, because the mathematical equations supposedly describing atomic physics formally are time reversible: a solution proceeding in forward time from an initial to a final state, can also be viewed as a solution in backward time from the earlier final state to the initial state. The information encoded in the initial state can thus, according to this formal argument, be recovered and thus is never lost. On the other hand a black hole is supposed to swallow and completely destroy anything it reaches and thus it appears that a black hole violates the postulated time reversibility of quantum mechanics and non-destruction of information.</div><div><br /></div><div>Hawking's solution to this apparent paradox, is to claim that after all a black hole does not destroy information completely but "stores it on the boundary of the event horizon". Hawking thus "solves" the paradox by maintaining non-destruction of information and giving up complete black hole destruction of information.</div><div><br /></div><div>The question Hawking seeks to answer is the same as the fundamental problem of classical physics which triggered the development of modern physics in the late 19th century with Boltzmann's "proof" of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: Newton's equations describing thermodynamics are formally reversible, but the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that real physics is not always reversible: Information can be inevitably lost as a system evolves towards thermodynamical equilibrium and then cannot be recovered. Time has a direction forward and cannot be reversed. </div><div><br /></div><div>Boltzmann's "proof" was based an argument that things that do happen do that because they are "more probable" than things which do not happen. This deep insight opened the new physics of statistical mechanics from which quantum borrowed its statistical interpretation.</div><div><br /></div><div>I have presented a different new resolution of the apparent paradox of irrreversible macrophysics based on reversible microphysics by viewing physics as analog computation with finite precision, on both macro- and microscales. A spin-off of this idea is a new resolution of d'Alemberts's paradox and a new theory of flight to be published shortly.</div><div><br /></div><div>The basic idea here is thus to replace the formal infinite precision of both classical and quantum mechanics, which leads to paradoxes without satisfactory solution, with realistic finite precision which allows the paradoxes to be resolved in a natural way without resort to unphysical statistics. See the listed categories for lots of information about this novel idea.</div><div><br /></div><div>The result is that reversible infinite precision quantum mechanics is fiction without physical realization, and that irreversible finite precision quantum mechanics can be real physics and in this world of real physics information is irreversibly lost all the time even in the atomic world. Hawking's resolution is not convincing.<br /><br />Here is the key observation explaining the occurrence of irreversibility in formally reversible systems modeled by formally non-dissipative partial differential equations such as the Euler equations for inviscid macroscopic fluid flow and the Schrödinger equations for atomic physics:<br /><br />Smooth solutions are strong solutions in the sense of satisfying the equations pointwise with vanishing residual and as such are non-dissipative and reversible. But smooth solutions make break down into weak turbulent solutions, which are only solutions in weak approximate sense with pointwise large residuals and these solutions are dissipative and thus irreversible. <br /><br />An atom can thus remain in a stable ground state over time corresponding to a smooth reversible non-dissipative solution, while an atom in an excited state may return to the ground state as a non-smooth solution under dissipation of energy in an irreversible process. </div><div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><br /></blockquote></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/08/quantum-information-can-be-lost.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-4500265746627749540Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:47:00 +00002015-09-01T15:06:01.795+02:00finite element quantum mechanicsphysical quantum mechanicsPlanck's LawQuantum ContradictionsFinite Element Quantum Mechanics 4: Spherically Symmetric Model<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3wZT8tA0wh0/VeC3U3X6dnI/AAAAAAAA6hM/I5CaVoQvnU8/s1600/017_orbital.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3wZT8tA0wh0/VeC3U3X6dnI/AAAAAAAA6hM/I5CaVoQvnU8/s200/017_orbital.gif" width="200" /></a></div><br />I have tested the new atomic model described in a<a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2015/05/physical-quantum-mechanics-time.html"> previous post</a> in setting of spherical symmetry with electrons filling a sequence of non-overlapping spherical shells around a kernel. The electrons in each shell are homogenized to spherical symmetry which reduces the model to a 1d free boundary problem with the free boundary represented by the inter-shell spherical surfaces adjusted so that the combined wave function is continuous along with derivates across the boundary. The repulsion energy is computed so as to take into account that electrons are not subject to self-repulsion, by a corresponding reduction of the repulsion within a shell.<br /><br />The remarkable feature of this atomic model, in the form of a 1d free boundary problem with continuity as free boundary condition and readily computable on a lap-top, is that computed ground state energies show to be surprisingly accurate (within 1%) for all atoms including ions (I have so far tested up to atomic number 54 and am now testing excited states).<br /><br />Recall that the wave function $\psi (x,t)$ solving the free boundary problem, has the form<br /><ul><li>$\psi (x,t) =\psi_1(x,t)+\psi_2(x,t)+...+\psi_S(x,t)$ (1)</li></ul><div>with $(x,t)$ a common space-time coordinate, where $S$ is the number of shells and $\psi_j(x,t)$ with support in shell $j$ is the wave function for the homogenized wave function for the electrons in shell $j$ with $\int\vert\psi_j(x,t)\vert^2\, dx$ equal to the number of electrons in shell $j$.</div><div><br /></div><div>Note that the free boundary condition expresses continuity of charge distribution across inter-shell boundaries, which appears natural.</div><div><br /></div><div>Note that the model can be used in time dependent form and then allows direct computation of vibrational frequencies, which is what can be observed. </div><div><br /></div><div>Altogether, the model in spherical symmetric form indicates that the model captures essential features of the dynamics of an atom, and thus can useful in particular for studies of atoms subject to exterior forcing. </div><div><br /></div><div>I have also tested the model without spherical homogenisation for atoms with up to 10 electrons, with similar results. In this case the the free boundary separates diffferent electrons (and not just shells of electrons) with again continuous charge distribution across the corresponding free boundary. </div><div><br /></div><div>In this model electronic wave functions share a common space variable and have disjoint supports and can be given a classical direct physical interpretation as charge distribution. There is no need of any Pauli exclusion principle: Electrons simply occupy different regions of space and do not overlap, just as in a classical multi-species continuum model.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is to be compared with standard quantum mechanics based on multidimensional wave functions $\psi (x_1,x_2,...,x_N,t)$ typically appearing as linear combinations of products of electronic wave functions<br /><ul><li>$\psi (x_1,x_2,...,x_N,t)=\psi_1(x_1,t)\times \psi_2(x_2,t)....\times\psi_N(x_N,t)$ (2)</li></ul>for an atom with $N$ electrons, each electronic wave function $\psi_j(x_j,t)$ being globally defined with its own independent space coordinate $x_j$. Such multidimensional wave functions can only be given statistical interpretation, which lacks direct physical meaning. In addition, Pauli's exclusion principle must be invoked and it should be remembered that Pauli himself did not like his principle since it was introduced ad hoc without any physical motivation, to save quantum mechanics from collapse from the very start...<br /><br />More precisely, while (1) is perfectly reasonable from a classical continuum physics point of view, and as such is computable and useful, linear combination of (2) represent a monstrosity which is both uncomputable and unphysical and thus dangerous, but nevertheless is supposed to represent the greatest achievement of human intellect all times in the form of the so called modern physics of quantum mechanics.<br /><br />How long will it take for reason and rationality to return to physics after the dark age of modern physics initiated in 1900 when Planck's "in a moment of despair" resorted to an ad hoc hypothesis of a smallest quantum of energy in order to avoid the "ultra-violet catastrophe" of radiation viewed to be impossible to avoid in classical continuum physics. But with <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/finite%20precision%20computation">physics as finite precision computation</a>, which I am exploring, there is no catastrophe of any sort and Planck's sacrifice of rationality serves no purpose.<br /><br /><b>PS</b> Here are the details of the spherical symmetric model starting from the following new formulation of a Schrödinger equation for an atom with $N$ electrons organised in spherical symmetric form into $S$ shells: Find a wave function<br /><ul><li>$\psi (x,t) = \sum_{j=1}^N\psi_j(x,t)$</li></ul>as a sum of $N$ electronic complex-valued wave functions $\psi_j(x,t)$, depending on a common 3d space coordinate $x\in R^3$ and time coordinate $t$ with non-overlapping spatial supports $\Omega_1(t)$,...,$\Omega_N(t)$, filling 3d space, satisfying<br /><ul><li>$i\dot\psi (x,t) + H\psi (x,t) = 0$ for all $(x,t)$, (1)</li></ul>where the (normalised) Hamiltonian $H$ is given by<br /><div><ul><li>$H(x) = -\frac{1}{2}\Delta - \frac{N}{\vert x\vert}+\sum_{k\neq j}V_k(x)$ for $x\in\Omega_j(t)$,</li></ul><div>where $V_k(x)$ is the potential corresponding to electron $k$ defined by </div><ul><li>$V_k(x)=\int\frac{\vert\psi_k(y,t)\vert^2}{2\vert x-y\vert}dy$, for $x\in R^3$,</li></ul><div>and the wave functions are normalised to correspond to unit charge of each electron:</div><div><ul><li>$\int_{\Omega_j}\vert\psi_j(x,t)\vert^2 =1$ for all $t$ for $j=1,..,N$.</li></ul><div><div>Assume the electrons fill a sequence of shells $S_k$ for $k=1,...,S$ centered at the atom kernel with $N_k$ electrons on shell $S_k$ and </div><div><ul><li>$\int_{S_k}\vert\psi (x,t)\vert^2 =N_k$ for all $t$ for $k=1,..,S$,</li><li>$\sum_k^S N_k = N$.</li></ul></div></div></div><div>The total wave function $\psi (x,t)$ is thus assumed to be continuously differentiable and the electronic potential of the Hamiltonian acting in $\Omega_j(t)$ is given as the attractive kernel potential together with the repulsive kernel potential resulting from the combined electronic charge distributions $\vert\psi_k\vert^2$ for $k\neq j$, with total electronic repulsion energy<br /><ul><li>$\sum_{k\neq j}\int\frac{\vert\psi_k(x,t)\vert^2\vert\psi_k(y,t)\vert^2}{2\vert x-y\vert}dxdy=\sum_{k\neq j}V_k(x)\vert\psi_k(x)\vert^2\, dx$.</li></ul><div>Assume now that the electronic repulsion energy is approximately determined by homogenising the $N_k$ electronic wave function $\psi_j$ in each shell $S_k$ into a spherically symmetric "electron cloud" $\Psi_k(x)$ with corresponding potential $W_k(y)$ given by</div><ul><li>$W_k(y)=\int_{\vert x\vert <\vert y\vert}R_k\frac{\vert\Psi_k(x)\vert ^2}{\vert y\vert}\, dx+\int_{\vert x\vert >\vert y\vert}R_k\frac{\vert\Psi_k(x)\vert ^2}{\vert x\vert}\, dx$,</li></ul><div>and $R_k(x)=\frac{N_k-1}{N_k}$ for $x\in S_k$ is a reduction factor reflecting non self-repulsion of each electron (and $R_k=1$ else): Of the $N_k$ electrons in shell $S_k$, thus only $N_k-1$ electrons contribute to the value of potential in shell $S_k$ from the electrons in shell $S_k$. We here use the fact that the potential $W(x)$ of a uniform charge distribution on a spherical surface $\{y:\vert y\vert =r\}$ of radius $r$ of total charge $Q$, is equal to $Q/\vert x\vert$ for $\vert x\vert >r$ and $Q/r$ for $\vert x\vert <r$.<r p=""></r></div><div><r div=""></r><br /><div>Our model then has spherical symmetry and is a 1d free boundary problem in the radius $r=\vert x\vert$ with the free boundary represented by the radii of the shells and the corresponding Hamiltonian is defined by the electronic potentials computed by spherical homogenisation in each shell. The free boundary is determined so that the combined wave function $\psi (x,t)$ is continuously differentiable across the free boundary. </div><br /><br /></div></div><br /></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/08/finite-element-quantum-mechanics-4.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-7796438867141066143Thu, 27 Aug 2015 12:13:00 +00002015-08-27T14:13:54.358+02:00finite element quantum mechanicsperiodic tablephysical quantum mechanicsFinite Element Quantum Mechanics 3: Explaining the Periodicity of the Periodic Table<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D1b3F_Dp1b0/Vd7-0XPqBvI/AAAAAAAA6g4/PjzUGm9eya4/s1600/PeriodicTable-NoBackground2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D1b3F_Dp1b0/Vd7-0XPqBvI/AAAAAAAA6g4/PjzUGm9eya4/s640/PeriodicTable-NoBackground2.png" width="640" /></a></div><br /><a href="http://www.tp.umu.se/~dion/atmol/Slides/QDT.pdf">According to Eric Scerri,</a> the periodic table is not well explained by quantum mechanics, contrary to common text book propaganda, not even the most basic aspect of the periodic table, namely its periodicity:<br /><ul><li><i>Pauli’s explanation for the closing of electron shells is rightly regarded as the high point in the old quantum theory. Many chemistry textbooks take Pauli’s introduction of the fourth quantum number, later associated with spin angular momentum, as the foundation of the modern periodic table. Combining this two-valued quantum number with the ear- lier three quantum numbers and the numerical relationships between them allow one to infer that successive electron shells should contain 2, 8, 18, or $2n^2$ electrons in general, where n denotes the shell number. </i></li><li><i>This explanation may rightly be regarded as being deductive in the sense that it flows directly from the old quantum theory’s view of quantum numbers, Pauli’s additional postulate of a fourth quantum number, and the fact that no two electrons may share the same four quan- tum numbers (Pauli’s exclusion principle). </i></li><li><i>However, Pauli’s Nobel Prize-winning work <b>did not provide a solution to the question which I shall call the “closing of the periods”—that is why the periods end, in the sense of achieving a full-shell configuration, at atomic numbers 2, 10, 18, 36, 54, and so forth. This is a separate question from the closing of the shells.</b> For example, if the shells were to fill sequentially, Pauli’s scheme would predict that the second period should end with element number 28 or nickel, which of course it does not. Now, this feature is important in chemical education since it implies that quantum mechanics can- not strictly predict where chemical properties recur in the periodic table. It would seem that quantum mechanics does not fully explain the single most important aspect of the periodic table as far as general chemistry is concerned. </i></li><li><i>The discrepancy between the two sequences of numbers representing the closing of shells and the closing of periods occurs, as is well known, due to the fact that the shells are not sequentially filled. Instead, the sequence of filling fol- lows the so-called Madelung rule, whereby the lowest sum of the first two quantum numbers, n + l, is preferentially oc- cupied. As the eminent quantum chemist Löwdin (among others) has pointed out, this filling order has never been derived from quantum mechanics. </i></li></ul><div>On the other hand, in the new approach to atomic physics I am exploring, the periodicity directly connects to a basic partitioning or packing problem, namely how to subdivide the surface of a sphere in equal parts, which gives the sequence $2n^2$ by dividing first into two half spheres and then subdividing each half spherical surface in $n\times n$ pieces, in a way similar to dividing a square surface into $n\times n$ square pieces. With increasing shell radius an increasing number of electrons, occupying a certain surface area (scaling with the inverse of the kernel charge), can be contained in a shell. </div><div><br /></div><div>In this setting a "full shell" can contain 2, 8, 18, 32,.., electrons, and the observed periodicity 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32, with each period ended by a noble gas with atomic numbers 2 (He), 10 (Neon), 18 (Argon), 36 (Krypton), 54 (Xenon), 86 (Radon), 118 (Ununoctium, unkown), with a certain repetition of shell numbers, can be seen as a direct consequence of such a full shell structure, if allowed to be repeated when the radius of a shell is not yet large enough to house a full shell of the next dignity. </div><div><br /></div><div>Text book quantum mechanics thus does not explain the periodicity of the periodic table, while the new approach am I pursuing may well do so in a very natural way. Think of that. </div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/08/finite-element-quantum-mechanics-3.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-1809435468232507010Tue, 25 Aug 2015 17:55:00 +00002015-08-25T19:58:49.733+02:00svarta hålUlf DanielssonUlf Danielsson om Klimathot, Hawking och Svarta Hål. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Dl8zdTFubjI/Vdyseo2_K6I/AAAAAAAA6gk/UDA1NVpEnTM/s1600/ulddanielson.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Dl8zdTFubjI/Vdyseo2_K6I/AAAAAAAA6gk/UDA1NVpEnTM/s320/ulddanielson.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br /><a href="http://ulfdanielsson.com/">Strängfysikern Ulf Danielsson har startat en blogg </a>med Stephen Hawking's besök vid KTH och föreläsning på Stockholm Waterfront som initiellt dragplåster. Ulf skriver gärna om svarta hål, som han verkar tro inneha verklig fysisk existens som "singularitet" till lösningar till Einstein's ekvationer. Ulf verkar även tro på kimatalarmismen som den predikas av IPCC:<br /><ul><li><i>När det gäller människogenererad klimatpåverkan är huvudslutsatsen klar: den finns där, och risken att den får betydande följder för den mänskliga civilisationen om inget görs är överhängande. Den senaste <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/">IPCC-rapporten</a> gör det omöjligt att dra någon annan generell slutsats.</i></li></ul><div>Vi skeptiker som granskat vetenskapen bakom IPCCs klimatalarmism, vet att Ulf i denna fråga blivit helt vilseförd. Frågan är om samma sak gäller för svarta hål? </div><div><br /></div><div>Om det nu är så att man kan hitta singulariteter hos lösningar till Einstein's ekvationer, vilket i sig kan diskuteras eftersom dessa ekvationer är hart när omöjliga att lösa, betyder det att dessa singulariteter också har fysisk realitet? </div><div><br /></div><div>Även om det finns massa i centrum på galaxer som man inte kan se, vilket observationer av galaxers dynamik verkar tyda på, så betyder det väl inte nödvändigtvis att denna osynliga massa utgörs av svart hål? </div><div><br /></div><div>Kan det vara så att IPCCs (farligt tjocka enligt Ulf) rapport utgör ett svart hål ur vilken ingen sann information förmår utstråla?</div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/08/ulf-danielsson-om-klimathot-hawking-och.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-5847338775684808708Tue, 25 Aug 2015 13:14:00 +00002015-08-28T21:03:08.578+02:00finite element quantum mechanicsphysical quantum mechanicsQuantum Contradictionsquantum mechanicsSchrödinger's equationFinite Element Quantum Mechanics 2: Questions without Answers<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CjSItRiphmE/VdxmG4G7iZI/AAAAAAAA6gM/T6l4uWkDzbU/s1600/9783642693670.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CjSItRiphmE/VdxmG4G7iZI/AAAAAAAA6gM/T6l4uWkDzbU/s200/9783642693670.jpg" width="138" /></a></div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V2Gk6fCoLdc/VdxnGi-jtZI/AAAAAAAA6gU/qaGcE3n1RYw/s1600/10.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-V2Gk6fCoLdc/VdxnGi-jtZI/AAAAAAAA6gU/qaGcE3n1RYw/s200/10.jpg" width="171" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Hans Primas formulates in Chemistry, Quantum Mechanics and Reductionism, the following basic questions left without answers in textbook quantum mechanics:<br /><ol><li><i>Do isolated quantal systems exist at all?</i></li><li><i>Is the Pauli Principle a universal and inviolable fact of nature?</i></li><li><i>Does quantum mechanics apply to large molecular systems?</i></li><li><i>Is the superposition principle universally valid?</i></li><li><i>Why do so many stationary states not exist?</i></li><li><i>Why are macroscopic bodies localised?</i></li><li><i>Why does quantum mechanics fail to account for chemical systematics?</i></li><li><i>Why can approximations be better than the exact solutions?</i></li><li><i>Why is the Born-Oppenheimer picture so successful?</i></li><li><i>Is temperature an observable? </i></li></ol><div>Despite now almost 100 years of giant efforts by giant scientific minds, no satisfactory answers to these basic questions have been delivered. There is no reason to believe that 100 more years will give any answers and the question must be posed if there is something fundamentally wrong with textbook quantum mechanics which prevents progress? </div><div><br /></div><div>Yes, I think so: The origin of all these questions without answers is the starting point of textbook quantum mechanics with a wave function </div><div><ul><li>$\psi (x_1,....,x_N,t)$ depending on $3N$ space coordinates and time,</li><li>satsifying a linear scalar wave equation in $3N$ space dimensions and time, </li></ul></div><div>for an atom with $N$ electrons as particles, with $\vert\psi (x_1,...,x_N,t)\vert^2$ interpreted as the probability that particle $j$ is at position $x_j$ at time $t$ for $j=1,...,N$. </div><div><br /></div><div>Such a wave function is both uncomputable (because of the many spatial dimensions) and unphysical (because an atom is not an insurance company computing probabilities, as little as an individual person paying an insurance). The fact that textbook quantum mechanics still after almost hundred years is stuck with such a hopeless scientific misconception, is nothing less than a scientific tragedy.<br /><br />Hans Primas gives the following devastating verdict:<br /><ul><li><i>There is no general agreement about the referent (physical meaning) of pioneer (textbook) quantum mechanics.</i></li><li><i>Pioneer quantum mechanics has an agonising shortcoming: It cannot describe classical systems. </i></li><li><i>From a fundamental point of view the only adequate interpretation of quantum mechanics is an ontic (realistic) interpretation.... Bohr's epistemic interpretation expresses merely states of knowledge and misses the point of genuine scientific inquiry...If we assume that pioneer quantum mechanics is a universal theory of molecular matter, then an ontic interpretation of this theory is impossible.</i></li><li><i>The Bohr Copenhagen (textbook) interpretation is not acceptable as a fundamental theory of matter. </i></li></ul><div>In other words, pioneer (textbook) quantum mechanics is a failed scientific project, and it is an open problem to find an ontic description of atomic physics by "genuine scientific inquiry", that is, in the spirit of the device of this blog, "by critical constructive inquiry towards understanding". </div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/08/finite-element-quantum-mechanics-2.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-2811176649955478039Tue, 25 Aug 2015 11:50:00 +00002015-08-25T19:23:44.569+02:00finite element quantum mechanicsphysical quantum mechanicsQuantum Contradictionsquantum mechanicsSchrödinger's equationFinite Element Quantum Mechanics 1: Listening to Bohm<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zMA12OczGE0/VdxVyOsLYlI/AAAAAAAA6f0/T_iww9ysGdo/s1600/david_bohm_quantum_theory_book.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-zMA12OczGE0/VdxVyOsLYlI/AAAAAAAA6f0/T_iww9ysGdo/s320/david_bohm_quantum_theory_book.jpg" width="201" /></a></div><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9RJkCIwYPLA/VdxWDJ_eh9I/AAAAAAAA6f8/WLlAc74fLHQ/s1600/david_bohm-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-9RJkCIwYPLA/VdxWDJ_eh9I/AAAAAAAA6f8/WLlAc74fLHQ/s320/david_bohm-2.jpg" width="211" /></a><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />David Bohm discusses in the concluding chapter of Quantum Theory the relationship between quantum and classical physics, stating the following charcteristics of classical physics:<br /><ol><li><i>The world can be analysed into distinct elements.</i></li><li><i>The state of each element can be described in terms of dynamical variables that are specified with arbitrarily high precision.</i></li><li><i>The interrelationship between parts of a system can be described with the aid of exact casual was that define the changes of the above dynamical variables with time in terms of their initial values. The behavior of the system as a whole can be regarded as the result of the interaction by its parts.</i></li></ol><div>If we here replace, "arbitrarily high precision" and "exact" with "finite precision", the description 1-3 can be viewed as a description of </div><div><ul><li>the finite element method </li><li>as digital physics as digital computation with finite precision</li><li>as mathematical simulation of real physics as analog computation with finite precision.</li></ul><div>My long-term goal is to bring quantum mechanics into a paradigm of classical physics modified by finite precision computation, as a form of computational quantum mechanics, thus bridging the present immense gap between quantum and classical physics. This gap is described by Bohm as follows:</div><div><ul><li><i>The quantum properties of matter imply the indivisibility unity of all interacting systems. Thus we have contradicted 1 and 2 of the classical theory, since there exist on the quantum level neither well defined elements nor well defined dynamical variables, which describe the behaviour of these elements.</i></li></ul><div>My idea is thus to slightly modify classical physics by replacing "arbitrarily high precision" with "finite precision" to encompass quantum mechanics thus opening microscopic quantum mechanics to a machinery which has been so amazingly powerful in the form of finite element methods for macroscopic continuum physics, instead of throwing everything over board and resorting to a game of roulette as in the text book version of quantum mechanics which Bohm refers to.</div></div><div><br /></div><div>In particular, in this new form of computational quantum mechanics, an electron is viewed as an "element" or a "collection of elements", each element with a distinct non-overlapping spatial presence, with an interacting system of $N$ electrons described by a (complex-valued) wave function $\psi (x,t)$ depending on a 3d space coordinate $x$ and a time coordinate $t$ of the form </div><div><ul><li>$\psi (x,t) = \psi_1(x,t) + \psi_2(x,t)+...+\psi_N(x,t)$, (1)</li></ul></div><div>where the electronic wave functions $\psi_j(x,t)$ for $j=1,...,N$, have disjoint supports together filling 3d space, indicating the individual presence of the electrons in space and time. The system wave function $\psi (x,t)$ is required to satisfy a Schrödinger wave equation including a Laplacian </div><div>asking the composite wave functions $\psi (x,t)$ to be continuous along with derivatives across inter element boundaries. This a is a free boundary problem in 3d space and time and as such readily computable. </div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/physical%20quantum%20mechanics">I have with satisfaction observed</a> that a spherically symmetric shell version of such a finite element model does predict ground state energies in close comparison to observation (within a percent) for all elements in the periodic table, and I will report these results shortly.</div><div><br /></div><div>We may compare the wave function given by (1) with the wave function of text book quantum mechanics as a linear combination of terms of the multiplicative form:</div><div><ul><li>$\psi (x_1,x_2,...x_N,t)=\psi_1(x_1,t)\times\psi_2(x_2,t)\times ...\times\psi_N(x_N,t)$,</li></ul><div>depending on $N$ 3d space coordinates $x_1,x_2,...,x_N$ and time, where each factor $\psi_j(x_j,t)$ is part of a (statistical) description of the global particle presence of an electron labeled $j$ with $x_j$ ranging over all of 3d space. Such a wave function is uncomputable as the solution to a Schrödinger equation in $3N$ space coordinates, and thus has no scientific value. Nevertheless, this is the text book foundation of quantum mechanics.</div><div><br /></div><div>Text book quantum mechanics is thus based on a model which is uncomputable (and thus useless from scientific point of view), but the model is not dismissed on these grounds. Instead it is claimed that the uncomputable model always is in exact agreement to all observations according to tests of this form: </div><div><ul><li>If a computable approximate version of this model (such as Hartree-Fock with a specific suitably chosen set of electronic orbitals) happens to be in correspondence with observation (due to some unknown happy coincidence), then this is taken as evidence that the exact version is always correct. </li><li>If a computable approximate version happens to disagree with observation, which is often the case, then the approximate version is dismissed but the exact model is kept; after all, an approximate model which is wrong (or too approximate) should be possible to view as evidence that an exact model as being less approximate must be more (or fully) correct, right? </li></ul><div><b>PS</b> The fact that the finite element method has been such a formidable success for macroscopic problems as systems made up of very many small parts or elements, gives good hope that this method will be at least as useful for microscopic systems viewed to be formed by fewer and possibly simpler (rather than more complex) elements. This fits into a perspective (opposite to the standard view) where microscopics comes out to be more simple than macroscopics, because macroscopics is built from microscopics, and a DNA molecule is more complex than a carbon atom, and a human being more complex than an egg cell. </div></div></div><div><br /></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/08/finite-element-quantum-mechanics-1.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-9184474965000521549Sat, 15 Aug 2015 13:50:00 +00002015-08-15T21:21:09.123+02:00physical quantum mechanicsPopperQuantum ContradictionsPopper vs Physics as Finite Precision Computation<div><br /></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H0SsB4oWdkY/Vc8_5dQT-CI/AAAAAAAA6fU/n4tl1m4zXnI/s1600/popper1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-H0SsB4oWdkY/Vc8_5dQT-CI/AAAAAAAA6fU/n4tl1m4zXnI/s320/popper1.jpg" width="240" /></a></div><div><i>Today, physics is in a crisis....it is a crisis of understanding...roughly as old as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics...</i>(in 1982 Preface to Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics)</div><div><br />Karl Popper's vision expressed in <a href="http://www.criticalrationalism.net/2013/09/22/postscript-to-the-logic-of-scientific-discovery-after-50-years/">The Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery</a> (with the above book as Vol III), is a science of modern quantum physics which shares the following characteristics of classical physics:</div><div><ol><li>Realism</li><li>Determinism (A)</li><li>Objectivism.</li></ol><div>Popper compares this paradigm of rationality with the ruling paradigm of modern physics being the exact opposite as an irrationality characterised by:</div></div><div><ol><li>Idealism</li><li>Indeterminism (B)</li><li>Subjectivism.</li></ol><div>The crisis of modern physics acknowledged by all prominent physicists of today, can be viewed as an effect of (B). It is no wonder that (B) being an irrational opposite to a rational (A), has led to a crisis. </div><div><br /></div><div>The reason the paradigm (A) of classical macroscopic physics was replaced by (B) when Planck-Bohr-Born-Heisenberg shaped the ruling (Copenhagen) paradigm of modern physics, was a perceived impossibility to (i) explain the phenomena of black-body radiation by classical electrodynamics and (ii) to give the standard multi-dimensional (uncomputable) wave function of Schrödinger's equation describing microsopic atomic physics, a physical meaning. </div><div><br /></div><div>I have been led to a version of Popper's paradigm (A) viewing physics as</div><div><ul><li>finite precision computation </li></ul></div><div>where (i) and (ii) can be handled in a natural way and the resort to the extreme position (B) can be avoided. This paradigm is outlined as <a href="https://computationalblackbody.wordpress.com/">Computational Blackbody Radiation</a> and <a href="https://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/">The World as Computation</a>. </div></div><div><br /></div><div>In particular I have explored a computable <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/physical%20quantum%20mechanics">three-dimensional alternative version of Schrödinger's equation conforming to (A) </a>and I will present computational results in upcoming posts. In particular, it appears that this (computable) version explains the periodic table more directly than the standard (uncomputable) one. More precisely, an uncomputable mathematical model is useless and cannot be used to explain anything.<br /><br /><b>PS</b> The crisis in physics rooted in the Copenhagen interpretation has deepened after Poppers 1982 analysis, following a well known tactic to handle a pressing problem, which appears to be unsolvable: make the problem even more severe and unsolvable and thereby relieve the pressure from the original problem. Today we can observe this tactic in extreme form with physicists flooding media with fantasy stories about dark matter, dark energy, parallel worlds and cats in superposition of being both dead and alive, all phenomena of which nothing is known. The Dark Ages appears as enlightened against this background.</div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/08/popper-vs-physics-as-finite-precision.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-5984106768228248365Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:17:00 +00002015-08-05T18:03:36.216+02:00KTH-gateKTH-gate2KTH-gate3simulation technologyDystert Resultat av KTH-Gate = Noll: SimuleringsTeknik Läggs Ner<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HFEomyy-U64/VcEOv5oZTVI/AAAAAAAA6e0/aj5h8119qYw/s1600/einstein.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="218" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-HFEomyy-U64/VcEOv5oZTVI/AAAAAAAA6e0/aj5h8119qYw/s320/einstein.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />KTH-gate är benämningen på på den aktion som KTH riktade mot mitt verk som innebar att min ebok<a href="http://www.nada.kth.se/~cgjoh/preview/bodysoul.pdf"> Mathematical Simulation Technology (MST) </a>avsedd att användas inom det nya kandidatprogrammet i Simuleringsteknik och Virtuell Design (STVD), mitt under pågående testkurs under HT10 förbjöds av KTH (för en fullständig redogörelse för detta drama, som saknar motsvarighet inom demokratisk stats akademi, se <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/KTH-gate">här</a>, <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/KTH-gate2">här</a>, <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/KTH-gate3">här</a> och <a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/simulation%20technology">här</a>).<br /><br />Resultatet av censuringripandet blev att kandidatprogrammet separerades från den grupp av lärare som initierat programmet med avsikt att driva detsamma och för detta fått KTHs stöd. Sålunda startade STVD HT12 på en grund av gamla kurser i numerisk analys under ledning av en annan grupp lärare i numerisk analys, detta utan marknadsföring och resultatet blev därefter: Noll intresse, noll söktryck, noll intagningsbetyg, noll aktualitet = noll resultat.<br /><br />KTH insåg efter två år att det var totalt meningslöst att driva ett sådant program och HT14 fattade så Leif Kari, skolchef på skolan för Teknikvetenskap och huvudansvarig för censureringen av MST, det helt följdriktiga beslutet att lägga ner STVD (eller med omskrivning låta det vara "vilande") enligt <a href="http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/STVD1.pdf">denna offentliga handling</a> (som registrator vänligt nog grävt fram då varken Leif Kari eller någon annan inblandad velat svara på mina upprepade frågor om status för STVD). Man kan i denna skakande rapport läsa:<br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><ul><li><i>väldigt lågt söktryck</i></li><li><i>stora svårigheter för studenterna att klara studierna</i></li><li><i>förkunskaper alldeles för svaga</i></li><li><i>mindre an 20% klarar uppflyttningskraven. </i></li></ul>Så har då KTH lyckats med sitt uppsåt att stoppa ett alltför lovande initiativ från en alltför internationellt stark gruppering på KTH, under uppvisande av komplett inkompetens på alla nivåer. KTH har således genom censur förstört ett potentiellt högt värde och ersatt det med noll. Bra jobbat enligt KTHs rektor Peter Gudmundson, som aktivt deltog i bokbränningen 2010; när böcker bränns återstår bara aska.<br /><div><br /></div>Ironiskt nog har Leif Kari och Skolan för Teknikvetenskap dock inte låtit sig nedslås av detta dystra resultat utan arbetar nu aktivt för att uppgradera det havererade kandidatprogrammet i Simuleringsteknik till ett nytt <a href="https://people.kth.se/~dary/tm/tm-application_2015-03-02.pdf">civilingenjörsprogram i Teknisk Matematik</a> enligt <a href="http://www.csc.kth.se/~cgjoh/STVD2.pdf">detta tilläggsbeslut. </a>Fakultetsrådet har naturligtvis inte tillstyrkt inrättandet av detta program (se<a href="https://intra.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.575615!/FR%202015-06-09%20protokoll.pdf"> här 13d</a>), då logiken saknas: Om KTH inte är kapabelt att driva en kandidatutbildning inom teknisk matematik/simuleringsteknik, är KTH (som landets främsta tekniska högskola) än mindre kapabelt att driva ett civilingenjörsprogram med samma inriktning.<br /><br /><b>PS</b> <a href="http://www.studentum.se/Kandidatprogram_simuleringsteknik_och_virtuell_design_EJ_aak_1_endast_till_aak_2_eller_3_senare_del_av_program_334189.htm">Så här</a> beskrevs programmet av KTH när det startade 2012:<br /><ul><li><i>Simuleringsteknik och virtuell design är ett nytt program på KTH som utvecklats för att möta det ökande behovet av datorsimulering. </i></li><li><i>Utbildningen ger dig karriärmöjligheter inom många branscher, från verkstads- och processindustri, miljö- och energisektorn, via dataspel och animering, medicin och bioteknik till finansbranschen. </i></li><li><i>Du kan exempelvis jobba som beräkningskonsult, expert på visualisering och informationsgrafik eller som programdesigner. </i></li><li><i>Det nya kandidatprogrammet bygger på <b>en mycket stark forsknings- och utbildningsmiljö inom detta område på KTH och är unikt i Sverige.</b></i></li></ul><div>Ja, det är sannerligen unikt med sådan missskötsel, trots (eller kanske på grund av) KTHs priviligierade position. </div><div><br /></div><div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/08/dystert-resultat-av-kth-gate-noll.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-8827761514398483969Sat, 25 Jul 2015 12:20:00 +00002015-07-27T20:14:50.795+02:00Quantum ContradictionsFrank Wilczek: Ugly Answer to Ugly Question<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2RbJS0L_eeo/VbN7t8R7uyI/AAAAAAAA6dE/2WKCrVdTxSQ/s1600/wilczek.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2RbJS0L_eeo/VbN7t8R7uyI/AAAAAAAA6dE/2WKCrVdTxSQ/s320/wilczek.jpg" width="212" /></a></div><br />In his new book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Question-Finding-Natures-Design/dp/1594205264">A Beautiful Question: Finding Nature's Deep Design, Frank Wilczek</a> (Nobel Prize in Physics 2004) starts out stating the questions (or paradoxes) which motivated the development of modern physics:<br /><i><br /></i><i>In the quantum world of atoms and light, Nature treats us to a show of strange and seemingly impossible feats. Two of these feats seemed, when discovered, particularly impossible:</i><br /><div><ul><li><i>Light comes in lumps. This is demonstrated in the photoelectric effect, as we’ll discuss momentarily. It came as a shock to physicists. After Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory was confirmed in Hertz’s experiments (and later many others), physicists had thought they understood what light is. Namely, light is electromagnetic waves. But electromagnetic waves are continuous.</i></li><li><i>Atoms have parts, but are perfectly rigid. Electrons were first clearly identified in 1897, by J. J. Thomson. The most basic facts about atoms were elucidated over the following fifteen years or so. In particular: atoms consist of tiny nuclei containing almost all of their mass and all of their positive electric charge, surrounded by enough negatively charged electrons to make a neutral whole. Atoms come in different sizes, depending on the chemical element, but they’re generally in the ballpark of</i> $10^{-8}$ <i>centimeters, a unit of length called an angstrom. Atomic nuclei, however, are a hundred thousand times smaller. The paradox: How can such a structure be stable? Why don’t the electrons simply succumb to the attractive force from the nucleus, and dive in.</i></li><li><i>These paradoxical facts led Einstein and Bohr, respectively, to propose some outrageous, half-right hypotheses that served as footholds on the steep ascent to modern quantum theory. </i></li><li><i>After epic struggles, played out over more than a decade of effort and debate, an answer emerged. It has held up to this day, and its roots have grown so deep that it seems unlikely ever to topple.</i></li></ul><a href="http://frankwilczek.com/">Wilczek</a> then proceeds to prepare us to accept the answers offered by the modern physics of quantum mechanics as the result of<i> epic struggles:</i><br /><ul><li><i>The framework known as quantum theory, or quantum mechanics, was mostly in place by the late 1930s. </i></li><li><i>Quantum theory is not a specific hypothesis, but a web of closely intertwined ideas. I do not mean to suggest quantum theory is vague—it is not. </i></li><li><i>With rare and usually temporary exceptions, when faced with any concrete physical problem, all competent practitioners of quantum mechanics will agree about what it means to address that problem using quantum theory. </i></li><li><i>But few, if any, would be able to say precisely what assumptions they have made to get there. Coming to terms with quantum theory is a process, through which the work will teach you how to do it.</i></li></ul><div>We learn that quantum mechanics is not built on specific hypotheses or assumptions, but nevertheless <i>is not vague</i>, and instead rather is<i> a process </i>monitored by <i>competent practitioners. </i>In any case, Wilczek proceeds to give us a glimpse of the basic hypothesis:</div><div><ul><li><i>In quantum theory’s description of the world, the fundamental objects are ....wave functions.</i></li><li><i>Any valid physical question about a physical system can be answered by consulting its wave function.</i></li><li><i>But the relation between question and answer is not straightforward. Both the way that wave functions answer questions and the answers they give have surprising—not to say weird—features.</i></li></ul><div>OK, so we are now enlightened by understanding that the answers that come out are weird. Wilczek continues:</div><ul><li><i>I will focus on the specific sorts of wave functions we need to describe the hydrogen atom: </i></li><li><i>We are interested, then, in the wave function that describes a single electron bound by electric forces to a tiny, much heavier proton.</i></li><li><i>Before discussing the electron’s wave function, we’ll do well to describe its probability cloud. The probability cloud is closely related to the wave function. The probability cloud is easier to understand than the wave function, and its physical meaning is more obvious, but it is less fundamental. (Those oracular statements will be fleshed out momentarily).</i></li><li><i>Quantum mechanics does not give simple equations for probability clouds. Rather, probability clouds are calculated from wave functions.</i></li><li><i>The wave function of a single particle, like its probability cloud, assigns an amplitude to all possible positions of the particle. In other words, it assigns a number to every point in space. </i></li><li><i>To pose questions, we must perform specific experiments that probe the wave function in different ways.</i></li><li><i>You get probabilities, not definite answers.</i></li><li><i>You don’t get access to the wave function itself, but only a peek at processed versions of it.</i></li><li><i>Answering different questions may require processing the wave function in different ways.</i></li><li><i>Each of those three points raises big issues.</i></li></ul></div></div><div><div>Wilczek then tackles these issues by posing new questions, or lacking question by retreating to an admirable attitude of <i>humility in a lesson of wisdom</i>: </div><div><ul><li><i>The first raises the issue of determinism. Is calculating probabilities really the best we can do?</i></li><li><i>The second raises the issue of many worlds. What does the full wavefunction describe, when we’re not peeking? Does it represent a gigantic expansion of reality, or is it just a mind tool, no more real than a dream?</i></li><li><i>The third raises the issue of complementarity....It is a lesson in humility that quantum theory forces to our attention. To probe is to interact, and to interact is potentially to disturb.</i></li><li><i>Complementarity is both a feature of physical reality and a lesson in wisdom.</i></li></ul><div>We see that Wilczek sells the usual broth of <i>strange and seemingly impossible feats, weird features</i>, and <i>outrageous half-right hypotheses, </i>all <i>raising big issues. </i>Wilczek sums up by the following quote of Walt Whitman under the headline<i> COMPLEMENTARITY AS WISDOM:</i></div></div></div><div><div><br /></div><div> <i>Do I contradict myself?</i></div><div><i> Very well, then, I contradict myself,</i></div><div><i> I am large, I contain multitudes.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>But physics is not poetry, and contradictory poetry does not justify contradictory physics. Contradictory mathematical physics cannot be true real physics, not even meaningful poetry. To get big by contradiction is a trade of politics, which is ugly and not beautiful.<br /><br />Nevertheless, Wilczek started his Nobel lecture as follows:<br /><ul><li><i>In theoretical physics, paradoxes are good. That’s paradoxical, since a paradox appears to be a contradiction, and contradictions imply serious error. But Nature cannot realize contradictions. When our physical theories lead to paradox we must find a way out. Paradoxes focus our attention, and we think harder.</i></li></ul><div>We understand that to Wilczek/modern physicists, contradictions are good rather than catastrophical and the more paradox the better, since it makes physicists <i>focus attention to think harder. </i> Beautiful. For more excuses, see <a href="http://frankwilczek.com/Wilczek_Easy_Pieces/317_What_Is_Quantum_Theory.pdf">What Is Quantum Theory</a>. Wilczek here retells the story of the Father (or Dictator) of Quantum Mechanics, Niels Bohr:<br /><ul><li><i>How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress.</i></li></ul><div>The paradox presented itself in 1925, but what happened to the hope of progress? Is paradoxical physics the physics of our time? Does light come in lumps? Why are atoms stable? Despite paradoxes, no real progress for 90 years!!??</div></div><div class="page" title="Page 1"><div class="section"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"></div></div></div></div><b><br /></b><b>PS1</b> Here is the question killing the probability interpretation of the wave function: Since the wave function for the ground state of Hydrogen is non-zero even far away from the kernel, does it mean that there is a non-zero chance of experimentally detecting a Hydrogen ground state electron far away from the kernel it is associated with? Or the other way around, since the wave function is maximal at zero distance from the kernel, does it mean that one will mostly find the electron hiding inside the kernel?<br /><br /><b>PS2</b> Beauty is an expression of order and <i>deep design,</i> not of disorder and lack of design. An atomistic world ruled by chance can be beautiful only to a professional statistician obsessed by computing mean values.<br /><br /><b>PS3</b> <a href="http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=7881">Not Even Wrong</a> presents the book as follows: <i>Frank Wilczek’s new book, <a href="http://thepenguinpress.com/book/a-beautiful-question-finding-natures-deep-design/">A Beautiful Question</a>, is now out and if you’re at all interested in issues about beauty and the deep structure of reality, you should find a copy and spend some time with it. As he explains at the very beginning:</i><br /><ul><li><i>This book is a long meditation on a single question:</i></li><li><i>Does the world embody beautiful ideas?</i></li></ul><i>To me (and I think to Wilczek), the answer to the question has always been an unambiguous “Yes”. The more difficult question is “what does such a claim about beauty and the world mean?” and that’s the central concern of the book.</i><br /><i><br /></i><b>PS4 </b>Wilczek expresses a tendency shared by many modern physicists of pretending to know all of chemistry "in principle", simply by writing down a Schrödinger equation on a piece of paper, however without actually being able to predict anything specific because solutions of the equation cannot by computed: </div><div><ul><li><i>Wave functions that fully describe the physical state of several electrons occupy spaces of very high dimension. The wave function for two electrons lives in a six-dimensional space, the wave function for three electrons lives in a nine-dimensional space, and so forth. The equations for these wave functions rapidly become quite challenging to solve, even approximately, and even using the most powerful computers. This is why chemistry remains a thriving experimental enterprise, even though in principle we know the equations that govern it, and that should enable us to calculate the results of experiments in chemistry without having to perform them.</i></li></ul><div>In this illusion game, the uncomputability of the Schrödinger's many-dimensional equation relieves the physicist from the real task of explaining the actual physics of chemistry, while the physicist can still safely take the role of being in charge of principal theoretical chemistry underlying a "thriving experimental enterprise", which "in principle" is superfluous. Beautiful? </div></div><div><br /><br /></div><div></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/07/wilczek-ugly-answers-to-ugly-questions.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-63841630381889006Mon, 13 Jul 2015 17:44:00 +00002015-07-25T14:31:15.678+02:00climate scienceJohan Rockström: CO2 Global Warming May Prevent New Ice Age<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tQ31GbqONfg/VaP4SBihrRI/AAAAAAAA6cQ/5049H778Jfg/s1600/JR_1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="238" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tQ31GbqONfg/VaP4SBihrRI/AAAAAAAA6cQ/5049H778Jfg/s400/JR_1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><br /><a href="http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/571827?programid=2071">Johan Rockström,</a> Executive Director of <a href="http://www.stockholmresilience.org/21/contact/staff/1-16-2008-rockstrom.html">Stockholm Resilience Centre</a> and leading Swedish CO2 global warming alarmist, <a href="http://sverigesradio.se/sida/avsnitt/576264?programid=1637">admits that emission of CO2 may prevent new ice age</a> (1.24 into news program):<br /><ul><li><i>Paradoxically this appears to be a positive effect of global warming.</i></li></ul><div>This adds another paradox to the already long list of paradoxes of CO2 global warming.</div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/07/johan-rockstrom-co2-global-warming-may.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-3614111181938133374Sat, 04 Jul 2015 07:17:00 +00002015-07-05T11:39:54.053+02:00climate politicscrisis in physicsQuantum ContradictionsCollapse of Modern Physics: Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aGZERqfJoQ8/VZeITsOCrII/AAAAAAAA6bg/RS2pG_xfTM4/s1600/mainaudec_slider.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="152" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aGZERqfJoQ8/VZeITsOCrII/AAAAAAAA6bg/RS2pG_xfTM4/s400/mainaudec_slider.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br /><a href="http://www.lindau-nobel.org/the-mainau-declaration-2015-on-climate-change/">The Mainau Declaration 2015 on Climate Change</a> made at the 65th Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting on Mainau Island at Lake Constance and signed by the following physicists, among 35 other Laureates, Stephen Chu, Peter Doherty, David Gross, Brian Schmidt and George Smooth, states that (with my numbering an comments added):</div><div><ol><li><i>We believe that our world today faces another threat (global warming) of comparable magnitude to that of nuclear weapons. </i>(Comparable in what sense?)</li><li><i>Successive generations of scientists have helped create a more and more prosperous world. </i>(Physicists are helping mankind to prosperity) </li><li><i>This prosperity has come at the cost of a rapid rise in the consumption of the world’s resources. </i>(Poor people are consuming more and more)</li><li><i>If left unchecked, our ever-increasing demand for food, water, and energy will eventually overwhelm the Earth’s ability to satisfy humanity’s needs, and will lead to wholesale human tragedy. </i>(Ultimate doomsday scenario. Purpose?)</li><li><i>Already, scientists who study Earth’s climate are observing the impact of human activity. </i>(What impact?)</li><li><i>In response to the possibility of human-induced climate change, the United Nations established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide the world’s leaders a summary of the current state of relevant scientific knowledge. </i>(Scientists will tell what to do)</li><li><i>While by no means perfect, we believe that the efforts that have led to the current IPCC Fifth Assessment Report represent the best source of information regarding the present state of knowledge on climate change.</i> (Best source compared to what?)</li><li><i>We say this not as experts in the field of climate change, but rather as a diverse group of scientists who have a deep respect for and understanding of the integrity of the scientific process.</i> (Physicists know nothing about climate)</li><li><i>Although there remains uncertainty as to the precise extent of climate change, the conclusions of the scientific community contained in the latest IPCC report are alarming, especially in the context of the identified risks of maintaining human prosperity in the face of greater than a 2°C rise in average global temperature. </i>(Uncertainty as to precise extent? But alarming! Identified risks? Human prosperity to whom?)</li><li><i>The report concludes that anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the likely cause of the current global warming of the Earth. Predictions from the range of climate models indicate that this warming will very likely increase the Earth’s temperature over the coming century by more than 2°C above its pre-industrial level unless dramatic reductions are made in anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases over the coming decades. </i>(Effect of dramatic reduction? On climate? On people?)</li><li><i>Based on the IPCC assessment, the world must make rapid progress towards lowering current and future greenhouse gas emissions to minimize the substantial risks of climate change. </i>(Rapid progress? Minimize substantial risks?)</li><li><i>We believe that the nations of the world must take the opportunity at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December 2015 to take decisive action to limit future global emissions. </i>(Decisive actions by whom? Limit future global emissions, for whom?) </li><li><i>This endeavor will require the cooperation of all nations, whether developed or developing, and must be sustained into the future in accord with updated scientific assessments. </i>(Physicists will tell the world what to do)</li><li><i>Failure to act will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risk. </i>(Failure to do what? What is unconscionable and unacceptable risk?</li></ol><div>The fact that Physics Nobel Laureates sign a political document like this can be seen as a logical consequence of the collapse in modern physics of the rationality of classical physics, a collapse into stupidity which will subject future generations of humanity to unconscionable and unacceptable risks. </div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/07/collapse-of-modern-physics-mainau.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-2337588141393646785Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:07:00 +00002015-08-29T08:22:57.490+02:00finite precision computationmany-minds relativityphysical quantum mechanicsQuantum Contradictionstheory of relativityModern Physics: Meaningless Sacrifice of Causality, Rationality and Reality?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zfvzOiviKBM/VYz8X7PD5RI/AAAAAAAA6aM/lOLjZY5dI4Y/s1600/Helmholtzcrop.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-zfvzOiviKBM/VYz8X7PD5RI/AAAAAAAA6aM/lOLjZY5dI4Y/s400/Helmholtzcrop.jpg" width="273" /></a></div>Hermann von Helmholtz in Conservation of Force (1862-63): <i>Reason we call that faculty innate in us of discovering laws and applying them with thought...there is a kind, I might almost say, of artistic satisfaction,when we are able to survey the enormous wealth of Nature as a regular-ordered whole--a cosmos, an image of the logical thought of our mind.</i><br /><br />Modern physics in the form of relativity theory and quantum mechanics was born from a perceived impossibility of solving the following "problems" using methods of classical deterministic continuum physics:<br /><ol><li>Second law of thermodynamics (irreversibility in formally reversible systems).</li><li>Blackbody radiation (including avoidance of an ultraviolet catastrophe).</li><li>Existence of a unique aether medium for propagation of electromagnetic waves. </li></ol><div>Boltzmann "solved" 1. by introducing statistical physics, thus giving up classical determinism or causality.<br /><br />Planck "solved" 2. introducing a smallest quantum of energy, thus giving up the classical continuum of rational mechanics.<br /><br />Einstein "solved" 3. by freeing electromagnetics from an aether, thus giving up classical coordinates of space and time describing reality. </div><div><br /></div><div>In each case the sacrifice of pillars classical physics was monumental and the grandness of the sacrifice was taken as a sign that it was inevitable and thus justified: No physicist would be willing the give up so much, unless it was absolutely necessary, as expressed by Planck excusing his introducing of the quantum:<br /><div class="page" title="Page 26"><div class="layoutArea"><div class="column"><ul><li><i>...the whole procedure was an act of despair because a theoretical interpretation had to be found at any price, no matter how high that might be...</i></li></ul>But if one day it shows that 1-3 in fact can be handled using a mild extension of classical deterministic continuum physics, then the monumental sacrifices would be unnecessary and then without rationale.</div></div></div></div><div><br /></div><div>And yes, it may be that such a mild extension is possible in the form of <b>finite precision computation </b>exposed on <a href="https://claesjohnsonmathscience.wordpress.com/">The World as Computation.</a><br /><b><br /></b></div><div>This connects to Helmholtz' approach to 1. with heat as partly "incalculable" or "disordered" energy as energy with limited capability of being transformed to other forms of ("calculable") energy. This brings us back to the peak of classical physics represented by the mechanism of Helmholtz:<br /><ul><li><i>Natural phenomena should be traced back to the movements of material objects which possess inalterable motive forces that are dependent only on spatial relations.</i></li><li><i>Science, the goal of which is the comprehension of nature, must begin with the presupposition of its comprehensibility and proceed in accordance with this assumption until, perhaps, it is forced by irrefutable facts to recognise limits beyond it may not go.</i></li></ul><div>It thus appears to be possible to handle 1. and 2. by classical mechanism modified by finite precision computation. Further, 3. may be handled as suggested by the British physicist Ebenezer Cunningham (1881-1977) by viewing an aether is an immaterial space-time coordinate systems with the observed non-existence of a unique aether medium simply as an expression of the possibility of choosing many immaterial aethers/coordinate systems.</div><div><br /></div><div>It thus may be that the monumental sacrifices made by modern physicists in order to cope with 1-3, are not necessary, and as such represent human stupidity, rather than heroic victory of the power of the human mind as official truth of modern physics propagated by modern physicists. </div><br /></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/06/modern-physics-meaningless-sacrifice-of.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-1511209004812306618Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:12:00 +00002015-06-23T09:23:23.804+02:00physical quantum mechanicsQuantum Contradictionsquantum mechanicsQM on Shaky Ground, Still after 90 Years<a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/referenceworks/9780125126663">Encyclopedia of Mathematical Physics</a> (2006) states in Introductory Article: Quantum Mechanics:<br /><ul><li><i>QM in its present formulation is a refined and and successful instrument for the description of the non relativistic phenomena at the Planck scale, <b>but its internal inconsistency is still standing on shaky ground.</b></i></li><li><i>In this section we describe some of the <b>conceptual problems which plague present day QM</b>...</i></li></ul><div>How is it possible that today 90 years after the formulation of Schrödinger's equation as the foundation of QM, this foundation is still inconsistent and shaky, plagued by conceptual problems. What have physicists been doing all these years?<br /><br /><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ffweO3rmASA/VYkIMp2GIII/AAAAAAAA6Zs/3yd4w5W8i5Y/s1600/700px-Solvay_conference_1927.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="288" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ffweO3rmASA/VYkIMp2GIII/AAAAAAAA6Zs/3yd4w5W8i5Y/s400/700px-Solvay_conference_1927.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Solway Conference 1927</td></tr></tbody></table></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/06/qm-on-shaky-ground.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-1110535932475464385Thu, 18 Jun 2015 20:05:00 +00002015-06-19T12:35:31.879+02:00fluid mechanicstheory of flightNew Theory of Flight Accepted for Publication in Journal of Mathematical Fluid MechanicsThe ground-breaking article <a href="http://www.csc.kth.se/~jhoffman/Johan_Hoffman_KTH/Pub_files/kth-ctl-4044.pdf">New Theory of Flight</a> is now accepted for publication in Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics. The paralyzing spells of Prandtl, father of modern fluid mechanics, and Kutta and Zhukovsky, fathers of modern aerodynamics, are now finally broken after more than 100 years of misleading unphysical mathematics. A post-modern era of (computational mathematical) fluid mechanics and aerodynamics is now approaching...http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/06/new-theory-of-flight-accepted-for.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-1143942927723386558Sun, 14 Jun 2015 10:42:00 +00002015-06-14T20:07:33.045+02:00greenhouse effectpyrgeomterSpencer Struggles with The Greenhouse Effect and Dragons<a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/06/what-causes-the-greenhouse-effect/">Roy Spencer continues his long struggle</a> to convince the world that the Greenhouse Effect as the scientific foundation of CO2 global warming hysteria, is real physics:<br /><ul><li><i>I’ve had a request to (once again) go through an explanation of the (poorly-named) Greenhouse Effect (GHE). Hopefully there is something which follows that will help you understand this complex subject.</i></li></ul>Here is Roy's explanation:<br /><div><ul><li><i>The atmosphere DOES absorb IR energy. The IR absorption coefficients at various wavelengths, temperature, and pressures have been measured for water vapor, CO2, etc., in laboratories and published for decades.</i></li><li><i>This absorption means the atmosphere also EMITS IR energy, both upward and downward. And it is that DOWNWARD flow of IR energy (sometimes called “back radiation”) which is necessary for net warming of the surface from the greenhouse effect.</i></li></ul><div>Then Roy reveals the reason behind his irresistible urge to educate the world about the greenhouse effect:</div><div><ul><li><i>(Technical diversion: This is where the Sky Dragon Slayers get tripped up. They claim the colder atmosphere cannot emit IR downward toward a warmer surface below, when in fact all the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would require is that the NET flow of energy in all forms be from higher temperature to lower temperature. This is still true in my discussion.)</i></li></ul></div><div>Roy's heavy weapon intended to kill those nasty Sky Dragon Slayers is:</div><ul><li><i>You can measure the greenhouse effect yourself with a <a href="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/imaging-the-greenhouse-effect-with-a-flir-i7-thermal-imager/">handheld IR thermometer pointed at the sky</a>, which measures the temperature change caused by a change in downwelling IR radiation. In a clear sky, the indicated temperature pointing straight up (“seeing” higher altitudes) will be colder than if pointed at an angle (measuring lower altitudes). This is direct evidence of the greenhouse effect…changes in downwelling IR change the temperature of a surface (the microbolometer in the handheld IR thermometer). That is the greenhouse effect.</i></li></ul>Then Roy shows that he is a humble and open-minded serious scientist: </div><div><ul><li><i>If I’ve make a mistake in the above, I’ll fix it. I realize some might not like the way I’ve phrased certain things. But I’ve been working in this field over 20 years, and the above is the best I can do in 1-2 hours time....you will find it is a complex subject, indeed.</i></li></ul><div>And yes Roy, you make a mistake by uncritically accepting a reading of a hand-held IR-thermometer, which being a thermometer measures temperature, as evidence of the reality of downward IR. You can read about your mistake under the<a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/search/label/pyrgeometer"> category "pyrgeometer"</a> including the following key posts:</div></div><div><ul><li><a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2011/08/how-to-fool-yourself-with-pyrgeometer.html">How to Fool Yourself with a Pyrgeometer</a></li><li><a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2013/01/ghe-fabricated-by-kipp.html">GHE Fabricated by Kipp&Zonen Pyrgeometer</a></li><li><a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2013/02/big-bluff-of-pyrgeometer-dlr-as.html">The DLR-meter Formula behing CO2 Alarmism</a></li><li><a href="http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2013/02/big-bluff-of-pyrgeometer-dlr-as.html">BIG BLUFF: Pyrgeometer DLR as Bolometer OLR</a></li></ul><div>And so Roy, what is your reaction to the evidence I present?<br /><br /><b>PS</b> Roy appears to filter my comment to his post with a link to the above. Of course, it is Roy's responsibility to guarantee that his readers and users/buyers (not to speak of manufacturers such as Kipp&Zonen) of hand-held IR-thermometers, are not reached by disturbing information: Nobody wants to get told that the reading of a thermometer is temperature, since that is so evident to anyone with slightest education in science. In particular, Roy does not want to get told that he has been cheated by Kipp&Zonen in believing that the thermometer he bought measures Downwelling Longwave Radiation (DLR) and not temperature , and accordingly will no respond to my question. Under the choice of saying something (and revealing ignorance), and saying nothing (only indicating ignorance), Roy chooses to say nothing. But nothing is nothing.<br /><br /></div></div><div><br /></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/06/spencer-struggles-with-greenhouse-effect.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-7430000438986448010Sat, 13 Jun 2015 18:43:00 +00002015-06-13T20:59:50.279+02:00Quantum Contradictionsquantum mechanicsThe Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics??If you ask a physicist today about the foundations of modern physics (the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics), you will get most likely get the answer that all basic questions were answered long ago and neither questions nor answers need to be repeated. In short, "science is settled", and the question now is simply how to advance physics further into the unknowns of dark matter, dark energy, string theory and multiversa.<br /><div><br /></div><div>In particular, the answer for quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen Interpretation coined by Heisenberg in the 1950s as an expression of the influence of the Danish physicist Niels Bohr during the formative years of modern physics following the introduction by Max Planck in 1900 of the smallest quantum of action $h$. </div><div><br /></div><div>One of the few who still worries about the foundations of quantum mechanics is Lubos Motl, who in a sequence of posts on <a href="http://motls.blogspot.se/2011/05/copenhagen-interpretation-of-quantum.html">The Reference Frame states his commitment to the Copenhagen Interpretation</a> based on the following postulates:</div><ol><li><i>A system is completely described by a wave function ψ, representing an observer's subjective knowledge of the system. (Heisenberg)</i></li><li><i>The description of nature is essentially probabilistic, with the probability of an event related to the square of the amplitude of the wave function related to it. (The Born rule, after Max Born)</i></li><li><i>It is not possible to know the value of all the properties of the system at the same time; those properties that are not known with precision must be described by probabilities. (Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)</i></li><li><i>Matter exhibits a wave–particle duality. An experiment can show the particle-like properties of matter, or the wave-like properties; in some experiments both of these complementary viewpoints must be invoked to explain the results, according to the complementarity principle of Niels Bohr.</i></li><li><i>Measuring devices are essentially classical devices, and measure only classical properties such as position and momentum.</i></li><li><i>The quantum mechanical description of large systems will closely approximate the classical description. (The correspondence principle of Bohr and Heisenberg)</i> </li></ol><div>Let us now analyze these postulates from scientific point of view. We find:</div><div><ol><li>The idea that the wave function represents the subjective knowledge of a system, makes quantum mechanics into a personal experience, which cannot be science.</li><li>The idea that nature "essentially is probabilistic" is an ad hoc assumption, which can never be experimentally tested and thus does not belong to science.</li><li>Impossibility of knowledge contradicts scientific principle: Why does certain knowledge make other knowledge impossible?</li><li>Wave-particle duality as contradictory reality, does no make sense.</li><li>Divison of physics into "classical" and "non-classical" is without reason. Physics is physics.</li><li>Without division between "classical" and "non-classical", the idea that "non-classical" will approximate "classical", lacks rationale. </li></ol><div>I leave to the reader to evaluate the scientific value and rationality of these postulates supposedly expressing the contribution to humanity and the science of physics from what is called "modern physics". </div><div><br /></div></div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-copenhagen-interpretation-of.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1500584444083499721.post-8772978562281936503Sat, 13 Jun 2015 07:04:00 +00002015-06-13T09:16:06.648+02:00physical quantum mechanicsQuantum Contradictionsquantum mechanicsThe Creation of Quantum Mechanics: The True Story by J Hendry Part 1<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Quantum-Mechanics-Bohr-Pauli-Dialogue/dp/902771648X"><i>The Creation of Quantum Mechanics and the Bohr-Pauli Dialog </i>by John Hendry</a> is presented as<br /><ul><li>a<i> genuine "history" as opposed to a mere technical report or popular or semi-popular account.</i></li><li><i>My aims in making this attempt have been to satisfy the needs of historians of science and, more especially, to promote a serious interest in the history of science among physicists and physics students.</i></li></ul>Hendry states in the Introduction:<br /><ul><li><i>On one hand the quantum theory has continued in all its formulations to show a remarkable predictive power in respect of experimental observations. In this respect it must rank as an extraordinarily successful physical theory, and as one that will not easily be displaced.</i></li><li><i>On the other hand, however, <b>dissatisfaction with the conceptual foundations of the theory has also apparently endured. </b></i></li><li><i>Many working physicists are seemingly content to accept what Einstein referred to as the <b>"gentle pillow" of the Copenhagen interpretation without asking any further questions,</b> and this has long been accepted as an orthodox position.</i></li><li><i>But if we restrict our attention to physicists (or indeed philosophers) of the first rank, then we see immediately that such an orthodoxy is illusory. It was created in the late 1920s when many of the leading quantum physicists, among them Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, Pauli, Dirac, Jordan and von Neumann, sunk their more philosophical differences in an effort to repel the challenge of the semi-classical interpretations and get on with the job of developing quantum electrodynamics. </i></li><li><i>But those differences remained. <b>Copenhagenism was and is a generic term covering a whole range of related interpretations. </b>Even when these interpretations are taken together, they cannot be considered as an entirely dominant orthodoxy. Among their early opponents some physicists might arguably be dismissed as narrow-sighted conservatives. But such outright dismissal is very difficult to uphold in Einstein's case, and still more so in those of Schrödinger and de Broglie, neither of whose preferred interpretations could reasonably be labelled classical. </i></li><li><i>More recently attention has shifted from the physical interpretation of quantum mechanics towards the logical and mathematical consistency of quantum field theory, but the issues remain closely connected and<b> opposition to Copenhagenism remains strong. </b></i></li><li><i>However, and here lies the crux of the matter, <b>the opponents seem to be no nearer to providing a valid alternative than were their predecessors of the late 1920s. </b></i></li><li><i>Beyond the limited compromise of Copenhagenism <b>there is still no such thing as a consistent and generally acceptable interpretation of quantum mechanics,</b> and the evidence of the last fifty years points unerringly to the conclusion that <b>there will not be one until </b>either the structure of our physical conceptions, or our expectations of physical theory, or the <b>quantum theory itself should undergo radical changes more far-reaching than any yet seen.</b></i></li><li><i>Faced with this dilemma it is tempting to react as did Peter Debye to <b>the problem of electrons in the nucleus,</b> a problem that arose in the immediate wake of quantum mechanics, by treating it as<b> something best ignored, "like the new taxes". </b></i></li><li><i>And many physicists have indeed taken this course, either ignoring the interpretative problem altogether (paying the taxes without question) or proceeding stubbornly to seek fundamentally classical interpretations that are demonstrably not there (stalling the taxman). </i></li><li><i>But whereas such attitudes may be expedient in the short term they are <b>ultimately inconsistent </b>with the <b>very spirit of the scientific enterprise. </b></i></li><li><i><b>The interpretative problem of quantum theory is several orders more fundamental</b> than that of nuclear electrons, and has proved <b>immensely more resistant to attempts at a solution.</b> </i></li><li><i>But <b>a theory with innate inconsistencies,</b> whatever its present predictive success, cannot be expected to serve for ever. </i></li><li><i><b>If the problem, like the tax, does not bear thinking about, then that is the strongest indication we can possibly have that it needs thinking about.</b> </i></li><li><i>And while it may not be so easily solved we can at least try to understand how such an <b>extreme situation arose in the first place.</b> </i></li><li><i>One aim of this study, then, is to approach the history of the theory of quantum mechanics as a <b>means of exploring its philosophy.</b> </i></li></ul><div>What Hendry effectively says is that the foundations of quantum mechanics as physical theory was an inconsistent mess at start hundred years ago and has so remained until now. How is it then possible that this inconsistent mess "<i>has continued in all its formulations to show a remarkable predictive power in respect of experimental observations"? </i></div><div><br /></div><div>Well, the answer is that since quantum mechanics as a multi-dimensional inconsistent mess is uncomputable, it is impossible to make predictions from theory alone. This means that whatever observation is made, there is a version of quantum mechanical messy theory that can be made to conform with the observation. This is the reason why there is no observation in conflict with any quantum mechanical theory, even though the theory is inconsistent, which of course is used as evidence that the inconsistent messy theory is perfect and consistent and always in perfect consistent agreement with observation.</div><div><br /></div><div>In Part 2 I will summarize Hendry's account of the genuine "history" and then ponder Hendry's appeal:<i> <b>quantum theory itself should undergo radical changes more far-reaching than any yet seen.</b></i> </div>http://claesjohnson.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-creation-of-quantum-mechanics-true.htmlnoreply@blogger.com (Claes Johnson)0