Free Will and Quantum Mechanics

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

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

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

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

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

Determined or Random??

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

Quantum Mechanics Still a Complete Mystery 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greta Thunberg: Farlig Infantil Klimatpropaganda

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

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

Läs och begrunda!

Breakthrough: DigiMat Wins Vinnova Grant

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

• DigiMat - create motivation and learning through digital mathematics

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

Öppet Brev till Norges Statsminister om Klimatalarmismen

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

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

Design Flaw of 737 Max vs Computational Simulation

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

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

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

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

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

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

Icarus Digital Math

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

Stay tuned! Several exciting projects in pipe line!

Brev till Statsministern om Klimatalarmismens Bristande Vetenskapliga Grund

Ett brev har skickats till Danmarks Statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen av Johannes Krüger, Professor emeritus, dr.scient, Institut for Geovidenskab og Naturforvaltning Københavns Universitet Geocenter Danmark, med följande inledning:

• Spørgsmålet om årsagen til nutidens klimaforandringer og de mange følgevirkninger er meget mere kontroversielt, end det fremstilles af IPCC og nyhedsmedierne, for videnskabelige målinger og observationer viser noget andet end de utilstrækkelige computerproducerede klimamodeller.

Brevet avser att göra Danmarks Statsminister medveten om klimatalarmismens bristande vetenskapliga grund.

Ett liknande brev kommer att skickas till Norges Statsminister och borde skickas även till Sveriges Statsminister.

Till detta kan man lägga Høringssvar til NOU 2018:17 Klimarisiko og norsk økonomi samt Roy Spencer i Washington Times samt Richard Lindzen osv...

The Illusion of a Wing with Laminar Boundary Layer

Aerodynamicists have long and still carry a dream of a laminar wing as a wing of special shape like the P-51 Mustang with special flow characteristics, including less drag as compared to that of a traditional wing as pictured below:

Our New Theory of Flight revealing the true Secret of Flight shows that this dream is built on misconceptions going back to the boundary layer theory of Prandtl/Schlichting based on the idea of a no-slip boundary condition with fluid particles sticking to the surface of the wing with zero velocity thus creating a thin boundary layer, which can be laminar or turbulent, connecting to the free stream flow.

The dream of a laminar wing would then be a wing with a laminar boundary layer on the upper surface of the wing with small skin friction, which hopefully would be the case for a wing with special shape, like that of P-51. The New Theory shows that this can only be a dream or illusion, because flow with a laminar boundary layer separates on the crest of a wing and generates little lift.

The New Theory of Flight builds on the observation that for the high Reynolds number relevant for a wing, the boundary layer is always turbulent with an effect of small skin friction on the main flow, which can be modeled by Navier-Stokes equations with a slip (small friction) boundary condition instead of the dictate of Prandtl to use a no-slip condition.

The New Theory shows that it is the slip boundary condition modeling the action of a turbulent boundary layer, which prevents the flow from separating on the crest and delays separation until the trailing edge (before stall). You can see this in the video below showing computational solution of Navier-Stokes with a slip boundary condition which agrees very well with experiments, as documented in the references in Solution of the Clay Navier-Stokes Problem.

Summary:

1. With a slip boundary condition there is no boundary layer and the flow can stay non-turbulent attached until turbulent separation at the trailing edge and thus give large lift. 
2. With a no-slip boundary condition and laminar boundary layer the flow separates on the crest and gives little lift. 
3. With a no-slip boundary condition the boundary layer is in fact always turbulent with an action on the main flow like a slip boundary condition. 
4. The dream of drag reduction of a laminar wing is already cashed in by a slip/small friction boundary condition. 
5. It is a turbulent boundary layer which can be modeled with slip, and not a laminar boundary layer even though its skin friction is small. 

A laminar wing in the sense of having laminar boundary layer, does not work.

A laminar wing in the sense of a flow with a slip boundary condition without layer and turbulence until the trailing edge, works fine. In this sense a standard wing thus already has made the dream come true, but that is not what aerodynamicists call a laminar wing.

PON om Klimatförnekare i Samhällets Utkant

Pressens opinionsnämnd PON har kommit med sitt beslut avseende min anmälan av artikeln i Svenska Dagbladet om Climate Sense 2018 med följande motivering:

1. Du upplevde att artikeln gav en kränkande bild av mötets arrangörer, föreläsare och deltagare i allmänhet, och speciellt din person i (stor)bild.
2. (Du angav att) Reportern hade inte rapporterat sakligt från det vetenskapliga mötet. Artikeln var istället inriktad på misskreditering av mötets deltagare med tillmälen som "klimatförnekare av manligt kön", "i samhällets utkant", "personer med auktoritära attityder", "låg empati och hög dominans", "inte längre i yrkesaktiv ålder" kopplade till "fossilindustri, auktoritära tider, nationalism och populism", som "gräver sig allt djupare ned i förnekelse ju mer klimatpolitiken skärps med brett politiskt stöd", och "byggt hela sina liv på att vara med i verksamhet som släpper ut koldioxid."

PONs bedömning: (se länken ovan)

• För pressetiskt klander krävs att anmälaren är utpekad och att han eller hon omnämns på kränkande eller nedsättande sätt.
• Du är utpekad eftersom Du förekommer i (stor)bild.
• Du associeras i viss mån med uppgifterna i artikeln om de andra deltagarna och andra klimatförnekare. Det är dock i huvudsak allmänna påståenden om klimatförnekare som grupp och du är inte direkt kopplad till någon av uppgifterna.
• Den publicitetsskada du förorsakats får därför anses vara begränsad.
• Mot bakgrund av detta finns det sammantaget inte skäl att rikta pressetisk kritik mot tidningen. 

Vad kan man då säga om detta? Man får väl ändå säga att tillmälena enligt 2. är mycket nedsättande (vad skulle vara värre?) och att PONs påstående att jag inte kan kopplas till någon av dessa (genom mitt uppträdande i storbild) inte kan vara riktigt. Men PON säger inte att skadan är ringa, bara att den är "begränsad" dvs inte oändligt stor. Med en sådan måttstock undrar man om PON överhuvudtaget kan fälla någon artikel. Kanske det ändå fanns skäl att rikta lite pressetisk kritik i alla fall? Eller är PON lika tandlös som FI?

När så småningom klimatalarmismens svenska historia kommer att skrivas, så kanske detta PONs bidrag kan vara en del.

PS1 Till skaran av klimatförnekare i samhällets utkant kan vi lägga prof Lennart Bengtsson, Sveriges mest meriterade klimatforskare, som i dagens Expressen säger att det finns ingen anledning till oro. Jag har bett Anna Hedenmo, enligt föregående post, säga hur hon hanterar en röst som denna samt frågat om PK har någon synpunkt på PONs beslut (eller är PK underställd PON?)

PS2 Titta på SVTs Ekdahl och Ekdahl som 12/2 behandlade Klimatet med följande inledning

• Klimatfrågan är vår stora ödesfråga. 
• Vi skall säga att vi följer FNs klimatpanels rekommendationer.
• Förutsättningarn för kvällens diskussion är att det finns ett klimathot.
• Det finns dom som inte tror på det, men det skall vi inte diskutera.  

Det kan man kalla åsiktskorridor, eller rättare taget censur, utövad av public service.
Titta sedan på den kritiska granskningen av programmet av Lars Bern.