onsdag 10 augusti 2011

What Judy Curry Cannot Understand

Judy Curry opened to debate of my new proof of Planck's radiation law in Computational Blackbody Radiation with a post entitled Slaying a Greenhouse Dragon by stating:
  • I’ve read Slaying the Sky Dragon and originally intended a rebuttal, but it would be too overwhelming to attempt this and probably pointless.
Let us try to understand what is so overwhelming or pointless:

I consider a model of blackbody radiation in the spirit of Planck as a set of (mass-spring) oscillators with radiative damping subject to exterior forcing satisfying a force balance law of the form
  • oscillator spring force + radiation pressure = exterior forcing.
I prove an energy balance law of the form
  • radiance = incoming energy, for frequencies below a cut-off frequency,
  • oscillator heating + radiance = incoming energy, for frequencies above cut-off,
from which Planck's radiation law follows, with more details e.g. here. The radiance spectrum has the form
  • gamma T f^2,
where gamma is the model constant of the radiation pressure term, f is the frequency and T is a common temperature for all frequencies. For frequencies above cut off the radiance is smaller than the incoming energy, which means that the oscillator is heating up, which reflects heat transport from warm to cold but not from cold to warm.

The model shows generic blackbody radiation in the sense that the radiance is independent of the heat capacity of the oscillator and the value of the constant gamma, in other words independent of the material of the radiating body.

What Judy, or more generally anybody critical of my work, is so overwhelming/pointless in this description?

Judy answers:
  • Claes, I understand perfectly your arguments, I am just not buying it, and I don’t have the time to personally undertake a rebuttal for this for reasons I have previously stated.
Great Judy! From being overwhelmed you now perfectly well understand my arguments. This is progress. But is it credible?

No, it is not. Your argument is that you do not buy my arguments, but this is not science Judy: Science is about presenting scientific arguments, theory, observation, computation, not simply claiming that you don't buy something without telling why you refuse.

You are hosting and supporting an assault on my scientific work, and doing so you must be prepared to come up with scientific arguments, if your intention is to participate in a serious scientific debate.

You cannot simply refer to some unknown undergraduates or to Monckton as some godlike referee above us all. Don't you understand that, Judy?

8 kommentarer:

  1. You have already said that your own SB-formulas do not work in a time dependent non-periodic situation. Every single real life situation is time dependent. Have you proved that your own formulas do not break down completely in a time dependent non-periodic situation?

    You have also not answered the questions asked in your earlier post here. Have or have you not given a mathematical proof of the instabilities you often claim that backradiation causes?

  2. I have said that the model is time-dependent and works with any dynamic forcing, while the mathematical analysis concerns the time-periodic case as being the basic case.

  3. Claes - I have not looked closely at your "model" of a black body before. I see it might have some relation to the behavior of a solid (for example, the phonon spectrum in the context of crystalline vibrations has the characteristic of behaving much like a continuous collection of harmonic oscillators from zero up to some maximum frequency) - but your association of the cutoff frequency with the temperature seems extremely ad hoc and not in good relation to a real physical model.

    But one thing that strikes me as needing to be addressed with your model before your description of it can be taken seriously is the following:

    E-M Radiation in the environment does not necessarily follow a Planck black body curve. A microwave oven or a radio transmitter, for instance, generates very high intensities very close to a single wavelength, and almost nothing elsewhere in the spectrum. How does your model handle the input of a large quantity of low-frequency (i.e. long-wavelength) energy? It cannot just re-emit all that energy at the same incoming wavelength, if it's supposed to be behaving like a black body. What does it do then?

  4. The model handles large amplitude low-frequency forcing by heating up,
    since the outgoing radiation cannot match the incoming forcing, because it represents amplified (possibly filtered) blackbody radiation. The dependence of the cut-off on the temperature is natural as an expression of the "stiffness" of the vibrating system decreasing with increasing temp.

  5. Higher frequencies correspond to *increasing stiffness* in physical systems, not decreasing stiffness. I cannot imagine a physical system that corresponds to your model if that temperature dependence is a central component. In real solids of course the phonon population is determined by quantum statistics, so frequencies higher than kT/h are exponentially cut off. But you seem to be trying to eliminate quantum mechanics here, so what's your explanation???

    Anyway, on my model-related question - so you agree you can have a large input of energy at low frequencies that is not matched by outgoing energy from your model system? I.e. input and output are not necessarily the same at low frequencies? How does this square with your claim above that you have proved:

    "radiance = incoming energy, for frequencies below a cut-off frequency,"


  6. "I have said that the model is time-dependent and works with any dynamic forcing, while the mathematical analysis concerns the time-periodic case as being the basic case. "

    You have said so, but you have not given a mathematical analysis which shows that the model really does what you say it will do.

    If you have not done the mathematical analysis neither you nor anyone else has any proof that the model really will behave correctly in the general, realistic, situation. Maybe it won't?

    If you have done the mathematical analysis and is not simply making dogmatic statements about the expect results then please present that analysis so that we, in a good scientific manner, can read it and understand it.

    This is nothing less than standard scientific procedure and is what you must do if you want anyone to abandon the standard theory, which has survived all experimental tests, and instead adopt you own theory.

  7. To Arthur: You are right, I should make it more precise that the setting is incoming waves as emission by another blackbody without amplification. Thanks for pointing this out.