tisdag 30 maj 2017

Kutta Condition, Gods Finger and Secret of Flight

The New Theory Flight revealing the secret of flight (article1, article2book and website) is now backed by new computations in realistic geometry to be presented next week at the High-Lift Prediction Workshop III.

At this historic moment, let me recall the The Old Theory of Flight by Kutta-Zhukovsky presented
around 1905, which is still the accepted text book explanation of the generation of lift by an airfoil.
The Old Theory states that an airfoil is capable of generating lift because it has a sharp trailing edge, which is supposed to force potential flow without lift separating on the upper surface of the wing to instead separate at the trailing edge and then generate lift by causing a redirection of the airflow, as illustrated in this generic text book figure illustrating the Kutta condition:

The Old Theory contains two unphysical effects, which happen to balance and then miraculously give a physical result = lift. The two unphysical effects are:
1. The start is 2d potential flow without lift separating on top of the wing.
2. By making the trailing edge sharp, the flow is forced to separate at trailing edge and then give lift.
The New Theory shows that 2d flow is unphysical because real flow contains completely crucial 3d features.

To believe that real flow can be forced to separate at the trailing edge by making it sharp, is to give yourself access to the action of a God's finger of unlimited power.

In numerics you can play God and set the velocity zero wherever you want, but that is simulated virtual reality and not real physics. It is like putting a needle into a voodo doll believing it will have an effect on a real person. This is voodo-physics.

Yet, this is the text book explanation of lift. To test, ask your favourite aero-dynamicist:
1. Why do airfoils have sharp trailing edge?
2. What happens if the trailing edge is not sharp but more or less rounded?
After this experience, you will be more motivated to dig into the New Theory of Flight.

PS The book will now be updated to find an efficient publisher.

tisdag 16 maj 2017

realQM Excited States

I have updated realQM with a section on
The interested reader will there find that realQM offers a natural way to model excitation of electrons in an outermost shell by replacing the electrons in inner shells and the kernel by an effective kernel of a certain radius and reduced charge, thus relating in principle excitation of all atoms to that of Hydrogen.

In realQM electron wave functions have local support and occupy different domains i space, which gives the model with an effective kernel a direct physical meaning, while in stdQM wave functions have global support and precise allocation of electrons to different shells is impossible.

Classical vs Quantum Physics According to Lubos

Lubos Motl as devoted soldier in the army of Bohr-Born-Heisenberg is preaching the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics and anybody raising any doubt will be subject to scorn, the most recent victim being Christopher Fuch as expressed in the post: Qbism: Fuch vs Bohr+Motl. Here is Lubos credo from the post:
• Classical physics allows you to assume that some things objectively exist. You may make true statements about the objects in Nature but there are underlying objects and all the true statements are just reflections of something that is out there.
• Quantum mechanics allows you to assign truth values or probabilities (a continuous version of the truth value) to propositions about Nature, too. However, you can no longer assume that the true statements that you may derive from quantum mechanics are reflections of the objective reality.
• That makes sense. Quantum mechanics is an analogy of mathematical logic that allows you to prove and derive new valid propositions out of some assumed ones, the axioms.
No Lubos, it does not make sense; if quantum mechanics is not a "reflection of the objective reality", then it is fantasy and nothing but fantasy, and then it is not science but only tragedy.

If you seek for a quantum mechanics as "a reflection of objective reality", then realQM may be what you are looking for. Try it out!

lördag 6 maj 2017

Schrödinger: Do Electrons Think?

Schrödinger's equation is the basic basic mathematical model of quantum mechanics. It was first formulated for the Hydrogen atom with one electron in terms of a wave function $\psi (x,t)$ depending on a 3d space coordinate $x$ and a time coordinate $t$, with $\vert\psi (x,t)\vert^2$ representing electron charge density at $(x,t)$. Schrödinger's equation expresses stationarity of an associated energy functional and the ground state is defined as the charge density of minimal energy.

Since the agreement between model and observation was perfect for Hydrogen, Schrödinger's equation was greeted as the most stunning triumph of the human mind since Newton's law of gravitation.

The generalisation of Schrödinger's equation to atoms with $N > 1$ electrons presented itself
as a formal extension into a wave function $\psi (x_1,...,x_N)$ depending on $N$ 3d space coordinates $x_j$, altogether $3N$ space coordinates.  But such a multi-d wave function could no longer be interpreted as a charge density in physical 3d space,  only as the probability to find at any given time electron $j$ at position $x_j$ for $j=1,...,N,$ as if the electrons as particles were randomly jumping around. This was coined the Copenhagen Interpretation of Bohr-Born-Heisenberg which took over the scene against heavy protests from Schrödinger and Einstein among others.

Schrödinger phrased his protest in many ways and in particular as the question do electrons think? Schrödinger argued that if electrons jump around randomly as in the Copenhagen Interpretation, then they cannot be viewed to think.  But if electrons instead in a deterministic way react upon forces so as to minimise energy, then they can be viewed to think in some sense. Schrödinger would thus give his answer as: Yes, electrons do think! as a protest to the randomness without thought of the Copenhagen Interpretation.

This connects to Descartes "I think and therefore I am (exist)". With the same logic for the electron, physical existence would be linked to thinking and so electrons do exist because they think and do not jump randomly without thought.

What do you think?

fredag 5 maj 2017

New Web Site: Real Quantum Mechanics

I have launched a new web site describing a new approach to atom physics in terms of classical continuum mechanics in three space dimensions named realQM or
also presented as a book in draft form. Take a look and see if you get encouraged to follow the further development of this project.

onsdag 3 maj 2017

Programmering i Matematikämnet: Så Lite Som Möjligt?

Regeringen beslutade 090317 att med start ht17 programmering skall ingå som en del av matematikundervisningen i grundskola och gymnasium, se tidigare bloggpost.

För att detta skall bli verklighet fordras utveckling av nya läromedel och fortbildning av lärare.

För detta ändamål säger sig Skolverket vilja tillföra några moduler på Lärportalen i stil med de moduler som utformats för Matematiklyftet av bl a NCM i Göteborg.

Kommer detta att räcka? Det beror på målsättningen, som kan vara allt från (1) så lite som möjligt till (2) lite mera till (3) så mycket som vore befogat med tanke på Regeringens uppdrag.

Här kan vi förvänta oss stor uppslutning för (1) eftersom det finns starka krafter som vill behålla matematikundervisningen i sin traditionella form utan störande inslag av programmering. Med (1) förenklas ju uppgiften vad gäller nya läromedel och fortbildning avsevärt, då nästan inget behöver göras.

Eftersom ingen aktion har varit märkbar efter Regeringens beslut i mars och ht17 snart är här, så verkar det vara så att skolvärlden ställer in sig på (1). Men det var inte (1) Regeringen avsåg.

Jag har förslagit NCM att jag skulle kunna bidra med Matematik-IT som är i linje med (3). Vi får se om NCM tycker det vore bra eller om det är (1) som gäller även på NCM.

Vad gäller att sätta ett tak på nivå (1) för alla, som mycket väl kan bli verklighet, kan man säga att det inte vore i linje med Regeringens intentioner.  Nog borde det väl kunna få finnas alternativ i linje med (2) och (3) för de skolor/lärare som vill mer än (1)? Eller skulle det störa en princip om likformig skola?

PS Varken Svenska Matematikersamfundet eller Nationalkommitten för Matematik har uttryckt någon mening vad gäller Regeringens beslut om att förändra matematikundervisningen i skolan. Detta är i linje med tidigare hållning att inte befatta sig med skolmatematik, och i fall (1) behöver ju inte heller något sägas.

tisdag 2 maj 2017

CO2 Global Warming Alarmism: Hour of Reckoning

Driving in the wrong direction on a one-way street, firmly believing it to be a two-way street, is stupid and potentially deadly hazardous for other people.

The US Environmental Protection Agency EPA has now cleansed its web page from CO2 global warming alarmism and US Energy Sec. Perry declares
• We should ‘renegotiate’ the Paris Climate Change Agreement,
This signals the beginning of the end of the CO2 alarmism driven by EU politicians and US Democrats:
This is a victory for rational science showing that the "CO2 greenhouse effect" has been artificially
boosted to seemingly dangerous levels without proper scientific evidence, only in order to fit a certain political agenda.

I feel happy to have contributed to this insight through an analysis of the unphysical nature of the concept of "back radiation" which is central to the proclaimed alarmingly big "CO2 greenhouse effect".

You find "back radiation" in many books on atmospheric physics as one part of a "two-stream" radiative transfer model originally proposed by Schwarzschild in 1905 with net heat transfer warm-to-cold as the difference of two gross heat transfers warm-to-cold and cold-to-warm. See also History of Radiative Heat Transfer.

But what you find in many physics books is not necessarily true physics, and this is the case with two-stream radiative heat transfer, which is fake-science. This is because heat transfer cold-to-warm violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In the two-stream Schwarzschild equations this is present as an effect of unphysical absorption from unphysical back radiation. Schwarzschild formulated his model to allow analytical solution as first priority and did not worry about unphysical aspects.

Two-stream radiative transfer is based on a mis-interpretation of Stefan-Boltzmann-Planck's Law $\sigma T^4$ as the radiative heat energy emitted by a black body of temperature $T$ Kelvin independent of the temperature of the environment of the body, while the physically correct interpretation is  radiative energy emitted into a background of temperature zero Kelvin.

The radiative heat energy emitted by a black body of temperature $T$ in an environment of temperature $T_0$ is thus given by $\sigma (T^4-T_0^4)$ if $T_0\le T$. If $T_0>T$ then the body absorbs energy from the environment and emits no energy.

The mis-interpretation of SBP law is widely spread and apparently accepted by many more or less prominent physicists. This is made possible by the fact that the standard derivation of the SBP law is based on statistics obscuring real physics. I have given an alternative derivation based on transparent physics exhibiting the mis-interpretation.

CO2 alarmists like two-stream gross flow because small changes of gross flow can be big and support alarmism, while small changes of net flow will remain small and give no reason for alarm. And true radiative heat transfer is one-stream warm-to-cold.

In short, the CO2 swindle is based on unphysical two-stream radiative heat transfer between the Earth surface and the atmosphere of size 300 W/m2 claimed to suggest a global warming alarm of 3 C, while the true net transfer is 10 times smaller about 30 W/m2, which can only suggest a harmless warming of 0.3 C.

There is much evidence that CO2 alarmism is scientific swindle, a basic element being the unphysical idea of two-stream radiative transfer connected to a mis-interpretation of the SBP law. To be ignorant of physics may be inconvenient but to make a mis-interpretation of a physical law believing it to be true physics can be very dangerous; for example believing that a one-way street is a two-way street can be lethal...and the more convinced you are the more dangerous...

It is the responsibility of physicists to gard that basic physics of radiative heat transfer is correctly described in the physics literature.  Apparently physicists today have other priorities (like string theory and multiversa) and so the mis-interpretation of the SBP law as a basis for CO2 alarm has been able to survive under the wings of physics, but now the time of reckoning is here...as evidenced by EPA...

Murry Salby is today a leading skeptic to CO2 alarmism, but the mis-conception of two-stream radiative heat transfer was present in his 1996 book Fundamentals of Atmospheric Physics as a result of mis-management of fundamental physics in modern times allowing violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as the cornerstone of classical physics.

PS1 Schwarzschild's two-stream model for radiative heat transfer takes the following form for a horisontal slab atmosphere, with vertical coordinate $x$ with $x=0$ at the Earth surface and $x=X$ at the top of the atmosphere, in terms of a gross upward heat flux $F^+(x)$ and a gross downward heat flux  $F^-(x)$ satisfying the following advection-absorption equations for $0\lt x\lt X$:
• $\frac{dF^+}{dx} + F^+ = Q$               (1)
• $-\frac{dF^-}{dx} + F^- = Q$               (2)
where $Q(x) =\sigma T(x)^4$ is supposed to express the SBP law with $T(x)$ the temperature at $x$ and $\sigma$ Stefan-Boltzmann's constant, and $x$ serves as an optical coordinate normalizing absorption. The atmosphere is supposed to be heated from below at $x=0$ by a heat source $H$, and the heat is radiatively transported to the top of the atmosphere from where it is radiated into outer space at 0 K. Conservation of heat energy gives the additional equation
• $F^+-F^- = H$,                                      (3)
from which follows by adding/subtracting (2) from (1) that $F^+ + F^-=2Q$ and $\frac{d(F^++F^-)}{dx}=-H$ and thus:
• $2Q(x) = H(X-x)+H$,                          (4)
• $F^+ =\frac{H}{2}(X-x)+H$
• $F^-=\frac{H}{2}(X-x)$
which determines the temperature profile $T(x)$. Schwarzschild's model resulting in linear $Q(x)$, is very simplistic. Only a model with $Q(x)$ constant could be more simplistic.

Schwarzschild's model (1-2) expresses conservation of upward and downward heat fluxes through a thin atmospheric layer radiating both upward and downward according to SBP in the form $Q(x) =\sigma T(x)^4$.

The model is unphysical because it is based on mis-interpretation of SBP and through the equation
$-\frac{dF^-}{dx} + F^- = Q$ introduces spurious absorption.

In a following post I will consider one-stream models for radiative transport based on real physics.

PS2 I have over the years had heated debates about back radiation and two-stream radiative with many people including Roy Spencer and Judy Curry and I have met the strong grip physics books, right or wrong, can have on peoples minds. Planck is primarily to be blamed because of his unphysical proof of the law of black body radiation using statistical arguments, which he himself did not believe in and was very unhappy with, but also secondarly all the leading physicists after Planck who uncritically have accepted what cannot be true physics.

I have many times met the reaction, when I express my view that two-stream radiative heat transfer to be unphysical, that people get upset and in anger block further communication. Thus the idea of two-stream radiative heat transfer has been protected from scrutiny allowing it to serve as a corner-stone of the "greenhouse effect" invented to serve CO2 global warming alarmism.