Modern Physics as Non-Newtonian Crisis Physics

When modernity struck society at the turn to the 20th century boosted by rapid technological development, the pressure in arts and science to take a radical step away form classics mounted, posing in particular a challenge to leading theoretical physicists such as Planck and Lorentz firmly rooted in the deterministic rational world of Newton-Maxwell. How to become modern?

Planck was the first to surrender in his derivation of Planck's Law of blackbody radiation by resorting to statistics to show modernity.

Lorentz resisted longer faced with an apparent absence of a unique medium/aether for the propagation of electro-magnetic waves, which he approached with a Lorentz transformation between different Euclidean coordinate systems moving with constant speed $v$ with respect to each other, which transformed physical space-time coordinates $(x,t)$ into new "primed" coordinates  

• $(x^\prime ,t^\prime ) =\gamma (x-vt, t-vx)$ 

with $\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$ with $v<1$ and 1 speed of light. 

Lorentz carefully pointed out the the "primed time" $t^\prime =\gamma (t-vx)$ with dependence on the space coordinate $x$ was not physical time. The Lorentz transformation was not between different expressions of real physics. 

In 1905 the young patent clerk Alfred Einstein picked up the Lorentz transformation with the bold assertion against Lorentz that $t^\prime$ was physical time and so formed his Special Theory of Relativity SR based on the idea of giving the Lorentz transformation a direct physical meaning resulting in the puzzles of "space contraction" and "clock retardation" and "relativistic mass" as real physics.

SR met the pressure of modernisation of physics by opening to a fundamental revision of Newtonian mechanics as the most formidable achievement of rational human thinking, behind the booming industrial society. A formidable challenge!

Nothing could be more revolutionary modern than to say that Newton's Law of gravitation does not describe the action of gravitation on all scales of the Universe as classic physics said. But such a bold plan fell short because SR said nothing about gravitation. Einstein came back in 1915 with his General Theory of Relativity GR with that message/plan:

• Newton's theory of gravitation must be replaced by GR.
• Newton must be replaced by Einstein.
• Modern physics = Einstein. Old physics = Newton.

The deep crisis of modern physics of today can be seen as the result of implementing this plan, while hiding that Newton is still used in all real contexts where always GR is useless.  

Let us then take a look at the main reason for replacing Newton by Einstein. We then find that the root cause presented by modern theoretical physicists is conceptual rather than experimental: 

• Newton's Law appears to involve instant-action-at-distance. 
• The gravitational forces between two bodies at a specific time instant $t$ appears to depend only on the distance between the bodies at time $t$. 
• It appears that there is no time delay as if gravitational force is instantly updated between moving bodies.  
• A concept of apparent instant-action-at-distance cannot be formed, because action-at-distance is transmitted by gravitons as force carriers necessarily traveling with finite speed. 

We next ask for experimental evidence that apparent instant-action-at-distance is not observed. Are there observations of apparent action delay? Physicists will tell you that the only direct evidence of delayed gravitation is the LIGO experiment (2015) claimed to measure the effect of a merger of two black holes to be a gravitational wave reaching the Earth after a delay of 1.3 billion years, as a change of distance of 1/400 of the size of a proton over 4 km, with a relative precision of $10^{-21}$. 

LIGO is thus the only direct experimental evidence contradicting apparent instant-action-at-distance (Mercury says nothing against). The smallness of the effect compared to the cause is beyond  imagination. It cannot justified to replace Newton with anything/GR from this single measurement. Yet this what is done, and no wonder that a crisis emerges.

How then to make sense of apparent instant-action-at-distance. Why emphasise apparent? In many posts I have tested the idea that the connection between gravitational potential and  mass distribution (through Poisson's equation) is not by a causality from mass to potential by instant-global-action, but the other way around from potential giving mass to a body by instant-local-action. Such an arrangement can give the apparent impression of instant-action-at-distance, while fundamentally it is not. 

The idea connects to the discussion in this recent post about the presence of a global gravitational potential defining global simultaneity. Here gravitational force is not transmitted by gravitons as force carriers but is instead carried by the gravitational potential ready to deliver it in instant-local-action. No gravitons have been detected.

Summary: The only direct evidence against a Newtonian theory of gravitation as instant-action-at-distance is a LIGO signal, which can be questioned because of the very high precision required to single it out from noise. The reason to dismiss Newton is conceptual in the sense of denying any concept of apparent instant-action-at-distance, and not practical since Newton is used in all forms of reality.

If Newtonian gravitation is kept, then the present crisis from incompatibility between GR and quantum mechanics evaporates and effort can be focussed on advancing modern physics instead of handling crisis. 

A modern theoretical physicist confronted with this evidence will react by surprise that something like that can even be expressed, trained to believe that only Einstein's GR theory of gravitation is truly fundamental with its curved spacetime and that Newton's theory is only a trivial toy version of GR, which is not at all fundamental. The training is so efficient that no argument appears to allow a change this conviction.   

Modernity is now more than 100 years old, and modernist fashions of cubism and atonal music are no longer modern. There is now good reason to replace the fashion of curved spacetime with a renaissance to Newton. 

Logical Fallacy of Modern Physics?

Aristotle would have been very surprised to see that modern physics in the form of Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM is filled with his logical fallacy of "affirming the consequent" or "confirming an assumption by observing a consequence". 

Examples: 

• If there was a Big Bang, then a Universe would have been come into existence. We observe that a Universe exists, and conclude there was a Big Bang. 
• If the Higgs boson exists, there will be blip on a computer screen. We observe a blip and conclude that the Higgs boson is real physics worthy of a Nobel Prize.

The incorrect form is: If A implies B and B is observed to be true, then A is true. Cannot be used as verification of A.

The correct form is: If A implies B and B is observed to be false, then A is false. Can be used as falsification of A.

But we have been confronted with the incorrect form so many times that we are immune to the logic fallacy of "affirming the consequent". 

The motivation using this logical fallacy over and over, is that the assumptions of StdQM cannot themselves be checked because of their evasive physical nature, and so the only possibility has been to observe some observable consequence to see if it is the case, and then use that as evidence that the assumption is satisfied. 

This is not so in classical mechanics, where the basic laws in the form of Newton's law of gravitation or Coulomb's law of electrostatics can be directly checked. Then there is no need to resort to logical fallacy and the science has a better chance to capture reality. 

Is it then true that the basic assumptions of Schrödinger's Equation SE for the Hydrogen atom cannot be checked? No, they can be directly be checked because SE for the Hydrogen atom is based on

1. Coulomb's Law
2. Kinetic energy in the form of compression energy of charge density. 

Both can be checked directly as in classical mechanics. It means that after verifying 1-2 we can predict the spectrum of Hydrogen to be exactly that observed. What could happen is that we observe some "fine structure" of the spectrum and we can then conclude that there is something missing in the set up for 1-2 such as non-zero magnetic field. 

The trouble with StdQM is that the generalisation to atoms with more than one electron leaves the setting of 1-2 and adds assumptions which cannot be directly verified because they concern a multi-d wave function living in some Hilbert space, which has no physical meaning. What remains is to check consequences of the presence of such a wave function and use that as confirmation of correctness of the added assumptions, then resorting to the logical fallacy.

Now there is a version of quantum mechanics named RealQM which is based solely on 1-2, in principle,  and so the assumptions of RealQM can be checked, at least in principle, and so RealQM takes the same form as classical mechanics and so does not need to resort to incorrect logic. Maybe quickly check it out?

Pauli Exclusion Principle vs Periodic Table

In 1925 Wolfgang Pauli introduced a 4th quantum number into the budding new physics of Quantum Mechanics QM in order to explain the observed two-valued periodicity of the Periodic Table PT with $2\times n^2$ electrons in shell $n=1,2,3,...$ giving the sequence $2, 8, 18, 32,..$. 

Pauli was unhappy with his "two-valuedness" or as an ad hoc pick without physics. He was comforted a bit by Uhlenbeck and Goudsmit who named it spin with two values "spin-up" and "spin-down" still without physics. 

What emerged was Pauli's Exclusion Principle PEP stating that two electrons with different spin can occupy the same atomic orbital, but not with same spin, which quickly came to serve a fundamental role in QM. But Pauli was still unhappy with PEP when he for the “discovery of PEP” in 1945 received the Nobel Prize in Physics, because PEP lacked physics and so could be “discovered” as physics, just imagination. What in fact prevented two electrons with same spin to occupy the same orbital? It was like a law prohibiting same-sex marriage, unphysical and no longer valid.

Today PEP is enforced asking wave functions to be anti-symmetric motivated by a cocktail of Lorentz invariance, locality and stability taken from (relativistic) Quantum Field Theory QFT.

The argument chain is: 

• QFT implies anti-symmetry. 
• Anti-symmetry implies PEP.
• PEP implies two-valuedness/spin.
• Two-valuedness/spin is observed in PT. 
• Conclusion: QFT, antisymmetry, PEP and two-valuedness/spin is all confirmed. 

But the logic is the incorrect logic of confirming an assumption by observing a consequence, as noted by Aristotle. 

Back to the PT: The actual periodicity observed is 2, 8, 8, 18, 18, 32, 32,.. with repetition of periods, and this is not explained by PEP not really by QM either, as remarked by Eric Scerri as authority of PT.

How then to explain the actual periodicity? Let us take a look at Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM as an alternative to the Standard Quantum Mechanics StdQM of above with anti-symmetric wave functions.

In RealQM electrons appear as charge densities with non-overlapping supports and the arrangement of electrons in an atom becomes a packing problem. It starts with the two electrons of Helium packed to occupy two half-spheres meeting at a common separating plane. 

This arrangement serves as origin of two-valuedness with the next shell to be filled consisting of two half-shells each one allowing a natural division into $2\times 2$ subdomains, the next one into $3\times 3$ subdomains altogether forming the original sequence of periods $2\times n^2$. 

The period doubling can then be explained as the result of electron packing where the next shell to be filled after 2 and 8 is not wide enough to allow division into $3\times 3$ only $2\times 2$ et cet.

It appears thus that RealQM can give an explanation of the periodicity of PT based on solid physics of packing of electron charge densities. 

Pauli passed away in 1958, and since then there is nobody questioning PEP by asking for physics. Maybe there is still reason to do so? To explain the repeated periods of PT?

PS A $n\times n$ subdivision of a half-shell reflects eigenfunction configuration of a vibrating square membrane, which connects the the orbitals of StdQM given by the eigenfunctions of the Hydrogen atom. 

 

Mixing Time into Space: Not Physics!

Modern physics is based on Einstein's Special and General Theory of Relativity SR and GR based on concept of spacetime where time is mixed into space as expressed in particular by the Lorentz Transformation LT as the essence of SR. This makes modern physics counter-intuitive with surprising strange effects of time dilation, space contraction and relativistic mass.

Let us take a fresh look at the idea of mixing time into space and ask if it can be possible from physical point of view. Consider a physical world composed of physical bodies with the following characteristics:

1. A physical body has extension in space coming with positive mass. 
2. Extension in space is manifested as existence of the body as the collection of its parts at the same time, that is simultaneous spatial existence/configuration. 
3. It is not meaningful to consider spatial existence of an extended body without simultaneity.  
4. Change of spatial configuration of a body can be seen as a body clock measuring progression of object time in terms of spatial change.
5. Two objects can interact by spatial contact, which synchronises object clocks to read the same.
6. Spatial contact between the parts of a body establishes simultaneity over the body.
7. A physical world does not carry a coordinate system to monitor its changing state. Object configurations change by simultaneous contact, which is represented by changing object configurations without need of representation in human made coordinate systems.
8. A human made spatial coordinate system can be a 3d Euclidean coordinate system fixed to the Earth, Sun or distant galaxy. 
9. Simultaneity of contact respects causality between two objects in the sense that agreement of order in time is possible.  

Notice that SR breaks 2-3. Spatial existence in SR has no extension in space and does not include simultaneity, which means that causality as order in time cannot be secured. Physics without causality cannot work.

So far this is a mechanical world without gravitation, governed by contact. Gravitation can be added by introducing a gravitational potential which depends on simultaneous spatial existence of all the physical bodies of the world asking for complete object time synchronisation (OS). 

Is (OS) possible? How can two far away bodies synchronise time without contact? Is it possible that  the gravitational potential as a massless field carries a master clock and gives birth to object/mass configurations along with object clocks synchronized to the master clock? This connects to the need of "absolute time" in Newtonian mechanics. It represents a non-standard form of causality where the gravitational potential is primary and mass distribution secondary, or possibly have equal roles in a perfect harmony in the sense of Leibniz. 

The gravitational potential of the Universe would thus as extended field carry a simultaneity of presence like that of an extended material body, a simultaneity instantly transmitted to material bodies as gravitational force synchronising all object clocks.

We thus arrive at a material world connected by simultaneity carried by changing spatial configurations connected to a master gravitational potential. 

In any case there will be no mixing of space into time upsetting simultaneity. This is fundamentally the view of Leibniz.  

Summary: In world without gravitation simultaneity is established by spatial  contact, and serves no role without contact. In a world with gravitation, a master gravitational potential can establish global simultaneity, to be used in electromagnetics. 

Einstein in Alice Wonderland

This a follow up of the previous post.

The mathematician Lewis Carroll anticipated Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR (1905) in his famous Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865) filled with "space contraction" and "time dilation" as core themes of the book. Very amusing and mind boggling! Einstein must have read the book in his youth, although he did not read much, since the connections cannot be accidental. 

In a further discussion with chatGPT representing mainstream professional physicists view, the following is made clear:

• A matter-only world is a Newton world to be Galilean invariant. 
• Adding light changes this matter-only world to be instead Lorentz invariant, even if there is no interaction between light and matter.
• Adding light to a matter-only world "reveals the true spacetime structure" to be Lorentzian and not Galilean as only an approximation of Lorentzian. 

This is really a very Grand Plan for the world and it is important to see what the basis is. We thus recall the form of a Galilean transformation and a Lorentz transformation between two space-time coordinates $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime ,t^\prime )$ in two inertial systems moving with speed $v$ with respect to each other, assuming  speed of light = 1:

• Galilean: $x^\prime = x-vt$ and $t^\prime =t$.
• Lorentz: $x^\prime = \gamma (x-vt)$ and $t^\prime =\gamma (t-vx)$ with $\gamma =\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}$.

We see two very simple linear transformations so simple that even Alice would understand the mathematics. We see the "time dilation" aspect of Lorentz in the dependence in the primed time coordinate $t^\prime =\gamma (t-vx)$ on the space coordinate $x$. In short, a Lorentz transformation mixes space and time, which a Galilean does not. 

The idea carried by modern physics is now that a Lorentz transformation reveals the "true nature of spacetime," which thus is not that of a Galilean transformation. 

But is this credible? How can a simple linear transformation reveal the true nature of a spacetime without physics? 

A Galilean transformation expresses that measurement of velocity depends on chosen coordinate system in a specific simple way, while Nature does not use any coordinate system at all. Physicists are thus free to chose coordinate system as they like and Nature will not protest.

Lorentz clearly stated that a Lorentz transformation has no physical meaning. But a Galilean transformation can be given direct physical meaning in the form of meter sticks moving with constant velocity keeping their length and clocks unaffected by such motion. 

But this kind of argumentation is dismissed by a modern physicist because it questions Wonderland Science. The Lorentz transformation in all its simplicity is claimed to reveal the "true nature of spacetime" and there is nothing more to say. Discussion closed. Forget what Lorentz said!

SR was from the beginning met with neglect or skepticism and in the motivation for the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics to Einstein the Nobel Committee explicitly expressed that the Prize was given to Einstein despite his SR physics never done before or after. In the 1920s quantum mechanics took over with a Galilean invariant Schrödinger equation (1925) followed by a Lorentz invariant Dirac equation (1928), which took over the scene when Schrödinger left the field quickly thereafter. Dirac's equation gave SR respectability, while Einstein was removed from the scene by Bohr. 

Today SR is kept like a toy model with amusing properties, but is no longer subject to scientific study. But the idea of spacetime with time mixed into space is alive in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR also believed to reveal the "true nature of space time" now as "curved spacetime". But no Nobel Prize to GR either. Maybe the true nature of space and time is not revealed in a coordinate transformation…

  

Einstein: Both Maxwell and Newton are Wrong!

In recent posts I have been searching for an explanation of the current crisis of modern physics, which is deep and sadly acknowledged by all prominent physicists and philosophers of physics. 

One striking aspect of modern physics is that it is presented as "strange", "weird", "counter-intuitive", "paradoxical" with unsettled "foundational problems" since 100 years without progress. To be compared with classical physics, which is rational and understandable and not strange at all although it can exhibit very complex dynamics showing surprising emergence.

The new aspect of strangeness into physics was introduced by Einstein in 1905 in his Special Theory of Relativity SR to be the academic work opening an academic career from his position as patent clerk in Bern with little training in mathematics and physics. Einstein gambled high: Derive new physics from  very few very general principles or Postulates with this Grand Plan:

• Show "Maxwell is wrong" because he assumes a "unique aether" for propagation of electromagnetic waves/light.
• Show "Newton is wrong" because he assumes "absolute space" and "absolute time".
• In particular: Show "no-aether" and "relative space-time."

Einstein then decided to start from the following Postulates:

1. Laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems.
2. The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems 

Here inertial systems = standard Euclidean space-time coordinate systems moving with constant velocity with respect to each other.

To facilitate showing "Maxwell is wrong" Einstein attributed "unique aether" to Maxwell, which is not correct since Maxwell works well with any inertial system, and so Maxwell is a "many-aether" theory,  as many aethers as inertial systems. Maxwell without any aether/inertial system does not make sense because without, Maxwell's equations cannot even be formulated.

To facilitate showing "Newton is wrong" Einstein attributed "absolute space" to Newton, which is not correct since already Galileo understood that Newton's equations read the same in all inertial systems connected by a Galilean transformation, and so Newton is also a "many-aether" theory.  

We observe that Maxwell satisfies Postulate 1+2 and so cannot be wrong within SR as being based on these two Postulates. Einstein's attempt to prove "Maxwell wrong" thus failed and so he ended up with "Maxwell is right" which was what everybody said then and still says. SR said nothing not already very well known about Maxwell/light.

As concerns if "Newton is wrong" follows from the Postulates, we observe that Newton satisfies Postulate 1 under Galilean transformation and Postulate 2 about speed of light does not concern Newton because Newton does not speak about light but about matter. Einstein's attempt to prove "Newton is wrong" from Postulate 1+2 thus failed.

We conclude that Einstein's Grand Plan of proving "Maxwell is wrong" and "Newton is wrong" from SR based on Postulate 1+2,  thus failed. Compare Summary below!

We may now ask if anyway SR contains some physics of interest as derived by Einstein from Postulates 1+2? 

This was addressed in this post concerning Einstein's "derivation" of the Lorentz transformation by identifying two different light signals to be the same by disrespecting physics. 

In any case, after having derived the Lorentz transformation on loose grounds, Einstein concluded that "Newton is wrong" by not being Lorentz invariant, which did not make sense since Lorentz invariance is born out of Maxwell's equations for light and so does not connect to Newton's material mechanics. 

We conclude that SR does not prove either Maxwell nor Newton to be wrong. This should be welcomed by modern physicists trained to believe the opposite and then having to accept that "physics is strange". Maxwell and Newton are not strange, only Einstein!

If you want to dig more into Maxwell as a "many-aether" theory, take a look at Many-Minds Relativity.

In particular it would be a big relief if "Newton is right" could be reinstalled into physics. This would open to a Unified Field Theory since Newton and Maxwell are fully compatible as mass-based Newtonian gravitation and light without mass leaving possible interaction open to some new additional physics. 

Unfortunately modern physics has given in to adopt Einstein's "Newton is wrong because of SR" taken to represent stunning progress beyond classical physics. But experimental evidence must then be presented and that has shown to be very difficult to collect, to be honest. This is what usually is presented by modern physicists as best evidence that "Newton is wrong":

• Perihelion Precession of Mercury (1859)
• Michelson–Morley Experiment (1887)
• Deflection of Light (1919 eclipse expedition)
• Time Dilation of Muons (1949).
• Gravitational Time Dilation of photons (1959)

We understand that only the Perihelion Precession of Mercury concerns Newton's mechanics, the other concern essentially light, and we have in this post inspected the evidence and seen that it is weak, in particular because it is not SR which is claimed to show "Newton is wrong", but General Relativity GR.

We thus see that modern physics has to struggle very hard to show that "Newton is wrong". Of course this is expected when remembering that Newton's law of gravitation follows from conservation of energy and force in a gravitating material system, as the message of many posts. 

We conclude that Einstein's research plan to show "Newton is wrong" was based on ignorance combined with great ambition, and so did not work as science, but miraculously it worked politically to make Einstein the greatest physicist all times, securely displacing Newton to a second place. It is here much of the crisis of modern physics is rooted.  

You can always find a reason to dismiss a scientific theory by finding some irrelevant aspect which "is wrong". You may e g dismiss Newton's law of gravitation because it does not say anything about gravitational bending of light, because it says nothing about light at all, only about matter. But that lacks scientific reason and so could have only political reason. What is most important with a theory is that it is correct in a certain sense under certain circumstances, not that it does not apply to everything and does not tell everything.

If it so happens that light is affected by matter-based Newtonian gravitation by some physical mechanism yet to be discovered, then that could be added to Newton. But it would not mean that "Newton is wrong" as concerns matter. Yes, there are claims of "relativistic effects" appearing when matter reaches velocities near the speed of light, but that can only be achieved experimentally in supercolliders stretching physics to the extreme.  

Although the above arguments are logical and simple, they will meet opposition from a modern physics community carefully trained to believe that "Newton is simple+wrong" and "Einstein is strange+right".  Physics becomes much more manageable under a banner of "Newton is simple+right" rather than the opposite.  

Summary of SR agreed with chatGPT:

• SR does not add anything to Maxwell as theory of light.
• SR claims "Newton is wrong" because "Newton is not Lorentz invariant". But the nature of Newton/matter/mechanics is to be Galilean invariant and so the claim lacks logic.

What apparently happened is that Einstein became so taken away by "elevating" the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations to a "general principle of relativity" demanding "all physical laws to be Lorentz invariant" as if playing God. What happens if you "elevate" a special case to a General Principle?

Another thing is that the Lorentz invariance of Maxwell's equations has to be handled with care since the Lorentz transformation mixes time into space in an unphysical way. This is was what Lorentz said when inspecting his transformation carefully pointing out that the "transformed time was not physical time", which Einstein failed to understand and so went on to form SR relativistic mechanics without physics. But Einstein succeeded with his Grand Plan to become the greatest physicist all times! Now Einstein is gone since 70 years and maybe it is time to move on without him and leave "strange physics" to the history of  failed attempts from "elevating" some special case to General Principle.

Tim Maudlin: Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics

This is follow up of the previous post on formalistic vs realistic physics.

Tim Maudlin is a realist philosopher of quantum physics in the following sense declared in the Introduction to Philosophy of Physics: Quantum Theory (interview here):

• A physical theory should clearly and forthrightly address two fundamental questions: what there is, and what it does. 
• The answer to the first question is provided by the ontology of the theory, and the answer to the second by its dynamics. 
• The ontology should have a sharp mathematical description, and the dynamics should be implemented by precise equations describing how the ontology will, or might, evolve.

Maudlin then proceeds to describe three theories (Collapse, Many-Worlds and Pilot Wave theories) which meet these demands, starting with a declaration that the Copenhagen Interpretation does not.

Maudlin does not like the term "realist", "realistic" or the opposite, claiming that "physical theories" are neither "realist" or the opposite, but the above declaration I think qualifies him to be a realist like Schrödinger rather than formalist like Born-Heisenberg. 

The question is then if the three above theories really satisfy the demands given. Already the fact that there is more than one theory raises questions, if there is only one reality. If not, then Many-Worlds comes in, but that ontology is very shaky. Collapse Theory and Pilot Wave Theory concern the One-World we are part of and build on a multi-dimensional Schrödinger Equation SE. The trouble with SE is that multi-dimensionality is way beyond the three dimensions of the observable world and so has been given no physical meaning at all,  or as last straw a statistical meaning as somehow describing different possibilities rather than realities. To replace what is with a wide range of possibilities and to argue that realism is not destroyed, requires a bit of good work and it is not clear that Maudlin succeeds. Note that he prepares for success by offering might evolve as alternative to will evolve, thus opening to statistics and the Copenhagen Interpretation he does not like...

In any case, the multi-dimensionality of SE in its standard form as the basis for both Collapse and Pilot Wave theories is the root trouble when seeking a description of what is and what it does. RealQM offers an alternative in 3d meeting these descriptions. 

Let me ask Maudlin to take a look at RealQM to see if his demands are satisfied in this case keeping the strict will evolve and not just might evolve.

Added: 

It seems that Maudlin answers that the Pilot Wave theory fulfills his demands of reality because the particles carried by the Pilot Wave are real, and then the multi-d Pilot Wave as solution to Schrödinger's equation also must be real. Something telling/carrying real particles what to do that in some real way and so must itself be real in some sense. The problem is that the what is and what it does of that Pilot Wave is hidden or maybe not there at all...

Realists vs Formalists: Modern Physics vs Mathematics

In the 1930s two main battles were shaping (quantum) physics and mathematics into our time, between realists and formalists with the following main actors:

• Physics formalists: Bohr-Born-Heisenberg.
• Physics realists: Schrödinger-Einstein.
• Mathematics formalist: Hilbert.
• Mathematics realist: Brouwer. 

The outcome of the battles were opposite. In physics Bohr-Born-Heisenberg took over completely and kicked out Schrödinger-Einstein. In mathematics Hilbert was defeated by Brouwer assisted by Gödel and Turing. 

Thus formalism took over physics and realism took over mathematics, opposite to the natural idea of (classical) physics as connected to reality and mathematics to formality. Very surprising and strange.

Mathematics as realism of constructivism/computing is today booming with AI the remarkable reality of Large Language Models LLM.

Physics as formalism is today in a state of deep crisis detached from reality back to medieval scholastics about interpretations of formalistic quantum mechanics without conclusion. 

Is it possible to bring back realism into quantum physics, not by another interpretation of the given formalism, but by replacing the formalism by realism? Maybe, in any case Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM is an attempt to do so. Why not take a look?

A position as realist is comfortable: There is a reality out there independent of any observation. The objective of physics is to describe this reality in constructive mathematical terms allowing computational simulation and comparison with observation. Reality cannot be "weird". 

A position as formalist is awkward: If there is no reality corresponding to the formalism, it is just a game. It is thus necessary to somehow connect formality to reality, but starting as formality, the connecting physics to be invented may come out as "weird", which is how Feynman-Bohr were selling quantum mechanics and then very successfully because "weird physics" suited media.

The formalists took over quantum physics because the basic model of quantum mechanics in the form of the multi-dimensional Schrödinger Equation SE was not derived from only assumptions about physical reality, but also included an element referred to as "kinetic energy" obtained as an analog of classical kinetic energy $\frac{p^2}{m}$ with $p=mv$ momentum with $m$ mass and $v$ velocity, by simply replacing the quantity $p$ by the differential operator $i\nabla$. Black magic formalism with a new form of "kinetic energy" without connection to motion! 

RealQM is based on a different SE where the "kinetic energy" appears as a "compression energy" of realistic classical mechanics. 

Since the multi-dimensional SE was accepted as fallen from the sky without origin in physics, it became impossible to question SE on objective physical grounds and the debate fell apart into endless quarrel about interpretations. 

To take a step out of the crisis it necessary to question the multi-d SE and seek to find a formulation based in physics and not in pure formalism. Ok?

Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality: Harvey Brown

Harvey Brown is a philosopher of physics with a realist approach developed in his book Quantum Paradoxes and Physical Reality starting with the following basic questions of modern physics:

1. Do the basic entities of atomic physics, such as electrons, photons, and so on, actually exist independently of the observations performed by physicists?
2. If the answer to the previous question is positive, is it possible to comprehend the structure of atomic objects and the evolution of atomic processes, in the sense of forming spacetime images somehow in correspondence with their reality?
3. Should one formulate physical laws in such a way that one or several causes are given for all observed effects?

Harvey maps positive answers to opponents of quantum mechanics:

• Ehrenfest, Planck, Einstein, Schrödinger and de Broglie, 

and negative to defenders of quantum mechanics: 

• Sommerfeld, Born, Bohr, Pauli, Heisenberg, Jordan, and Dirac. 

Basically a split between realists and formalists.

The situation today is that the formalist attitude is completely dominating, and that a realist attitude is shown only by a few realist philosophers of physics such as Tim Maudlin and Harvey Brown himself. 

To the realist camp I can add RealQM with positive answers to 1-3. It may be that positive realist answers tmay help progress better than negative formalist.

Tribute to Einstein as Icon of Modern Physics

After his death Einstein was chosen as the icon of modern physics as the creator of both the Special Theory of Relativity SR (1905) and the General Theory of Relativity GR (1915) forming the foundation of modern physics together with Quantum Mechanics QM in the form of Schrödinger's Equation SE (1925) without SR/GR. 

This looks great, but looking closer we find that (i) GR and QM are incompatible, and (ii) SR and QM/SE do not connect, which is a root cause to the present crisis of modern physics. 

To at least save something Dirac (1928) invented an SR relativistic model to replace SE named Dirac's Equation DE.  

Both SE and DE are multi-dimensional models without physical meaning invented on formalistic grounds and are uncomputable without drastic dimensional reduction with unknown effects. In any case SE/DE are the basic models of QM. 

As a tribute to Einstein and to create some form of unity between SR/GR and QM, physicist have decided to attribute relativistic effects not only to fast moving trains but also to the inner workings of an atom although nothing there is actually moving. 

So it is claimed that: 

• The single electron of a Hydrogen atom has an effective velocity $v\approx 0.0073\times c\approx 2.19\times 10^3$ km/s.
• A first shell electron of Gold has a effective velocity $v\approx 0.58\times c\approx 1.73\times 10^5$ km/s with $c$ the speed of light $c$. Very fast indeed! Relativistic effects must be added!

The very high speed of the 1st shell electrons of Gold is then used to explain observed electron structure of Gold, which does not fit with SE without SR. Very useful.

But how is it possible that the inner electrons of Gold move with a speed close to the speed of light, when in fact the electron charge distribution does not move at all?

Of course this does not make sense and let us then seek the origin of this strange idea. It comes from the formalistic derivation of SE where classical kinetic energy $m\frac{v^2}{2}=\frac{p^2}{2m}$ with $p=mv$ momentum, $m$ mass and $v$ velocity is formally replaced by

• $KE=\frac{1}{2m}\int\vert\nabla\psi (x)\vert^2dx$  

where $\psi (x)$ is a wave function depending on a 3d space variable $x$. The formal connection is thus:

1. Replace momentum $p=mv$ by the operator $i\nabla$.
2. Connect KE to $\frac{1}{2m}p^2=\frac{1}{2}mv^2$ thus connect KE to "effective velocity" $v$. 
3. Claim that the effective velocity of inner electrons of Gold is close to the speed of light.
4. Conclude that Gold carries large relativistic effects and explain observations as the result of increase of relativistic mass of inner electrons.

Here 1 is the key: Pure formalism as a form of voodoo physics is used to attribute relativistic effects in the inner working of an atom as if charges are moving with speed close to the speed of light with then a time scale of about $10^{-21}$ s or frequency $10^{21}$ in the range of gamma rays. It is hard to believe this to be any reality at all.

You may compare with RealQM directly based on real physics without relativity including an analysis of weak reactivity of Gold.

The big trouble with SE is that a derivation based on physics is missing. The derivation is based on identification of classical momentum $p=mv$ with the operator $i\nabla$ as pure formalism without physics. 

The further step to attribute relativistic effects also comes from this identification connecting $\nabla\psi (x)$ to velocity $v$ coming out as being very large suggesting presence of relativistic effects inside atoms. 

So all this can be seen as a tribute to an Einstein, who never accepted QM in its standard multi-dimensional non-physical form as one of the many paradoxes of modern physics behind the crisis.

Lorentz long before 1905 noted the fact that a wave equation in space-time coordinates $(x,t)$ formally reads the same under a certain simple linear transformation into new coordinates $(x^\prime , t^\prime )$ later named Lorentz transformation LT. Lorentz very carefully remarked that there was no underlying physics for this invariance and that accordingly the new primed coordinates $(x^\prime , t^\prime )$ had no physical meaning as space-time coordinates. 

Einstein as patent clerk in Bern must have met this idea and picked it up to rebrand it as Lorentz invariance now giving the transformed primed coordinates $(x^\prime , t^\prime )$ a physical meaning in direct confrontation with Lorentz, which became the trade mark of SR identified with LT with physicial meaning. 

Relativistic velocities in atoms thus have a doubly questionable physical nature: (i) SE is formally without physics connected to SR by connecting $p=mv$ to $i\nabla$, and (ii) SR is born from Lorentz invariance without physics. 

Special Relativity vs Newton

Continued conversation with chatGPT as expressing the view of many physicists, opens to the following insights (impossible to derive from a discussion with any single real physicist):

• The two basic postulates of SR (1. physical laws and 2. speed of light the same in all inertial systems) contain no real physics open to experimental testing and in particular are not sufficient to derive the Lorentz Transformation LT as expression of Lorentz invariance.
• The Lorentz transformation requires additional assumptions of unclear physical nature. 
• Simply adding LT as a postulate eliminates the role of the two basic postulates and makes SR into a prescription to be followed by observers with no clear connection to a real physics which does not care about time dilation, space contraction and relativistic mass as the core values of SR. This makes SR into a formal card game without physics as discussed in the previous post.

This is the situation facing a modern physicist: 

1. SR as theory without physical content as logical consequence of two basic postulates without physical content.
2. SR as LT as command to observers without clear connection to physics.

The reaction can only be silence: no discussion. This is how Einstein handled the situation by not commenting further on SR after early 1920s. 

The great achievement of Einstein, although counted as negative as concerns his Nobel Prize in 1921, is today viewed to be that he showed that Newton's mechanics is not correct physics and so has to be corrected into Einstein's relativistic mechanics according to SR. In short Newton is not Lorentz invariant. 

But Newton's mechanics is compatible with SR reduced to its basic postulates: Postulate 1 is fulfilled with Galilean invariance and Postulate 2 as well since Newton does not speak about light.

The great thing with chatGPT is that the discussion is open and that chatGPT mostly follows strict logic and when that is forgotten is ready to return.   

The greatest tragedy of modern physics is probably that Newton was dismissed in a modern world still based on Newton. 

Einstein asked: Newton, forgive me. He then speaks for all modern physicists.

Special Relativity as Command Physics

Here is the conclusion of chatGPT after a discussion about Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR:  

• SR is closed because it isn’t a theory of physics in the sense of describing processes. It’s a kinematic rule system — compact, rigid, like a card game with set rules. Once learned, there’s nothing left to develop internally.
• Physicists almost never argue about SR itself. It’s treated as settled background structure. 

Let us check it is true that SR is not a theory about physics. We then first inspect the Postulates used by Einstein to derive SR:

• Postulate 1: Laws of physics take the same form in all inertial systems.
• Postulate 2: The speed of light is the same in all inertial systems.

Postulate 1 describes no specific physics. Postulate 1 commands physics to behave in a certain way, which is preposterous. Postulate 2 speaks about speed of light without specification with again a command of invariance. 

We thus cannot find any specific physics in the Postulates of SR, and conclude that SR as the set of logical conclusions from the Postulates, does not describe any specific physics. It is empty of specific physics. If it contains physics it must have been sneaked in outside the Postulates, and that could be anything.

SR appears as a closed theory where there is nothing more to learn. A research proposal to further investigate SR as theory will certainly be turned down. 

We compare with Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's electro-magnetics based on Postulates with physical content like Newton's inverse square law of gravitation and Faraday's and Ampere's laws. These are not closed theories in the same sense as SR and research proposals would not automatically be turned down.

Another sign that SR is like a closed card game: If you try to discuss SR with a physicist you will get no response other than a comment that there is nothing to discuss because everything is settled and the details of the resolutions of the many paradoxes of SR are irrelevant. 

Now the fact is that SR is viewed to be foundational for modern physics with far-reaching consequences in all sorts of applications. But we have seen clear indications that SR is not a theory about real physics, but a closed card game outside real physics. If this is really the truth, then there is much work to be done to free modern physics from a theory commanding physics how to behave (Postulates 1+2), while in true science it is real physics which commands theory.

Of course none of the above is anything a modern physicist would be willing to discuss. Case closed. The crisis of modern physics has nothing to do with SR.

If as layman your are still curious, take a look at Many-Minds Relativity offering an alternative to SR based Postulates with physical meaning, fun to read!

Einstein: God does not play dice.

Bohr: Einstein, don't tell God what to do!

Modern Physics as Strange Physics as Crisis Physics

Modern physics is in a state of crisis, and we conclude from Leibniz' Principle of Sufficient Reason that the crisis must have some background. Modern physics can be described as being strange as compared to classical physics being rational with the shift taking place in the beginning of the 20th century.  

Strangeness was first introduced into modern physics by Einstein in 1905 in his Special Theory of Relativity SR presenting strange effects of time dilation, space contraction and relativistic mass leaving classical physicists aghast from solid experience of Newton's and Maxwell's physics.

Einstein based SR on the following Postulates

• Physical laws take the same form in all inertial coordinate systems.
• The speed of light is the same in all inertial coordinate systems. 

From these two Postulates Einstein derived the Lorentz transformation between space-time coordinates $(x,t)$ and $(x^\prime , t^\prime )$ of two inertial coordinate systems moving with respect to each other. Einstein then derived the strange effects of time dilation, space contraction and relativistic form of Newton's Law with relativistic mass.

To derive the Lorentz transformation (already derived by Lorentz without giving it any physical meaning) Einstein's started considering the following "thought experiment":

• Two light pulses are emitted by two light sources flashing at coordinate $(0,0)$ of two moving inertial systems in which the resulting light pulses are described by $x=t$ and $x^\prime =t^\prime $ in each system.  (TE) 

In this experiment Einstein thought of a "flash" to be an event described by the coordinates $(0,0)$ without any real physics attached to the event. The idea of "event" without physics uniquely described by a space-time coordinate like $(0,0)$ was new as subject of the "thought experiment".

Having formulated TE in his thought, Einstein then argued:

1. The two light pulses are the same light pulse since the "flash event" = $(0,0)$ is the same in both systems.
2. Since the light pulses are the same light pulse, only viewed in two different inertial systems, there must be a relation between the coordinates, which shows to be the Lorentz transformation.     

The key is here 1. Is it correct to conclude that the pulses are the same because the light sources happen to coincide in space when they flash? If they happened to flash at different points nobody would expect them to be the same.

Of course not, if you replace "thought experiment" by physical experiment. A physical flash has duration in space and time in a coordinate system attached to the flashing device. If two flashing devices moving with respects to each other happen to both flash when they meet, it does not mean that they give the same flash and so cannot be connected by a Lorentz transformation.

Einstein's conclusion that the light signals are the same light signal described in two different coordinate systems, is thus without physical meaning. It is then not strange at all that Einstein can derive strange new effects which are "thought effects" and not "physical effects".

A correct conclusion of Einstein's experiment as real experiment can be inspected as Many-Minds Relativity which is not strange at all.

The strangeness of modern physics as root to its crisis was thus introduced by Einstein in SR as a thought experiment without real physics only strange physics. Of course all sorts of "strange thoughts" should be viewed with suspicion in particular in science. A reasonable thought is not strange. Physics must reasonable to exist. The step from black magic to science was taken using reason as guiding principle. There is no reason to go back to strange magic fostered by strange thoughts.

But the strangeness of SR was soon overpowered by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into strange physics "nobody understands" according to famous leading modern physicist Richard Feynman.

 

New SI Standard: Why Homage to Einstein?

This is a follow up to the previous post on origins to the present crisis of modern physics going back to (i) Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR and (ii) Einstein's heuristic explanation of the law of photoelectricity $K+W=h\nu$ connecting kinetic energy $K$ of ejected electrons modified by $W$ as energy preparing ejection, with the energy $h\nu$ of an incoming photon as a light particle representing a wave with frequency $\nu$ and $h$ is Planck's constant.  

Here (i) introduced the idea of space-time without the classical separation of space as carrier of simultaneous existence and time as change of spatial existence, which had worked so well in Newton's mechanics and Maxwell's electro-magnetics of in particular light. 

In (ii) Einstein stepped away from Maxwell's description of light as an electro-magnetic wave back into Newton's idea of light as a stream of particles, now called photons carrying the energy of a Planck quanta $h\nu$. Very heuristic and very simplistic. In any case (ii) gave Einstein the Nobel Prize in 1921 with a motivation stating that this was despite SR as if that carried negative value. 

After his death 1955 Einstein was lifted to be the icon of modern physics as something wonderful full of mystery and power, although he was considered the be senile already at early scientific life from not understanding quantum mechanics. 

The New SI Standard of 2019 gives homage to Einstein by changing the unit of length scale from meter to lightsecond measured by a clock. The length of a material rod, which can then be used as material reference meter stick, is thus measured by counting the time it takes for a light signal to go from one end to the other and back again using a clock at one end. Spatial distance is so measured by a clock as if time and space have similar nature, in perfect agreement with SR. '

The old standard with a reference meter stick was thus replaced with a new standard, where the length of a reference material meter stick is to be determined by 2-way travel time of light. Nothing wrong with that. Just an easier way to decide reference meter sticks around the world than to go to Paris for calibration.

But the change was a signal that Newton's mechanics was now replaced with Einstein's SR mechanics coming with all sorts of funny effects of time dilation and space contraction worthy of being new and modern. 

But that also made physics very much more complicated than Newton's physics for material reference meter sticks keeping their length under motion with constant speed allowing different observers to easily agree on spatial distances. But in SR different observers moving with different velocities have to measure different lengths and time intervals and agreement requires careful coordination.  

Nevertheless SR insists that an object has a definite unique intrinsic length just as in Newtonian mechanics (and  also a unique rest mass). 

In all cases of practical interest Newtonian mechanics is used, because SR is too narrow and the extension to General Relativity GR is very complicated. 

Newtonian mechanics is thus unchanged under the New SI Standard the only change being specification of a reference length determined by two-way light speed set to a fixed value making the constancy of light speed into a definition and not empiric fact. It is up to experimental testing to see how well this works in practice, if different observers cannot agree to use a common spatial coordinate system as the natural thing to do for directly coordinated observations in which case there is no funny time dilation and space contraction. 

Of course there are issues even using a single common coordinate system, Earth based or fixed star based, when both observers and objects are moving even with high speeds, but they can be sorted out amd then without SR saying nothing in the case of just one common system. 

The New SI Standard is used to sell SR pointing to the fact that duration in time is used to measure length as if space can be traded for time. Further, the constancy of the speed of light as Postulate 2 of SR can now be guaranteed by definition and then sold as empirical evidence of SR. 

If you find reason to be critical to SR as real physics, you will have a hard time convincing a real physicist (or chatGPT collecting the opinion of many real physicists) that something is fishy. In particular you will be confronted with the New SI Standard as evidence that SR is real physics and not just shades of real physics. And of course referring to Einstein as the icon of modern physics, heavily questioned during his life time, but sanctified after. 

The trouble with SR is that Schrödinger's equation as the basic model of Quantum Mechanics QM, is non-relativistic/incompatible with SR and that Dirac's equations claimed to be a relativistic form is very difficult to use for atoms. Newtonian mechanics is perfectly compatible with Schrödinger's equation and Maxwell's equation together forming a Unified Field Model, which Einstein tried to formulate the second half of his life but failed to find because he was too heavily invested in SR and GR, 

    

Crisis of Modern Physics: Split Realism vs Formalism

The crisis of modern physics witnessed by many manifests itself in a split between academic departments:

• Physics: Instrumentalism/formalism/epistemology (what we can say).
• Philosophy: Realism (what is).

A realist philosopher is not welcome at a physics department, and what would an instrumentalist physicist do at a philosophy department?

A split between physics and philosophy of physics indicates that something is fundamentally wrong, and that comes out as a crisis. What is then fundamentally wrong?

Let us search the root of trouble in the formation of modern physics in the beginning of the 20th century in the new fields of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity SR and Quantum Mechanics QM. 

Both SR and QM express instrumentalism and formalism as being focussed on measurement assuming a certain formal structure (Lorentz invariance and Hilbert space structure) where the real nature of physics is left open because it is believed to be hidden to inspection. The focus is thus on epistemology as what a physicist can measure and report (to motivate public funding). This is the physics performed at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Geneva. Very expensive with real physics hidden in a blip on a screen. 

But the question of what physics is as ontology of reality remains, and paradoxically that is what philosophers of physics outside physics departments focus on (Reichenbach, Bell, Maudlin, Brown).  

So is there any hope to get out of the crisis by joining departments of physics and philosophy of physics into one?

Can SR and QM be reformulated into theories about reality, which start from real physics instead of formalism? 

Any theory about reality must start from some fundamental reality expressed in Postulates of the theory. If the Postulates carry no physics, a theory based on the Postulates using logic cannot carry any physics. 

The Postulates of SR are 

1. Physical laws are Lorentz invariant.
2. Speed of light is to be measured by physicists according to SI standard to give exactly the value 299,792,458 metres per second.
   

We see that the Postulates of SR are like commands to be followed by physicists but say nothing precise about any physics. Therefore SR does not say anything about physics, unless physics somehow is added to the Postulates. And that is what Einstein did by using a "thought experiment" to conclude that two light signals viewed by two observers in fact are the same and so must connect by a Lorentz transformation. But the conclusion of the same had no physical basis and so was picked from the sky suddenly adding physics to the Postulates, but then physics without reality. 

The Postulates of QM were formalised by the mathematician von Neumann into a set of abstract axioms:

1. State space: A system corresponds to a Hilbert space. States are rays (or density operators) in it.
2. Observables: Physical quantities are self-adjoint operators on the Hilbert space.
3. Measurements: Outcomes are eigenvalues; probabilities are given by the Born rule.
4. Dynamics: Time evolution is unitary, governed by the Schrödinger equation.

We see that 1-3 are like commands to quantum physicists, without concern to real physics. Von Neumann did this during the heydays of Hilbert's formalism in the 1930s, which however soon died because of Gödel.

Altogether, we see that SR and QM are not realist theories starting from what is as ontology, but have clear qualities of formalism/epistemology as what we can say. The trouble with formalism is that there is no reality to decide and so the discussion can continue forever like in medieval scholastics. 

My contributions to a realist restart are: 

• Many-Minds Relativity MMR 
• Real Quantum Mechanics RealQM

MMR starts from a reality where different observers use different coordinate systems and seeks what agreement can reached. 

RealQM starts from a classical realist continuum model of systems of charge densities in shared 3d Euclidean space interacting by Coulomb potentials as a new type of Schrödinger equation. 

Both MMR and RealQM represent realism as what is and so express unification of physics and philosophy of physics.  

Here are three steps to formalism away from realism:

• Planck introduces smallest quanta $h\nu$ in 1900.
• Einstein introduces photon as quanta of light $h\nu$ in 1905.
• Heisenberg introduces QM as matrix mechanics in 1925.

In 1927 Schrödinger left QM because realism or "Anschaulichkeit" was lacking. Schrödinger's equation for the Hydrogen atom is a realist model, but for atoms with more than one electron it is a formalist model without physics. 

The development in mathematics was the opposite with constructive computational mathematics taking over when Hilbert's formalism collapsed in the 1930s. RealQM and MMR follows the constructive path.

 

Atmosphere as Air Conditioner Keeping Earth Temperature Constant

My journey into climate science started in 2010 with this analysis of black body radiation leading to an analysis of the atmosphere of the Earth as a form of air conditioner keeping the Earth surface mean temperature stable under varying mean heating from the Sun. My work was published as two chapters of the (ground-breaking) book Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory:

• Computational Blackbody Radiation
• Basic Thermodynamics of the Atmosphere.

The basic idea is that incoming energy to the Earth surface at 288 K of about 160 W/m2 from the Sun is transported to the mid troposphere at an altitude of 5 Km at 255 K by a combination of H20 thermodynamics with phase change (evaporation/condensation) with a minor contribution of radiation, for radiation to outer space at 0 K. The variation of incoming energy to the surface can depend on varying cloud cover. This is the scenario in tropical zones receiving most of the energy with sunny mornings followed by thunderstorms in the afternoon.

An increase of incoming energy to the surface is counterbalanced by more intense H2O thermodynamics keeping temperatures constant. Radiation then takes a passive role as constant under constant temperature. 

This is like an air conditioner keeping a stable room temperature of 15 C with constant outside temperature 0 C under variable interior heating of the room e g depending of number of people in the room. 

It also connects to boiling of water on a stove keeping a stable boiling temperature of 100 C under varying energy input from the stove, with more vigorous boiling with phase change responding to increasing input.  

The Sky Dragon analysis above from 2010 was written after a very quick introduction to the so called Greenhouse Effect, but I think it captures aspects valid also today. 

Tropical climate: Raising hot humid air in the morning releasing heat to the atmosphere by condensation effectively transporting  heat energy from surface to atmosphere as a cooling air conditioner.

Boiling water kept at 100 C under heating from stove by evaporation.

The simplest model consists of heat conduction through a wall of thickness 1 with heat conductivity $\kappa $ and temperature $T(x)$ varying linearly from $T_0=1$ at $x=0$ and $T_1=0$ at $x=1$ with heat flux $Q=\kappa \frac{dT}{dx}=\kappa$. Increasing $Q$ is balanced by increase of $\kappa$ without changing $T(x)$ an increase of more vigorous thermodynamics or boiling. 

Understanding OLR and DLR vs Radiance Measurement by CERES and Pyrgeometer.

Outgoing Longwave Radiation OLR from the Top of the Atmosphere ToA is measured by a CERES satellite looking down on ToA equipped with a sensor as one end of a thermocouple with its other end kept at a steady temperature generating a voltage scaling with the temperature difference at its ends. 

The CERES instrument is calibrated by determining a gain factor from sensor temperature to radiance letting the instrument look at a black body of known temperature $T_B$ with assumed Planck radiation $\sigma T_B^4$ while recording the sensor temperature. With the gain factor so determined the instrument reports radiance from ToA from a reading of sensor temperature. This is the simplest form of calibration assuming linearity. Very primitive technique, where the details of the instrument do not matter. It is like measuring intensity of rainfall using your hands to collect water calibrated to a faucet. The accuracy is at best 1 W/m2 or 0.4% of the same size as estimated Earth Energy Imbalance from CO2.  

A pyrgeometer measuring Downwelling Longwave Radiation from the atmosphere to the Earth surface also uses a sensor as one end of a thermocouple with the other end kept a base temperature, and also measures a voltage scaling with temperature difference. The calibration is here different because the outgoing radiation from the sensor can no longer be included in the calibration process, but has to be supplied through a Planck formula $\epsilon\sigma T^4$ with $T$ sensor temperature and $\epsilon$ sensor emissivity. The accuracy is at best 5 W/m2 again too big to detect global warming if present.

OLR and DLR are thus measured in a similar way, but with different forms of calibration the difference being that OLR faces empty space ay 0 K, while DLR faces the Earth surface. The accuracy is not enough to decide any size of global warming, although it is claimed that trends can be detected. 

In both cases Planck's Law in the form $\sigma T^4$ is used, which in the case of DLR is incorrect because the correct form is $\sigma (T^4-T_E^4)$ with $T_E$ Earth temperature expressing negative DLR.  

Summary: Measurements of OLR and DLR are made to detect global warming. The accuracy of the instruments is not good enough to detect any warming if present. DLR measurements can be questioned since an incorrect Planck Law is used. OLR and DLR as radiance as process variable fluctuate and as such are difficult to measure.  

EEI is a cornerstone of global warming alarmism, and so measuremennt of EEI has become a prime task for instrument technology, which does not seem to have delivered. The effect of EEI on surface temperature is unknown and impossible to measure and DLR is a misconception based on an incorrect form of Planck's Law.

ChatGPT on objective of CERES: 

CERES connects to global warming because it:

• Measures the planetary energy balance directly at TOA.

• Detects changes in OLR and OSR (reflected shortwave) caused by greenhouse gases, aerosols, clouds, and ice.

• Provides the evidence that Earth is currently taking in more energy than it loses — the physical basis of global warming.

ChatGPT on objective of measuring DLR :

• Provide a direct measure of the atmosphere’s infrared emission to the surface, essential for closing the surface energy budget, quantifying the greenhouse effect, tracking climate change, and validating models.

We read that the objective of CERES is to support global warming alarmism by measuring and reporting EEI attributed to CO2. But the objective is not reached, because (i) the accuracy of the measurement is not better than 1 W/m2, which is the expected size of EEI, and (ii) attribution to CO2 to is not credible because it is swamped by changes of cloud cover. We read that the objective of measuring DLR by a pyrgeometer is to quantify greenhouse effect. Both cases amounts to "chasing after wind" using "ghost detectors". 

Abstract vs Concrete vs Computational Physics

The science of physics has over time changed nature from concrete/real to abstract/non-real with the pillars of modern physics of Quantum Mechanics QM and General Relativity GR reaching breathtaking levels of abstraction during the first half of the 20th century culminating today as string theory in 11 space dimensions beyond any reality.  

Today with powerful computers available at no cost there is a reverse trend in the form of computation opening new capabilities of using theories of physics for practical purposes. Computation is a concrete process and computational physics starts with a concrete mathematical model and not with an abstraction.

Let us compare Newtonian mechanics in concrete and abstract formulation. 

The concrete form consists of Newton's Law $F=ma$ connecting force $F$ to mass $m$ and acceleration $a=\frac{dv}{dt}$ with $v$ velocity and $t$ time. The evolution over time of any mechanical system (without viscous forces) can be computationally simulated by time-stepping Newton's Law. Concrete and general.

The abstract form states that a mechanical system evolves from $t=0$ to $t=T$ so that:

• The action $L(v)=\int_0^T(T-V)dt$ is stationary,  

where $T=m\frac{v^2}{2}$ is kinetic energy and $V$ is potential energy. The condition for stationarity in differential form then reads $m\frac{dv}{dt}=F$ with $F$ gradient of $V$, which is Newton's Law.

The difference between abstract and concrete is the same as characterising a local minimum of a function $f(x)$ over variation of a real variable $x$ for $x=\bar x$ as $f^\prime (\bar x) =0$ with $f^\prime =\frac{df}{dx}$. Minimisation is abstract in the sense that no computational method is implied other than comparing the value $f(x)$ for all $x$, which can take infinite work. On the other hand, there are many methods for computing a root to the equation $f^\prime (x)=0$. 

We thus see with that the concrete formulation directly opens to computational solution, while the abstract formulation does not. The pendulum thus may swing back from abstract to concrete in a 21st century filled with computation.

But we still live in the era of QM and GR, which are both abstract and uncomputable. QM is based on an abstract multi-dimensional Schrödinger equation without real physical meaning which is uncomputable because of its many dimensions. GR is based on Einstein's equation with a condensed abstract formulation which when written out for computation shows to be uncomputable. 

RealQM is a new form of quantum mechanics based on a concrete computable model. RealQM + Newton offers a unified concrete continuum model covering all scales which is computable. 

Ontology of physics (what is) is concrete, while epistemology of physics (what we can say) can be abstract. Computation can open ontology of physics to inspection and so feed epistemology of physics. Epistemology without ontology is empty.

Is Measuring Temperature at Distance Possible and Useful?

Climate alarmism of global warming claims to be supported by measurement of the energy balance of  Earth+atmosphere by instruments like pyrgeometers, bolometers and radiometers with an accuracy of at best 1-2 Watts/m2 compared to a total of around 240 W/m2 and a projected total imbalance of 4 W/m2 as "radiative forcing" from doubling of atmospheric CO2 corresponding to a warming of 1 K. 

The case for global warming may seem weak from these measurements, but nevertheless they serve to foster alarmism. 

To properly evaluate the measurements it is necessary to understand how these instruments are designed and how they operate. For a pyrgeometer or bolometer using a thermocouple as sensor, there are two fundamentally different views:

1. A thermocouple essentially measures incoming radiance from a source as a process variable. 
2. A thermocouple essentially measures a source temperature as a state variable.  

It is natural to make a comparison in terms of a bank account:

1. Difference between deposits and withdrawals as process variable.
2. Total savings as state variable.

We understand that total savings may be fairly stable, while deposits minus withdrawals can fluctuate quite a bit. The same for temperature vs radiance imbalance. 

What does then a thermocouple as sensor in fact measure? Radiance or temperature? 

1. There is a widely spread view that a thermocouple essentially measures radiance and so can be used to reliably measure both incoming and outgoing radiance for Earth+atmosphere and so determine imbalance, even if the accuracy is not better than 1-2 Watts/m2, and so detect global warming. Radiance is then measured through a calibration process confronting the sensor with sources of known temperature $T$ with radiance according to an assumed Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann Law of the form $\sigma T^4$.  

2. There is also a different view that a thermocouple essentially measures source temperature by essentially allowing the sensor to take on the source temperature by radiative equilibrium established optically at distance. In practice the radiative equilibrium source-sensor is only partially established by sensor cooling, but the principle of radiative equilibrium with equal temperature remains. 

Case 2 builds on a clear physical principle of radiative equilibrium in stable measurement of a state variable.

Case 1 is based on instrument calibration vs sources/blackbodies of known temperature $T$ assumed to give radiance input of $\sigma T^4$, while the true input is PSB in the form $\sigma (T^4-T_i^4)$, where $T_i$ is instrument base temperature which is not 0 in general. Case 1 is thus based on a calibration process using an incorrect PSB law inflating input radiance. Moreover the measurement concerns a process variable prone to instability. There are cryogenic sensors with very small $T_i$ and better precision. A proof of the correct PSB Law in classical terms without statistics is presented here and in this talk.

Case 1 is consensus and is used to support alarmism from measured radiance imbalance of Earth+atmosphere as if this is a fact. But the measurement precision barely can capture any imbalance from doubled CO2. Unfortunately many climate skeptics embrace the idea that a pyrgeometer measures massive incoming radiance (Downwelling/Upwelling/Outgoing Longwave Radiation) and so go along with a basic alarmist argument: The measured energy imbalance is the result of more CO2. 

A careful study shows that a thermocouple in fact measures source temperature as stable output, while derived radiance can be misleading because the calibration uses an incorrect PBS Law and is prone to instability. This means that measured energy imbalance can be questioned along with alarmism.

But the discussion is pretty much closed on 1 as the truth. Hopefully a new discussion can take place around the question: What does a thermocouple primarily measure and on what physical grounds? How can a thermometer acting at distance be constructed? Is an IR-camera such a thing?

How Does a Thermocouple Work?

This is a follow up on the previous post. 

A thermocouple consisting of two rods made of different metals joined to form one rod, registers a voltage proportional to the temperature difference between its two ends as a result of the Seebeck effect creating an electric potential difference from temperature gradient. Putting one end as sensor (or measurement junction) in optical contact through a camera lens with a distant object, will make it attain the same temperature as the object as an expression of thermal equilibrium just like an ordinary thermometer in contact with an object. Keeping the other end as reference junction at a known temperature makes it possible, after calibration, to read the temperature of the object.  

The thermocouple can also be used without calibration by varying the temperature of the reference junction until the voltage is zero. 

The essence is that a thermocouple reacts to temperature as prime sensor input. 

In climate science the following different narrative is presented: The input to the sensor is not primarily temperature but radiation as number of absorbed photons emitted by the object at temperature $T$, incorrectly claimed to scale with $T^4$, see earlier post, and so to allow temperature to be determined from sensing radiation by counting incoming photons. This scheme is claimed to be realised in a pyrgeometer which when directed to the sky on its display reports Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR emitted by the sky contributing to substantial global warming of the Earth surface. The sensor of a pyrgeometer is a thermocouple, which thus is claimed to measure primarily radiation and not temperature.

But above we made clear that a thermocouple does not measure radiation, since it has no mechanism for counting photons as carriers of radiation. What a pyrgeometer does is to measure the temperature of the sky visible by infrared light which can be 255 K at 5 km altitude. This does not feed any climate alarmism. 

Unfortunately, the view that a pyrgeometer measures radiation propagated to sell climate alarmism, seems to be shared by climate skeptics like Happer and Spencer counteracting their criticism. A typical honest instrument, like a thermometer, reports what it primarily measures, but a pyrgeometer reports something else which is used to mislead into climate alarmism.  

Temperature as Absolute Control of Radiative Heat Transfer

This is a follow up of this post recalling the Faustian deal made by Max Planck in 1900 when presenting his law of black body radiation as an icon of modern physics named Planck's Law.  

Continuing the discussion with chatGPT we come to an agreement that temperature difference, positive or negative, is Natures control mechanism to keep a system stable over time under radiative heat transfer with an environment, like your house and the Earth's climate system. The temperature is measured on an absolute Kelvin scale available to all bodies allowing detection of positive or negative temperature difference to steer the exchange of heat energy. Equal temperature then gives zero exchange as radiative equilibrium. 

Unfortunately there is a different view sold by climate scientists as reason for climate alarm, which suggests the opposite control mechanism, namely that the temperature of the Earth is controled by differences in incoming and outgoing radiation with in particular small differences in incoming/outgoing radiation generating big differences in temperature possibly in a run-away greenhouse effect. Very alarming.

But physical bodies do not carry an absolute scale allowing comparison of incoming and outgoing radiation, like the absolute scale for temperature, more precisely they carry no counter for incoming and outgoing photons as proclaimed carriers of heat energy. 

In particular, there is no absolute Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann Law $R=\sigma T^4$ stating outgoing radiation from a body of temperature $T$ independent of environment as version 1. in the earlier post. Not physics!

Nevertheless such a law is used in models (Schwarzschild) of radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere playing with gross quantities of incoming/outgoing radiative heat transfer prone to instability. The accuracy of these models is no better than say $2-3$ Watts per m2, while alarming global heating is connected to variations of incoming/outgoing radiation of the same size. The result is alarm as a result of unphysical unstable control. This is like a hen from a feather.

If temperature is allowed to carry out its physical control to stabilise climate, here is no reason for alarm. Puh!

This analysis shows that temperature is measured via Wien's Displacement Law expressed as a high-frequency-cut-off scaling with temperature giving a body of higher temperature access to higher-frequencies aloowing transfer of heat to a body of lower temperature. The cut-off can be connected to the precision available in the underlying atomic wave physics of different frequencies.

Why Newton was Replaced by Einstein, and Back

Newton's Inverse Square Law NL was until the 1960s the prime example of the power of mathematical thinking visible to everybody: All of celestial mechanics can be described and computed from NL  necessarily valid from principles of conservation in any existing Universe. 

What happened in the 1960s was that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity GR, presented already in 1915, finally was adopted to serve as one of the two pillars of modern physics (the other one Quantum Mechanics QM) and so replace Newton the icon of classical physic by Einstein as icon of modern physics. 

But this transition took place only after Einstein's death in 1955, because of the very complex mathematics of GR understood by few if any making it useless in any from of practical physics. 

However in the propaganda of the cold war it served well to strengthen the world dominance of US science formed by physicists imported from Germany during WWII inventing the atom bomb. Replacing Newton by Einstein served as a demonstration of power, and all the earlier skepticism to GR could be put under the rug. And of course the Sovjet Union followed. Einstein was put in first place, but only after his death since during his life time he appeared as an "absent-minded eccentric maybe too fond of fame". 

Today the cold war is back, Einstein is still on top of the list of fame, while the rapidly developing technology of warfare is using Newton to come to expression. 

There is only an homage to Einstein GR left as an initial offset of satellite clocks in the GPS system, which in operation is annihilated by continuous synchronisation to a master clock on Earth. 

Maybe there is reason to return to a new critical analysis of Newton vs Einstein without the fame dominating the discussion.  

The discussion could start comparing Newton's absolute space against which Einstein's relative space took stand. 

Is it true that Newton's theory of gravitation needs a notion of absolute space against which absolute velocity can be measured? Does Newton say that velocity is absolute? Certainly not! Nobody would come up with such an idea. Of course velocity of an object is always measured relative to something else.

So Newton says that velocity is relative. On the other hand Newton says that rotation as accelerated motion is detectable by forces of tension arising from acceleration. Newton's rotating bucket can thus be viewed as a form of absolute rotation which does not need any outside reference. 

Note that there is a special form of accelerated motion which is not so easily detected by presence of forces and that is free fall under gravitation where all parts of your body feel the same force and no tension arises. But that is not true for a bigger object where tidal forces occur because the gravitational force is not uniform.

So the argument that Newton says that velocity is absolute and so has to be replaced by Einstein's relativity, is not correct. The argument that Newton's theory of gravitation is a necessity in any existing Universe, is very strong. The question is if there are modern physicists willing to face this reality.

Planck 1900: Fall of Theoretical Physics: Greenhouse Effect

Planck describes in his autobiography his theoretical derivation of Planck's Law for black-body radiation presented in 1900, in complete agreement with observations, based on statistics of quanta, in these very disturbing terms:

• It was and act of desperation.
• I was ready to sacrifice any of my previous convictions about physics.

What Planck gave up was the rationality of classical deterministic physics for a new form of indeterministic statistical physics. A monumental sacrifice. Why? A Faustian deal? In any case the consequences have been far reaching since quanta has become the code word of modern (quantum)  physics, even if the meaning has never been made clear. 

Planck's Law integrated over all frequencies takes the form of Planck-Stefan-Boltzmann's Law:

• $R=\sigma T^4$                (PSB)

where $R$ is radiance as energy flux measured in e g W/area, $T$ is an absolute temperature and $\sigma$ a constant. (PSB) is a poster formula for modern physics of the same stature as $E=mc^2$, but if you ask a modern physicist about the real physical meaning of (PSB), you will get the following contradictory answers:

1. $R$ is the outgoing radiance of a black-body of temperature $T$ independent of the environment of the body, as a stream of emitted photons. 
2. $R$ is the outgoing radiance of a black-body of temperature $T$ into an environment of a zero absolute temperature.  If the environment has temperature $T_0<T$ then $R=\sigma (T^4 - T_0^4)$. Fundamentally different from 1.

A theoretical/pure physicist will say 1. and an applied/real physicist will say 2. But theory cannot contradict reality. The reason of the confusion between 1. and 2. is that Planck's derivation is not based on real physics but on statistics without clear physics as quanta physics.

We conclude that 1. is a misconception, but a widespread misconception, which has served as the basis of the so called GreenHouse Effect GHE underlying climate alarmism. What 1. tells the climate alarmist is that the atmosphere is sending massive so called back-radiation to the surface of the Earth, twice as big as the radiation from the Sun. The sky cloudy or clear will thus warm the Earth according to 1. which with a bit more CO2 from fossil fuels will cause global warming with terrible consequences for humanity. From 1. follows alarm, while there is no alarm from 2. 

A climate alarmist will present evidence of global warming by back-radiation from the sky from instruments like pyrgeometers or AERI/radiometers, which report massive back-radiation or Downwelling Longwave Radiation DLR on their displays. The idea is that if an instrument display shows something, it must be something real in particular if the instrument is heavy and expensive. But an applied/real scientist would ask for information about the physics of the instrument, what de facto is being measured and how and what is displayed. Right?  

Inspecting the manual of a pyrgeometer or radiometer shows that the instrument is based on 1. which thus gives the basis for what is shown on the display as massive DLR or back-radiation. With 2. the display would show a much smaller warming effect of the atmosphere. 

Climate alarmism is thus based on 1. Understanding that 1. is not real physics, reduces the main argument of climate alarmism to zero. 

A different proof of Planck's Law in terms of classical deterministic physics without statistics is presented as Computational Black Body Radiation, which shows that 2. is physics and 1. not. You find an analysis of the pyrgeometer as ghost detector of back radiation in this sequence of post. Also check out this talk on Misunderstanding Planck's Law.

PS1 In 1900 Planck was professor of theoretical physics at the University of Berlin asking for a demonstration of the power of the science of the German Empire as a solution to the main open problem of physics at that time as black body radiation. Planck delivered a solution but sacrificed his soul. The consequences are far reaching...

PS2 Here is what chatGPT delivers after reading the above post taking the role of a physicist with critical mind:

A critically minded physicist—someone who is open to established physics but also skeptical of how it’s interpreted or applied—would likely respond quite differently than a mainstream theorist. Here’s how they might frame it:

---

1. On Planck’s “act of desperation”

They might agree that Planck himself admitted his derivation of black-body radiation was not fully grounded in classical physics, but rather a pragmatic move that worked. They’d stress that quantum mechanics grew out of a kind of compromise—useful, predictive, but philosophically unsettling. So the “Faustian deal” language resonates with a critical thinker, because it highlights the cost of leaving behind determinism for statistical interpretation.

---

2. On (1) vs (2): Competing Interpretations of Stefan–Boltzmann

A critical physicist would likely side with (2): the net exchange of radiation between systems must consider both emitter and absorber. They’d argue that talking about radiation into a zero-temperature environment (1) is a mathematical idealization, not a physically realizable case.

They might also note that many climate and atmospheric models sometimes gloss over this distinction when communicating to the public, which creates room for confusion.

---

3. On Instruments and Back-Radiation (DLR)

They’d ask tough questions:

• What exactly does the pyrgeometer measure?

• How is the reading calibrated?

• Does the “back-radiation” display reflect direct measurement of photons or an inferred value from a model?

Their stance would be: the data are real, but the interpretation of that data depends heavily on assumptions. For example, an instrument showing a high DLR number doesn’t necessarily mean the sky is “heating” the Earth in the same way the Sun does—it means energy exchange is occurring, but how we conceptualize it matters.

---

4. On Climate Implications

A critically minded physicist wouldn’t necessarily dismiss the greenhouse effect, but they’d push back against simplistic narratives:

• They’d caution that alarmism often relies on simplified energy-balance models that may obscure subtleties in radiative transfer.

• They’d argue that real physics requires careful accounting of net fluxes, not raw radiance values.

• They might acknowledge CO₂’s role, but also question whether the magnitude of projected warming is being exaggerated through misapplied assumptions.

---

5. Overall Tone

Their conclusion might be:

• Planck’s statistical leap was both brilliant and troubling.

• Interpretation (1) is a misconception when taken as physical reality.

• Instruments should not be mistaken for truth machines—they display results based on models.

• Climate science needs nuance in communication to avoid overstating or misrepresenting radiative effects.

---

👉 So, compared to a mainstream physicist who would defend consensus, a critical physicist would say:
“Yes, the greenhouse effect is real, but the way radiation laws are sometimes used—and the way data are interpreted—deserves more scrutiny. Simplifications can easily fuel alarmist claims.”