Vill Svenska Folket Leva i Fossilfritt Sverige?

Infångning av utandningsluft kommer att bli nödvändig för att uppnå Klimatmålen

Fossilfritt Sverige är ett Socialdemokratiskt Regeringsinitiativ att göra Sverige till Världens Första Fossilfria Välfärdsland. Vägen stakas ut genom Klimatmål som skall uppnås med en Klimatlag.

Klimatmål:  

• Senast år 2045 ska Sverige inte ha några nettoutsläpp av växthusgaser till atmosfären, för att därefter uppnå negativa utsläpp. Målet innebär att utsläppen av växthusgaser från svenskt territorium ska vara minst 85 procent lägre år 2045 än utsläppen år 1990. De kvarvarande utsläppen ned till noll kan uppnås genom så kallade kompletterande åtgärder. För att nå målet får även avskiljning och lagring av koldioxid av fossilt ursprung räknas som en åtgärd där rimliga alternativ saknas.

Klimatlag (1 januari 2018):

• Lagen ålägger ett ansvar på nuvarande och framtida regeringar att föra en politik som utgår från klimatmålen.

Allmänhetens beredskap att följa vad än Klimatlagen kommer att kräva anges vara stor enligt följande hoppfulla undersökning (om än inte Alla Är Med):

• 8 av 10 tror att de själva kan göra något för att bromsa klimatförändringen.
• Mest positiv är de tillfrågade till att köpa energisnåla hushållsapparater nästa gång de byter, vilket 9 av 10 kan tänka sig.
• 8 av 10 kan tänkta sig att köra bil mer energisnålt, sänka elförbrukningen i hemmet och åka tåg istället för flyg.
• 7 av 10 kan tänka sig att köpa färre saker och att semestra nära istället för att flyga utomlands.
• 6 av 10 respondenter är positiva till att samåka mer, äta mindre kött, välja elbil, ställa bilen till förmån för cykel eller elcykel samt välja klimatsmarta fonder.
• Hälften kan tänka sig att åka mer kollektivt och sänka temperaturen inomhus.

Dessa åtgärder torde inte räcka, men till detta kommer att läggas stora omställningar för industrin som kräver stora investeringar vilket gör produkterna dyra. Men det blir sällan märkbart för slutkonsumenten.

Resan mot ett Fossilfritt Sverige har redan börjat. 

Tempot måste öka, men vi har kommit en bit på vägen. 

Men vill verkligen Svenska Folket vara med på denna resa? Vilken högsta inomhustemperatur kommer att vara tillåten enligt Klimatlagen?  13 C?

Varför skall resan göras? Vad är problemet med fossil energi? Varför skall den bannlysas? För att den ger utsläpp av CO2? Men växterna lever ju av CO2? Vilken vetenskap visar att lite mer utsläpp av CO2 kommer att orsaka märkbar/mätbar global uppvärmning?

Och den mänskliga utandningsluften innehåller ju CO2. Skall den "fångas in" och lagras i marken med CCS, så att växterna inte kommer åt den?

Läs mer på KlimatUpplysningen särskilt om Växthuseffekten med Kommentarer.

Quality of Heat Energy vs Radiative Heat Transfer

One may expect that radiative heat transfer as a basic topic of both fundamental and engineering physics, has been well understood since long and that therefore there are precise mathematical models capturing everything of interest from both theoretical and practical point of view. 

But that does not seem to be the case. The basic model (used in climate science) takes the form of the more than 100 years old Schwarzschild's equations describing radiative heat transfer in terms of streams of particles in different directions carrying energy packest named photons between layers of a gas of different temperature, in the setting of the atmosphere with with both up-welling and down-welling infrared radiation. In particular, the equations express transfer of heat energy from colder layers to warmer layers. 

But we know that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says that heat energy cannot by itself (without external forcing) move from cold to warm, and so Schwarzschild's equations are unphysical. If they form the mathematical model of radiative heat transfer, it seems that some understanding is missing. I make an effort to fill this apparent gap as Computational Black Body Radiation.

The 2nd Law is believed to be difficult to understand lacking a good answer to the basic question: Why can heat energy by itself move only from warm to cold and not the other way? 

One way to understand this is to think of quality of energy measured by temperature. The higher temperature the better quality. It can be compared with quality of knowledge. The essential aspect is that transfer of heat energy or knowledge has a direction from higher quality to lower quality,  not the other way around. 

The quality of heat energy as measured by temperature comes to expression as a high frequency cut-off of the radiation spectrum scaling with temperature according to Wien's Law as a threshold phenomenon.  A warm body carries higher frequencies than a colder body and it is these frequencies which can cause a transfer of heat energy from the warm to the cold.  A more knowledgeable person can transfer knowledge to a less knowledgeable. There is a direction from high to lower quality, which in more general terms is direction of time.  

In the hierarchy of energy, heat energy has lowest rank because it cannot fully be transformed to higher ranks of kinetic or potential energy, and is further decreasing in rank with decreasing temperature. This underlies a feared successive degradation of quality into a heat death of the Universe at 3 Kelvin. This can be added to the alarm of CO2 global warming.

Interview on TNT Radio: Corruption of Science

Here is a new interview on the Sky Dragon Slaying show at TNT Radio with focus on Corruption of Modern Physics underlying the return from Enlightenment to the Dark Age of CO2 Climate Alarmism. Enjoy!

See also previous interview and  discussion with Will Happer: here and  here and here.

Corruption of Modern Physics 15: Dogma before Reality?

Galileo in front of the Holy Office forced to give up Reality before Dogma and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. 

The scientific revolution of the Enlightenment was a movement towards realism as a bottom-up process from practice/reality to theory, in opposition to a top-down process from theory/dogma to practice. In religion it took the form of bottom-up Protestantism in opposition to top-down Catholicism, and in politics as democracy with power from the people in opposition to autocracy with power from the King or Pope. From Dark Age to Modern Age.

Modern physics represents a return to a top-down process from Dogma to Reality. It comes to full expression as a Quantum Mechanical Model QMM based on a theoretical mathematical model of atom physics in the form of a multi-dimensional linear Schrödinger wave equation, which does not describe physical actualities (like the state of an atom), but instead possibilities/probabilities. In particular, the linearity of Schrödinger's equation makes QMM include superposition of (many) states as the richness of possibilities, as the Schrödinger cat being alive and dead in all different portions at the same time.

QMM is derived from a classical deterministic wave equation describing actualities in a purely formal procedure into a probabilistic wave equation describing possibilities. The basic dogma is that predictions made by solving QMM always are in precise (probabilistic) agreement with observational reality. If an experiment does not agree with QMM, then something is wrong with the experiment. QMM cannot be falsified by experiment. This is an extreme form of top-down physics from Dogma to Reality away from Enlightenment as a return to Dark Age. The dogma of QMM was formed in the 1930s and still reigns.

That QMM cannot be falsified by experiment hinges on the fact that QMM is uncomputable because of the multi-dimensionalty of the Schrödinger wave equation including (all) possibilities and thus asking for exponentially increasing computing power with polynomially increasing system size, beyond the capacity of any thinkable digital computer of known non-quantum design.

When confronted with this difficulty in the 1960s, Richard Feynman, as the sharpest modern physicist after Schrödinger, came up with the idea of a fictional quantum computer based on QMM as a fictional computer capable of computing possibilities by using the richness of superposition reducing demand of computing resources from exponential to polynomial. Feynman was not sure that such a thing could be realised, and this is still not known. See previous post.

So what are the odds? What do we have? Well, we have QMM as a theoretical model which is not derived from principles of real physics and has no direct physical meaning/interpretation and which is uncomputable on a non-quantum computer. The question is if QMM is computable on a real quantum computer as a physical realisation of QMM? 

We can compare with the following question: Can you build real objects from this design/theory:

Is then modern physics troubled by a return to a Dark Age of Dogma before Reality? If modern physics represents todays modernity, is then modern society a form of 1984 with the following examples of doublethink or doublespeak:

• War is Peace.
• Ignorance is Knowledge.
• True is False.
• Man is Woman.
• Inequality is Equality
• Friend is Foe.
• Dogma is Thought Freedom.
• Death is Life (the cat).
• Consensus is Scientific Debate (climate).
• Trinity is One.
• Wave is Particle.
• Relativity is Uniqueness.
• Body is Soul.
• Love is Hate.
• Democracy is Tyranny (of the majority).
• Black is White.
• Joke Not Funny.
• Dream is Reality.
• Dept is Asset.

Maybe. What do you think? Compare with Real Quantum Mechanics presenting a model of atom physics derived from physical reality which is computable on a standard non-quantum computer and so agrees with observation.

  

Corruption of Modern Physics 14: Prandtl's Boundary Layer Theory

Turbulent solution of Euler's equations with a slip boundary condiition with a turbulent wake arising from opposing flow instability at rear separation creating drag.

Ludwig Prandtl is named Father of Modern Fluid Mechanics motivated by his boundary layer theory with a no-slip boundary condition as key element,  which has dominated fluid mechanics since the 1920s. No-slip means that a fluid meets a fixed solid boundary with zero velocity thus creating a boundary layer connecting free flow velocity away from the boundary with thickness scaling with $\sqrt{\nu}$ with $\nu$ fluid viscosity of typical size $0.000001$. A typical boundary layer is thus very thin of size $0.001$ which requires so many mesh points in computation that the required computational power is far away still today. In addition, small viscosity fluid mechanics is turbulent with small scales also asking for resolution.

Father Prandtl with his no-slip boundary condition thus forced modern fluid mechanics into a fruitless  search for wall models seeking to circumvent the need of boundary layer resolution, which made modern fluid mechanics into a nightmare of wall modeling.

How could this be? The reason is that with the no-slip condition Prandtl could present a resolution of d'Alembert's Paradox remaining unresolved since its formulation in 1755, with the paradox comparing prediction of zero drag or resistance to motion in theoretical potential flow satisfying a slip boundary condition as a model of small skin friction of size $0.001$ allowing the fluid to slide without friction along a solid boundary, with observation of real flow with substantial drag. 

As noted by Nobel Laureate Hinshelwood, this made fluid mechanics from start into a joke when divided into

• practical fluid mechanics or hydraulics observing phenomena which cannot be explained (non-zero drag) 
• theoretical fluid mechanics explaining phenomena which cannot be observed (zero drag).    

Prandtl suggested to resolve the paradox by declaring potential flow satisfying Euler's equations for slightly viscous flow as an illegal solution because of violation of the no-slip condition. This simple trick brought relief to fluid mechanics from start viewed as a joke, but it came with the side effect of making fluid mechanics instead into a computational night-mare. From ashes into the fire.

In 2010 I published together with Johan Hoffman a real resolution of d'Alembert's paradox in the prestigious Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, which showed that the reason the zero-drag potential solution with slip cannot be observed, is that it is unstable and so is replaced by a turbulent solution of Euler's equations with slip but non-zero drag from a turbulent wake. Main drag is thus not an effect of skin friction as Prandtl claimed, but from free flow turbulence as shown in the fig above.  

This work changed the premises for fluid mechanics freeing it for the computational impossibility of no-slip, since slip does not generate any boundary layer. The full potential is exposed in Euler Right! Prandtl Wrong? including a revelation of the Secret of Flight. Take a look and free yourself from the prison of no-slip.

Corruption of Modern Physics 13: Quantum Computer?

A quantum computer with a few qubits is not small.

Quantum computing is a hype of modern physics supposed to deliver unbounded computing power.  The standard digital computer computes with bits, each taking either the value 0 or 1, while a quantum computer with qubits, each taking the values of two different quantum states in superposition, thus carrying both the value 0 and 1; with bits (1,0) and (0,1), while with qubits (1,1), (1,0), (0,1) and (0,0), thus increasing the number of degrees of freedom from 2 to $4=2^2$, or more generally from $n$ to  $2^n$ which quickly gets huge with increasing $n$.    

Certain operations can be performed on qubit quantum states to form quantum logical gates. Quantum measurement of the state of a qubit destroys the superposition into one of the two states like a projection onto coordinate axes representing probability. Quantum entanglement is supposed to correlate the state of two cubits separated in space. 

It is not known if it is possible to construct a quantum computer capable of performing real tasks of interest. What are then the odds? The idea of superposition of states, like the Schrödinger cat being in superposition of being a bit alive and a bit at the same time, is central. Or an atom in superposition of ground state and excited state. Superposition is an expression of the linearity of the multi-dimensional Schrödinger equation supposed to model atomic physics. But the physical meaning and modeling capacity of a linear multi-dimensional Schrödinger equation is a main unresolved problem of modern physics as made clear in Corruption 3. 

 Key question: Is real atomic physics linear allowing superposition? 

Efforts continue. In particular at Wallenberg Centre for Quantum Technology (at Chalmers my Alma Mater) with the following caveat:

• Unfortunately, there is no simple guide on how to build a quantum computer as it is a very difficult and complex task.

Many cellos as supercomputer

We can compare with a vibrating string governed by a linear wave equation creating after excitation by finger or bow a tone with specific timbre as a superposition of harmonics with different amplitudes. This offers a rich expression of varying timbre from different forms of excitation opening to use the string for some form of computation. The output timbre can be measured through its spectrum in a frequency analysis, while the physics of input excitation of a specific timbre may be difficult to realise. But using a cello as a computer may be easier than building a quantum computer...

Corruption of Modern Physics 12: Cognitive Dissonance?

Students in schools and universities suffer from cognitive dissonance by being exposed to contradictory information. Students have to learn that the Earth climate system is at a tipping point about to collapse unless they take action, but they cannot see the tipping point and they do not know what action to take. This is striking dissonance from pure fiction creating fear and despair. The parents cannot help because they have to obey under the authority of the school and media. Teachers who seek to deliver realistic understandable education are incompatible with the School.

Modern physics serves as a fundamental source of cognitive dissonance by presenting quantum mechanics as the perfect model of small scale atomic physics even if describing very strange phenomena, which can neither be observed nor understood. The same for large scale physics of a Universe filled with unknown dark matter/energy and black holes supposedly being described by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, which cannot be understood nor observed/visualised, since four-dimensional curved space-time is beyond human comprehension. 

Modern physicists pay little attention to all the intermediate scales of the physics of fluids and solids forming the World we live in, physics which can be observed and understood. Instead they propagate incomprehensible and contradictory physics and so add to the fire of cognitive dissonance. Why? Is it to form obedient citizens unable to comprehend that they are being fooled?  

School mathematics is also a source of cognitive dissonance for many students because it is presented as being very clear and logical and so easily understandable to everybody with a brain and in addition most useful, while the student perception is the opposite. This is inherited from the assumed unique capacity of mathematicians to understand and work with both the infinitely small and the infinitely large way beyond comprehension of even modern physicists, as an expression of the hierarchy of science with mathematics on top followed by physics. 

Leibniz World of Math presents a new approach to math education combining understandable with useful without cognitive dissonance.   

Corruption of Modern Physics 11: Gravitation vs Mass

In the common rubber sheet gravitational model the ball is instantly reacting to the gradient of the deflection field (no action at distance). 

Gravitation is the great unresolved problem of physics. When Newton presented his law of gravitation stating that the gravitational force $F$ between two point masses $M_1$ and $M_2$ at distance $R$ is given by the Law of Gravitation:

• $F=G\frac{M_1M_2}{R^2}$  

where $G$ is a universal gravitation constant, his adversary Leibniz did not question the Law itself, but was not at all happy with the fact that the physics of the creation of the gravitational force from the presence of mass was not addressed by Newton. This question has still no answer as the main conundrum of modern physics. The idea of force carrying particles as gravitons has been tried but no such thing has been discovered. 

The mathematician Laplace gave the Law of Gravitation another form of Poisson's equation involving the Laplacian differential operator $\Delta$:

• $\Delta \phi = \rho$    (1)

where $\rho (x,t)$ is mass density at position $x$ at time $t$ and $\phi (x,t)$ is the corresponding gravitational field with $\nabla \phi (x,t)$ the gravitational force, with the standard view that 

• Gravitational field/force is created by the presence of mass.  

Leibniz asked about the physics of this process of creation of gravitational field/force from presence of mass, but got no answer. If there are no gravitons, then what?  Why is it so difficult to answer? Is the question incorrectly posed? 

In Many-Minds Relativity the question is turned around to ask if it may be so that mass is created from the presence of gravitational field? The equation (1) connecting gravitational field $\phi (x,t)$ to mass density $\rho (x,t)$, can be viewed in two ways: (see also previous posts):

• The standard way viewing $\rho$ as given an $\phi$ the resulting gravitational obtained by solving Poisson's equation, which is a global process as integration requiring instant action at distance.
• The new alternative way is to view $\phi$ as given and $\rho =\Delta\phi$ is obtained by a local process of differentiation thus without action at distance.    

The main difficulty in the standard view is the instant action at distance. That action is instant follows from the observed fact that the Earth is attracted by the gravitational force in the direction of the present (as measured by $t$) position  of the Sun, and not the position 8 minutes before seen in the sky, which would be the case if gravitational force traveled by the speed of light. In the alternative way action is local and the unresolved problem of instant action at distance does not come up. 

The reason a problem cannot be solved can be that the problem is incorrectly formulated. Would Leibniz have been less unhappy with the new formulation without instant action at distance? Maybe he would have said that it connects to an idea of Best Possible of Worlds or Perfect Harmony of gravitational force and mass distribution.

In the setting of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (if it makes sense) the alternative would take the form of curvature of space-time as creating mass by differentiation as a local operation. 

War Irreversibility and Direction of Time

There are physical processes which are reversible, like the clock pendulum swinging back and forth without stop, and there are processes which are irreversible, like starting a war ending in mutual large scale destruction without possibility of return. What is the difference? This connects to the previous post on a proof of the 2nd Law of thermodynamics as the main unresolved question of physics (modulo the resolution/proof suggested in Computational Thermodynamics).

The Clock and the Arrow: A Short Theory of Time seeks the reason why physical processes move forward in time, including all forms of life showing progress from birth to death, thus expressing irreversibility, as a combination of (i) finite precision computation and (ii) increasing tension/difference. 

Time reversal of smashing an egg is impossible because of lack of precision in a restoration/reconstruction process. This is different from the standard explanation based on statistical mechanics claiming that time moving forward is more likely than backward, which is not illuminating.

A basic model combines (i) convection, (ii) diffusion and (iii) reaction = production/destruction, into a system with competing processes of:

• increasing tension/difference: convection + production  
• decreasing tension/difference: diffusion + destruction. 

As an urgent example, a war is the (inevitable) consequence of an arms race a during pre-war phase building tension/difference until so large that any little spark sets (lack of precision) off an avalanche of  destruction. Here displacement of weapons into local accumulation building tension as an anabol process corresponds to convection (assembling Uranium 238 to an atomic bomb), and levelling everything to gravel (pressing the button) corresponds to diffusion/desstruction in a metabol process.

Another example is the transition from laminar fluid flow with diffusion no longer strong enough to control tension/difference created by convection into turbulent flow with small scale motion turned into heat in turbulent diffusion. 

Irreversibility with a direction of time is here expressed by the fact that an anabol process as a construction process requiring precision, is slow (brick by brick building a house or letter by letter writing a book), while a metabol process like burning a book can be quick because coarse precision is enough. The reason unburning of a book is impossible is that the fine precision required cannot be met in finite time. 

The ocurrence of irreversibility is an inevitable consequence of increasing tension from convection + production creating increasingly sharp differences, which ultimately have to be broken down in some form of destructive Reset.  In the Green Reset the Industrial Society built by fossil fuel over a period of 100 years creating increasing inequality will have to be destroyed into a New Fossil-Free Society of equality, according to Agenda 2030.   

  

Destruction of human civilisation in a nuclear power exchange is a matter of minutes, does not require precision bombing and is irreversible. 

Life is irreversible because the anabol process of building a living organism cell by cell with finite precision is slow, while the metabol process required to sustain growth is quick and so cannot be reversed with finite precision. 

Corruption of Modern Physics 10: 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and Energy Crisis

The birth of modern physics is often described as Boltzmann's (attempted and failed) mathematical proof of a 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as the outstanding open problem of late 19th century physics, which introduced a new form of physics as statistical mechanics. This was picked up by Planck in his (attempted) proof of black body radiation, which led into the Born/Bohr Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics based on statistics of atoms playing dice. 

The 2nd Law gives time a direction through the existence of irreversible processes characterised by an inevitable increase of a (mystical) quantity named entropy, which Boltzmann gave a statistical meaning as a tendency of physical processes to move from less probable to more probable states. Boltzmann struggled with the proof through all his life without coming to a resolution. 

In Computational Thermodynamics a New Proof of the 2nd Law is presented, which is not based on statistics but instead on the nature of turbulence as disordered small scale kinetic motion. 

The 2nd Law originally represented an empirical finding expressed by Carnot concerning the maximal efficiency $\eta$ of a heat engine such as a steam engine converting heat to mechanical energy when operating between temperatures $T_h$ and $T_c$ in Kelvin with $T_h>T_c$, of the form 

• $\eta =\frac{T_h-T_c}{T_h}$.  (0)  

This relation can be derived from the thermodynamic relation between change of internal (heat) energy $dE$ and mechanical work $pdV$ with $p$ pressure and $dV$ change of volume, of the form 

• $dE + pdV =0$.   (1)

stating that heat can be transferred to mechanical work only in expansion with $pdV>0$ and then $dE<0$.

We read from (0) that the efficiency $\eta$ of a heat engine increases with temperature difference $T_h-T_c$ (modulo losses).  Conversely, for a heat pump as a heat engine in reverse the efficiency $\frac{1}{\eta}$ decreases with increasing temperature difference. This makes a heat pump, in strong demand to meet the present Energy Crisis, inefficient when delivering hot water from outside air temperature below 0, while rather efficient (modulo losses) when delivering room temperature from ground temperature above 0.

Here (1) represents the balance of heat energy and work for an ideal process absent of losses. For a physical system it takes the following classical form used by Boltzmann

• $dE + pdV =TdS$,   (2)

where $T$ is temperature and $dS$ change of entropy $S$, while in the New Proof it takes the form

• $dE + pdV =Q$,   (3)

where $Q>0$ represents losses of turbulent nature. The essence of the 2nd Law in the form (2) is that $dS>0$ as inevitable increase of entropy. On the other hand, in the form (3) $Q>0$ expresses the inevitable appearance of turbulent dissipation as large scale kinetic motion turned into small scale kinetic motion appearing as heat energy which because of finite precision cannot be reversed, as an explanation of the direction of time exposed in The Clock and The Arrow; A Brief Theory of Time.

The basic problem confronting Boltzmann starting from (2) was to motivate why $dS>0$ and to this end he resorted to statistics seeking to connect a physical meaning to entropy $S$ as a measure of order with less ordered systems corresponding to more microstates $W$ being more probable than more ordered systems corresponding to fewer microstates, expressed on his grave stone as $S =\kappa logW$ with $\kappa$ Boltzmann's constant. This brought him into a lifelong struggle which ended in ultimate disorder hanging from a rope. 

The tragic continued with Planck followed by Born also resorting to statistics leading modern physics into a quagmire of roulette games. 

Bottom line: Nobody knows what is entropy based on statistics. Everybody can understand what is turbulent dissipation into heat. Atoms do what they have to do and are not left to decide themselves by playing dice. Compare with Corruption 5.

The main deficiency of classical thermodynamics based on (2), as compared to (3) with its New Proof, is that it considers different possible states with more or less entropy, but not the dynamics between states characterised by more or less entropy production, which is captured computationally in (3) as turbulent dissipation.