## torsdag 14 december 2017

### Sweden as the First Fossil Free Society

The Independent reported in May 2016 that
• Sweden phases out fossil fuels in attempt to run completely off renewable energy:
• Sweden's prime minister announced his country will work towards becoming 'one of the first fossil fuel-free welfare states of the world'.
But we are not yet there; Swedes emit more CO2 in 2017 than in 2016, and so it may take a while before the declaration is turned into reality...

What will then the Swedish fossil-free society look like? One thing appears clear: It will also be a (welfare) state which is poor-people-free, since only the rich can survive in a fossil-free society. What a happy society is awaiting all the people of Sweden: both fossil-free and poor-people-free and then why not highly educated bad-manner-free as well? What beautiful model for the rest of the world barely surviving on 80% fossil fuel subject to all sorts of uneducated bad manner.

The rich educated people of Sweden looking forward to the joy of fossil-free money.

### More Voodoo Physics

In the preceding post I gave an example of inventing fictional physics by misinterpreting the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus to have a physical meaning as a Stefan-Boltzmann radiation law in the form
• $\int_{T_1}^{T_2}f(\nu ,T)\, d\nu =F(T_2)-F(T_1)$
where $F(T)=\sigma T^4$ is a primitive function of a Planck spectral radiance $f(\nu , T)>0$ depending on frequency $\nu$ and $T$ satisfying $\frac{dF}{d\nu}=f$. Here
• $Q=\int_{T_1}^{T_2}f(\nu ,T)\, d\nu$
is the one-way physical radiative heat energy flux from a warm body at temperature $T_2$ to a colder body at temperature $T_2$ expressed as an integral of a spectral radiance, with integration limits scaling with temperature reflecting Wien's displacement law. The misinterpretation is to say that
• $Q = \sigma T_2^4 - \sigma T_1^2$
thus expressing the one-way flux $Q$ from warm to cold, as the difference between two-way heat fluxes $\sigma T_2^4$ from warm to cold and $\sigma T_1^2$ from cold to warm, thus freely inventing two-way heat fluxes from one-way physical heat flux.

The arbitrariness of this invention is expressed by the fact the primitive function $F$ is only determined up to a constant (which cancels in the subtraction). Two-way back-and-forth heat fluxes of any size can thus be freely invented, which by itself is too good to be true physics.

Another example is Einsteins misinterpretation of the Lorentz transformation of mathematical space-time coordinates to have direct physical meaning as distortions of physical space and time, in direct violation of the dictum by Lorentz when introducing his transformation as a mathematical formality without physical meaning. The consequences of this misinterpretation are far-reaching as the revolution (distortion) of our concepts of space and time being forced upon us by the modernity of Einstein's physics. The Nobel Prize in Physics this year to the LIGO recording over a fraction of second of "ripples in the fabric of space-time" of size a fraction of an atomic nucleus over
a distance of the diameter of the Earth from the supposed merger of two black holes 1.3 billion years ago, is a recent example of the grip of a model over reality overwhelming a whole physics community.

The idea of the quantum computer is similarly based on giving the multi-dimensional statistical non-physical Schrödinger equation a direct physical meaning, again in direct violation to the dictum of Schrödinger when introducing his equation. And the quantum computer is still fictional despite major efforts to make it into any from of reality...

All these examples can be viewed to represent Voodoo Physics in the sense of being based on misinterpreting operations on a a doll model to have real physical results.

Here are two quotes by Max Born (Nobel Prize in Physics 1954) expressing the non-physical aspects of Einstein's special theory of relativity expressed in the Lorentz transformation:
• Length contraction and time dilation are ways of regarding things and do not correspond to physical reality.
•  It is hardly possible to illustrate Einstein’s kinematics by means of models.
The counter argument is that Maxwell predicted the existence of electro-magnetic waves from the presence of waves in his model equations, and so Voodoo physics can be real physics. That is right, but it does not say that all Voodoo physics is real physics, as for example:

### Update of Talk at Climate Sense 2018: Voodoo Physics

I have put up an new version of my upcoming talk at Climate Sense 2018 with the title:
Of particular focus is the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus stating that if $F(x)$ is a primitive function of $f(x)$, that is $\frac{dF}{dx}=f$, then
• $\int_a^bf(x)\, dx = F(b) - F(a)$.
For example, if $f(x)=1$, then $F(x)=x$, and so we can formally write
• $1 = \int_{100}^{101} f(x)\, dx = F(101)-F(100)=101 - 100$
expressing the positive quantity $\int_{100}^{101} f(x) dx = 1$ as the difference between the two (large) numbers 101 and 100. This is mathematics and not yet physics.

If $f(\nu ,T)\sim T\nu^2$ is the Planck function with $\nu$ frequency and $T$ temperature, then $F(T)=\sigma T^4$ is the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative flux with $\sigma$ a positive constant, and the radiative flux $Q$ between a warm body of temperature $T_2$ and a colder body of temperature $T_1 < T_2$ can formally be expressed as (with he limits of the integral scaling with temperature reflects the cut-off in frequency expressed by Wien's displacement law)
• $Q = \int_{T_1}^{T_2}f(\nu ,T)\,d\nu = \sigma T_2^4 - \sigma T_1^4$.       (*)
Here the positive quantity $Q$ is formally expressed as the difference between two (large) numbers $\sigma T_2^4$ and $\sigma T_1^4$.

The Voodoo Physics of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of giving the mathematical identity (*) a physical meaning with the physical one-way flux $Q$ expressed as the difference between the entities $F(T_2)=\sigma T_2^4$ and $F(T_1)=\sigma T_1^4$, now freely invented to be forms of two-way "radiative fluxes" back-and-forth between the bodies. From one-way physical flux are thus created two-way fluxes from a mathematical identity without any proper physical correspondence. Note in particular that $F$ as primitive function of $f$ is undetermined up to a constant, thus allowing fictitious back-and-forth fluxes of any magnitude.

A property (identity) of a mathematical model is thus freely interpreted to be real physics, in the same way as an operation of a voodoo doll is believed to be able to have a real effect on a real person.

This is nothing but Voodoo Physics, and this is the nature of the Greenhouse Effect based on Back Radiation from cold to warm underlying the CO2-alarmism so forcefully preached by IPCC with now Macron as ardent follower.

Macron, despite (or maybe thanks to) his education in French elite schools with all its mathematics, thus appears to be overwhelmed by the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus and cannot separate model from reality.

Voodoo = operation on model believed to have real effect on real person.

PS The Pyrgeometer is a perfect example of a voodoo doll, reporting (non-physical) back radiation $\sigma T_1^4$ from a cold atmosphere at $T_1$ to warmer Earth surface at $T_2$, by measuring $Q$ and (erroneously) viewing $\sigma T_2^4$ to be radiation from the Earth surface, as
if the Earth surface was radiating directly to surrounding space at 0 K and not to the atmosphere at $T_1$ K.

You can buy a pyrgeometer from Kipp and Zonen and play with it as a voodoo doll believing it reports real physics if you want to sell CO2-alarmism. From the above analysis you may understand that in fact it represents a symbiosis of science and commercial industry serving CO2-alarmism by supplying fictional physics.

## tisdag 21 november 2017

### Talk at Climate Sense 2018

I have put up a preliminary version of my talk at Climate Sense 2018 for inspection.

## måndag 13 november 2017

### Physics Needs Help

Eric Weinstein delivers as a Big Think the message that
• Physics needs a new lone genius.
• Do we need a radical rethinking?
• Is there something wrong with the fundamentals?
• Is Einstein in fact wrong to slip in space-time?
• But the question is, why are they (the physics community) stumped?
• Is it (the help) going to come from some completely strange source, maybe somebody who is a self-teacher off the grid (like Einstein or Weinstein)?
Is there any reason to listen to (W)einstein, as an outsider? Yes, why not? The scene is open. In particular, Einstein's space-time mix appears to be a stumbling block and may well be ready for revision...compare with Many-Minds Relativity...

## söndag 5 november 2017

### Undantagstillstånd Behöver Inte Alls Utlysas!

Klimat eller CO2-alarmismen går på högvarv i Expressen och i SvD med följande budskap:
Anders Wijkman lägger ut texten:
• Fördelen med ett centraliserat toppstyrt system är att när de väl bestämmer sig så går det ganska snabbt. Det finns ingen opposition som bråkar.
SvD fortsätter:
• En annan förespråkare för ett slags ”klimatdiktatur” är Jørgen Randers som är professor i klimatstrategi vid Handelshögskolan BI i Oslo. Hans huvudpoäng är att problemen med den globala uppvärmningen är så allvarliga och akuta att vi inte kan invänta att demokratin får ha sin gång.
• Randers slutsats blir alltså att ett elitstyre med flertalets bästa för ögonen vore den ultimata lösningen i kampen för klimatet. Men han tillstår att det är svårt att hitta ett ord som inte skrämmer folk.
Mot detta kan ställas Climate Sense 2018 som ger en helt annan bild av verkligheten: CO2-alarmismen saknar vetenskaplig grund och är ett uppdiktat hot som tjänar krafter som vill knäcka det demokratiska samhället byggt på vetenskap och humanism.

### Climate Sense 2018

The Program for the upcoming Nordic Conference on Climate: Climate Sense 2018, February 16-17, Mölndal, features myself among prominent people in the first session (slides for my talk will  soon be posted):

### Regeringen: Sveriges Bäst i Världen på Digitalisering: Matte-IT

Regeringskansliet meddelar att Sveriges Regering har beslutat att
• Sverige ska vara bäst i världen på att tillvarata digitaliseringens möjligheter.
• Utbildningspolitiken har en viktig roll att spela för att nå denna ambition.
• Regeringen har därför tagit fram en nationell digitaliseringsstrategi för skolväsendet.
Detta är en uppföljning av Regeringens tidigare beslut att reformera skolmatematiken att omfatta programmering i enlighet med ny läroplan gällande fr o m HT18. Målet är på detta sätt ge alla elever grundkunskaper att tillvarata digitaliseringens möjligheter.

Matte-IT erbjuder en konkret realisering av denna nya läroplan som nytt läromedel i form av en syntes av matematik och programmering, se Presentation.

## lördag 28 oktober 2017

### Klimatalarmism Möter Skepticism i StorMedia i Norge

Stavanger Aftenblad frågar sig idag följande i en mycket intressant och välskriven artikel där klimatalarmism möter skepticism:
Tänk om en sådan artikel kunde publiceras i DN eller SvD. En tidsfråga förstås. Kanske imorgon?

Se utförlig diskussion av artikeln hos Klimatrealistene.

## fredag 27 oktober 2017

### Skollagen: Vetenskaplig Grund: Vem Bestämmer?

Skollagen Kap 1.5 säger att
• Utbildningen ska vila på vetenskaplig grund och beprövad erfarenhet.
I mina försök att reformera skolmatematiken har jag nu kommit till den punkt där jag vill pröva följande argument:
• Med vetenskaplig grund måste menas den vetenskap som dagens ledande forskare representerar.
• Skolans utbildning ska alltså vila på den vetenskapliga grund som dagens ledande forskare representerar.
Och ställa följande naturliga fråga:
• Innebär det att dagens ledande forskare skall ges direkt inflytande på skolans utbildning?
Min erfarenhet hittills är att jag som (världs)ledande forskare inom tillämpad matematik och beräkningsmatematik inte har givits någon möjlighet till någon form av inflytande vad gäller skolmatematiken i Sverige. Trots min uttryckliga vilja därtill.

Kan detta vara i enlighet med Skollagens bestämmelse?  Om det inte är jag som ledande forskare som ges tolkningsföreträde vad gäller den vetenskapliga grund som skolans utbildning skall vila på, vem är det då som skall stå för denna tolkning? Är det icke-ledande forskare som skall stå för tolkningen? Vilka icke-ledande i så fall? Vilka som helst som är icke-ledande?

Synpunkter emottages! Såklart, man kan hävda att mitt resonemang faller eftersom jag faktiskt inte är någon ledande forskare, men då kanske det i så fall måste visas?