tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6893004803160452393..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Peter Ward Brings New ThermodynamicsEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger75125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62762413770509321412016-04-30T05:33:30.730-04:002016-04-30T05:33:30.730-04:00Looked into the wiki lemma re 'Rare Earth Hypo...Looked into the wiki lemma re 'Rare Earth Hypothesis' and found below 'Criticism' this little jewel:<br /><i>"Critics also argue that there is a link between the Rare Earth Hypothesis and the creationist ideas of intelligent design."</i><br /><br />Somewhat to my dismay followed by amusement, someone above in this thread tried to project that one on my reasoning, too. <br /><br />It is projection. These critics themselves haven't been able to get rid of creationist ideas, which implies <i>in particular that they do not understand the Law of Large Numbers</i> (or numbers at all). They apparently believe that anyone who asserts that a phenomenon that occurred while having an extremely tiny chance of occurring has to be 'authored' (Tolstoj - the bad spot in my own example), 'played' (by chess players) or 'created' or 'instigated' by some deity. Like I said: this kind of criticism is pure projection.<br /><br />I am an atheist. This means I am NOT an agnost (because I know). I think the Law of Large numbers is a truth, perhaps a <i>necessary truth</i> in any universe where things are identifiable and communication is possible (try imagining a universe where it doesn't hold - which characteristiss could it have? I'd suggest: none). cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-92151907539999966312016-04-28T11:51:17.183-04:002016-04-28T11:51:17.183-04:00It is inevitable that 'War and Peace' will...It is inevitable that 'War and Peace' will appear on the street given the approriate amount of letters thrown out a <i>number</i> of times. <br />Quite inevitable.<br />Still, you won't see it happen. The universe won't see it happen (except, that is, that single time). <br /><br />"Clearly the laws of the universe as we know them are sufficient to guarantee that one of the primary ways that energy fluxes are utilized to dissipate energy and create entropy efficiently is by the formation of complex structures from simpler components."<br /><br />That is the rare way. The only law involved is the Law of Large Numbers. Evolution is almost always 'backward', but alas, the dead don't speak and 'what you don't see never existed' - hence creationists...<br />Whereas everything that sticks, sticks. More or less. Complex life tends to be shortlived life - average mammal life like 5 million measly years.<br /><br />Autobiogenesis, but how rare is it? <br /><br />'Molecules continually form and dissociate' - sure. And? Perhaps this <i>neccessarily</i> implies that any complex protein would occur at some point in time. It does not mean any such molecule would occur already within 15 billion years of time, or even within the factorial of 1700 (1700!) years of time (fathom that number, just for the hell of it: there are lotteries which you have chance distinct from zero to win, but will literally never win nevertheless). <br />cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19438412211972859472016-04-28T10:30:54.169-04:002016-04-28T10:30:54.169-04:00Sugar doesn't self replicate itself, the unive...Sugar doesn't self replicate itself, the universe manufactures it, by a wide variety of processes, including via complex cellular metabolism. Molecules continually form and dissociate, or perhaps you failed to notice that. Clearly the laws of the universe as we know them are sufficient to guarantee that one of the primary ways that energy fluxes are utilized to dissipate energy and create entropy efficiently is by the formation of complex structures from simpler components. We see that geologically, biologically, gravitationally, electromagnetically and also in the both the strong and weak forces in nucleaosynthesis. In this kind of environment, life is inevitable.<br /><br />Hence - autobiogenesis. Abiogenesis is so 19th century.<br /><br />Cosmic inflation did this to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5498276448988502812016-04-28T03:53:41.877-04:002016-04-28T03:53:41.877-04:00Right, sugar is selfreplicating everywhere :D
All...Right, sugar is selfreplicating everywhere :D<br /><br />All is 'complete and utter bilge' when N = 1. <br />I can see you weren't able to read what I said there. Used to it. The phenomenon of life is surrounded by a lot of religion. cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27108416114359110602016-04-27T08:33:56.040-04:002016-04-27T08:33:56.040-04:00I'm sorry to have to tell you this but 'Ra...I'm sorry to have to tell you this but 'Rare Earth' and Eugene V. Koonin's hypothesis is complete and utter bilge. A sugar molecule in the cosmos is exactly the same as a sugar molecule on Earth.<br /><br />I'm interested in the phenomenon of persistence of nutty ideas long after they have been invalidated, though. Maybe you can help me there.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62846561707338052882016-04-27T06:00:31.766-04:002016-04-27T06:00:31.766-04:00On a totally OT note, I just read 'Rare Earth&...On a totally OT note, I just read 'Rare Earth'. <br />My book, if any would be forthcoming, would be titled 'Unique Earth', then. Because I think the very first step, 'replicating molecules', already is as rare, as near chanceless, as throwing 'War and Peace' on the street by dropping buckets containing the appropriate number of letters in one go. <br />Apparently that happened exactly once. That will <i>extremely likely</i> remain so forever. And most chess games will never be played, even if games were played by billions per nanosecond on every planet in the universe. Still, any chess game that was played, was in fact played. N = 1 - as duly noted, though perhaps touched on too lightly, in 'Rare Earth'.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-67460786644971841702016-04-27T05:50:15.732-04:002016-04-27T05:50:15.732-04:00I like analysis of the symbols as symbols, freed (...I like analysis of the symbols as symbols, freed (for that moment only) of empirical knowledge and all. I am convinced the logic of natural numbers is more than just empirically true - it is part of the very structure of reality, and natural numbers are not a construct but a discovery.<br />But there are clear limits. To me, they got crossed widely e.g. here: <i>..the “medium” that transfers frequency (thermal energy) from Sun to Earth..</i>. <br /><br />Oh, the subtleties - and the assymetries - of the '='-symbol! Oh the fact that '=' does not pertain to <i>identity</i> at all! No, frequency is not energy, certainly not thermal energy. Frequency in itself is nothing, really - the unit 'per second' says not <i>what</i> per second. Planck's Constant is, thus, not unitless like Pi.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-40073806460689663642016-04-26T23:09:12.292-04:002016-04-26T23:09:12.292-04:00The fact that you are still trying to 'prove&#...The fact that you are still trying to 'prove' anything with science is the root of your problem, Peter. What science allows you to demonstrate is the veracity of your current theories via the construction of new or more precise devices to test your understanding of the theory by observation, prediction and discovery of new physics or the refinement of old physics. That is the only tried and true benefit of scientific theories and scientific progress. Everything else is just a sideshow. And when you look at what is going on in condensed matter physics right now, there is plenty of new physics to play with. The big intent of a lot of that new physics is to penetrate the dark sector, the most glaring problem with physics. The interaction of photons with ordinary ambient state matter is way down on the list of current understandings that need to be improved. QED is already the most successful theory short of gravitation. You aren't going to break it at the level you are applying it - conventional quantum atomic and molecular interactions in the world of climate and greenhouse gases.<br /><br />I'm here to help you. I'm from the private sector.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-64707828703406062882016-04-26T22:39:30.455-04:002016-04-26T22:39:30.455-04:00I agree that the "conventional quantum field ...I agree that the "conventional quantum field theories and the equations of general relativity are pretty darn good approximations to reality within their respective partitions of the duality of mathematics and mathematical theories" and they have been and will continue to be extremely useful. Many very smart people have worked hard to develop them to describe observations. This does not prove, however, that they are what physically happens, what is actually taking place physically. These are mathematics built on a foundation of physical assumptions. Some of those physical assumptions may not turn out to be correct. The evidence that EMR in space is frequency and is not waves or photons is very strong. I have explained this in great detail, not possible to recreate in this discussion with just a few short comments. Time will tell. Meanwhile I am trying to get people to think deeper from a slightly different perspective and am looking for thoughtful comments. Best wishes.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15303567920380862641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85895324319078736782016-04-26T22:22:51.137-04:002016-04-26T22:22:51.137-04:00Peter, the existence and functioning of machines a...Peter, the existence and functioning of machines and devices like free electron lasers, dozens of synchrotron radiation laboratories across the world, and the LHC at CERN, in addition to all the other things that modern civilization enjoys, including and especially supercomputers, indicates pretty clearly to me that conventional quantum field theories and the equations of general relativity are pretty darn good approximations to reality within their respective partitions of the duality of mathematics and mathematical theories.<br /><br />I am interested in the kind of recent breakthroughs I've exhaustively described in an earlier comment in response to your moderately crackpot exposition, but I don't expect those near future breakthroughs to render our current best approaches to reality as inapplicable or unuseful, because all theories are wrong, but some are useful. That idea will apply to any future theories as well.<br /><br />So lighten up, from my perspective from my chair at my desk, the fun has just begun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-81984635700429924032016-04-26T21:45:01.421-04:002016-04-26T21:45:01.421-04:00I am impressed by the depth of knowledge and scien...I am impressed by the depth of knowledge and scientific analysis that leads you to your conclusion. Have you actually read and thought carefully about the detailed science that I describe on my website, in my book, and in my many scientific papers? The data, in hindsight, are surprisingly clear. It is the greenhouse-gas train that is headed for a cliff, but no one cares. WhyClimateChanges.com.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15303567920380862641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27471701761270797352016-04-26T13:11:56.078-04:002016-04-26T13:11:56.078-04:00Peter, you are the conductor of a woo woo train he...Peter, you are the conductor of a woo woo train headed straight for a cliff. You need to jump off that train well before the edge, paying close attention to your momentum at the point of your departure.<br /><br />It will be a rough ride, but the friction will save you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-73619378659497390272016-04-26T11:16:30.346-04:002016-04-26T11:16:30.346-04:00The confusion is over the level of energy versus t...The confusion is over the level of energy versus the amount of that level of energy. The Planck and Einstein relation tells us that the oscillatory energy of a frictionless atomic oscillator (E) equals the Planck constant (h) times frequency (v). This says that frequency, in this case of an oscillatory system, IS energy physically simply scaled by the constant so the units work out. Higher frequency is a higher level of energy; lower frequency is a lower level of energy. E=hv is thought of as the energy of a photon and most people think that the more photons you have, the more energy you have. But the energy in the concept of a photon is the frequency. So if you have 1000 photons with an energy (frequency) at some value F, and all these photons are added together, you do not increase the energy (frequency), you simply increase the amount of that energy available.<br /><br />This is, in fact, the basis for quantum mechanics first laid out by Einstein (1905) trying to explain the photoelectric effect. Hertz and others had observed that if they shone blue to violet light on a polished surface of certain metals, electrons would be given off if the energy of the light was sufficiently high. If the energy was below some threshold, no electrons would be given off no matter how much of that energy (frequency) you provided. If the energy was above that threshold, electrons would be given off and the more of this energy that you provided, the higher the rate at which electrons would be given off.<br /><br />The energy of a wave is proportional to the square of the amplitude of a wave, and modern calculations of energy in radiation are based on this. Since waves cannot travel in space where there is no matter (medium), this is not accurate.<br /><br />You are quite correct that “EMR literally auto-propagates by way of changing electrical field yielding a (changing) magnetic field yielding a (changing) electrical field”. It is the “medium” that transfers frequency (thermal energy) from Sun to Earth. Maxwell tells us that the velocity of light is equal to 1 divided by the square root of the electrical permittivity times the magnetic permeability. I argue that this all becomes the time (T) it takes for a “changing electrical field yielding a (changing) magnetic field yielding a (changing) electrical field.” Thus frequency can only be propagated a distance X (one meter) in time T.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15303567920380862641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-582194502430565182016-04-26T10:08:27.927-04:002016-04-26T10:08:27.927-04:00Energy addition is not that trivial.
How do the e...Energy addition is not that trivial. <br />How do the energies of magnetic field and electric field add, and what does this mean exactly? EMR propagates because the resp. energies do not 'add'.<br /><br />But Ward did miss Maxwell there, imo, 'But waves cannot propagate through space.' Maxwell already proved some kinds of waves do (so the ether experiments later were based on finding something while knowing for a half century it ain't there). <br />EMR literally auto-propagates by way of changing electrical field yielding a (changing) magnetic field yielding a (changing) electrical field.<br />https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Light-wave.svg<br /><br />Disclaimer: 'I am not a quantum physicist, but..' ;)<br /> cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-69652795907128625842016-04-24T09:19:18.600-04:002016-04-24T09:19:18.600-04:00Oh for goodness' sake, someone needs to just s...Oh for goodness' sake, someone needs to just say the words:<br /><br />Peter, you are wrong and you are a crank.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80558504925157496172016-04-24T08:35:07.609-04:002016-04-24T08:35:07.609-04:00In the end, physics, by definition, is about the p...In the end, physics, by definition, is about the physical, what is physically happening. Mathematics, however, has many more possibilities. The fact that most textbooks in quantum mechanics tell you that QM in not physically intuitive and is not physically deterministic should cause one to wonder. It did cause both Planck and Einstein to wonder. As Einstein wrote: "I, at any rate, am convinced that He [God] does not throw dice." In the famous Bohr-Einstein debates, though, Einstein reluctantly admitted that the mathematics of QM was at least self-consistent, a requirement for any good mathematics. QM is very well founded logically and very useful, but it is not physical, as admitted by most practitioners.<br /><br />The questions I ask about photons are not addressed physically in QM. Some are addressed mathematically based on assumptions. Simply explain in physical detail how a stream of photons is converted into spectral lines of absorption by a molecule of CO2. Spectral lines are well known and observed precisely. They are explained very easily and directly as resonance extracting energy from an EM field. So then you say, well it is not photons, it is waves. But waves cannot propagate through space. The more arm waving, the less likely.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15303567920380862641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-75704570438148781792016-04-24T07:47:28.599-04:002016-04-24T07:47:28.599-04:00Peter,
Sorry, but you are very lost. Physicists h...Peter,<br />Sorry, but you are very lost. Physicists have ready answers to all of the questions you pose, and unlike your ramblings, the framework works and is self-consistent. Please go read an elementary text book on quantum theory. You're embarrassing yourself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-45291884264403040732016-04-23T20:32:21.505-04:002016-04-23T20:32:21.505-04:00Thank you Peter for your insightful comments, I...Thank you Peter for your insightful comments, I'm sure when this all washes out you will get the glory and fame that you deserve. I too have long suspected there is something fundamentally wrong with the universe, something as simple as 6 times 9. My current more favored hypothesis is that the universe is indeed membraney and stringy at the Planck scale, well hidden by the event horizon, and that the original complex topology of space time and quantum field theory are recapitulated in a universe with widely separated black holes peppered throughout its entirety. This basically demands a flexion roll down of the electroweak energy scale pinned at the Higgs scale, along with the light and heavy gravitons and axions left over from the original inflation. This would be a break from the rigid ΛCDM model and invokes a running vacuum where the dark energy expansion acceleration would derive from excited light axions aggregated by gravity over time, and would suggest an ultimate Kaluza geometry. That extra fifth dimension could prove quite useful for those who wish to suck gravity in and pump entropy out into another void. Think of it as the ultimate trash disposal system, perfect for chronic hoarders. Out of sight, out of mind! I'd be interested in your thoughts on this subject, and I do look forward to simulating some of this, using topological superconductors and engineered atomic multilayers, rotating in interesting geometric configurations while immersed in (3He and 4He) liquid helium cryostats, subjected to a variety of external fields and fluxes, in a box, on a tabletop. I will, however, be drawing heavily on consensus science, quantum electrodynamics, condensed matter physics Green's functions and the Keldysh formalism, in lieu of your new simplified theory, but I will patiently await confirmation and verification of your ideas. Keep me informed, you've been a great help. You never know, I could be completely wrong. Nothing is more embarrassing than a hypothesis that just plain didn't work out. Those things are real career enders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22678116811077829012016-04-23T18:57:27.308-04:002016-04-23T18:57:27.308-04:00Ladies and Gentlemen,
Microscopic thermal energy ...Ladies and Gentlemen,<br /><br />Microscopic thermal energy is an intensive physical property that is therefore not additive. This is a clear observation that has many significant ramifications. If you want to think about the science, I encourage you to read https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/Papers/Ward2016ThermalEnergy160223.pdf<br /><br />If you just want to say what couldn’t possibly be, then I wish you well. Anyone following this discussion who wants to talk about the science can reach me at info@OzoneDepletionTheory.info.<br /><br />Best wishes<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15303567920380862641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-80941605735425616142016-04-23T14:27:32.480-04:002016-04-23T14:27:32.480-04:00I am questioning some of the assumptions upon whic...<i>I am questioning some of the assumptions upon which quantum mechanics is built. [...] I end up showing how to make quantum mechanics much more intuitive and much simpler. I solve some key conceptual problems in physics. Revolutions in physics typically simplify, so that gives me some hope.</i><br /><br />Oh boy. <br /><br />What Eli said wrt PW vs Boltzmann.<br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76783381392291312012016-04-23T12:03:37.528-04:002016-04-23T12:03:37.528-04:00That's all very entertaining Peter, but genera...That's all very entertaining Peter, but generally the advice given to people who claim to be scientists, but are otherwise engaged in digging very deep holes in which to deposit the remains of their careers, is to stop digging. Academic freedom is the only thing you have going for you here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10257750597280914782016-04-23T11:53:54.516-04:002016-04-23T11:53:54.516-04:00"I can go on and on."
Noted."<i>I can go on and on.</i>"<br /><br />Noted.Bernard J.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16299073166371273808noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49592757753887364042016-04-23T11:18:40.562-04:002016-04-23T11:18:40.562-04:00If energy is not additive then Thermo and Stat Mec...If energy is not additive then Thermo and Stat Mech go out the window. If it is Peter Ward vs. Boltzmann, Peter Ward is spitting nonsense.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-48387373274864224612016-04-23T08:26:18.601-04:002016-04-23T08:26:18.601-04:00Kevin et al.,
Yes we have been thinking in terms o...Kevin et al.,<br />Yes we have been thinking in terms of photons or at least light quanta since 1905. We have designed our mathematics to think that way. We have designed experiments to think that way, often using the photoelectric effect, which is quantized. The price has been that we moved strongly away from physical intuition and have convinced ourselves that that is just the way it is. Both Planck and Einstein went to their graves not liking this. Both had excellent physical intuition. There is a good book Falkenburg, B., 2010, Particle metaphysics: a critical account of subatomic reality, Springer, 386 p. that despite its title is some serious science. She got a PhD in Quantum Mechanics and then a second in Philosophy. She explains in detail how experiments have gotten the results they expect, but that may not be what is really happening.<br /><br />For me, this all started when I set out to understand what happens physically, not mathematically, when a photon collides with a CO2 molecule? Not much in the literature on this because people accept that it just happens. Spectral physics, on the other hand, has been developed to a very high level because of it's utility in identifying things near at hand to the far ends of the universe. Spectral physicists have documented in outstanding detail, summarized in the HITRAN database, how molecules of gas absorb thermal energy from an EM field and the frequencies absorbed are the normal modes of all the degrees of freedom of all the bonds that hold the molecule together. No photons are involved. This is experimental evidence document by a huge number of studies.<br /><br />When you understand that light simply allows the cones in your eyes to resonate with the molecules over there oscillating at the frequency of their color, color vision is simple. Color vision is very difficult to explain in quantum mechanics. What is also happening in my example is "spooky action at a distance." It is a simple physical property of light. In quantum physics we have developed a quite elegant concept of quantum entanglement with lots of mathematics that gets pretty esoteric, trying to formally explain "spooky action at a distance."<br /><br />I can go on and on. Basically, by assuming EMR propagates by wave-particle duality, we have had to develop complex mathematics to explain what we think we observe. It has taken brilliant minds to do that. As the Copenhagen school took off in mathematics, physical intuition got trampled. I am simply saying that when you realize EMR is just a wide spectrum of frequencies, each of which travels like the frequency of your favorite radio station or cellphone, physics becomes a whole lot easier and a whole lot more intuitive at the microscopic level.<br />Peter<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15303567920380862641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-6962136146745389742016-04-23T04:10:18.084-04:002016-04-23T04:10:18.084-04:00If real number addition were truly the fundamental...If real number addition were truly the fundamental axiomatic basis of all of science and mathematics that might be true, but what you are referring to involves complex devices constructed by consensus science using the available peer reviewed literature as its guide. And what is the quantum yield? Great for science using lasers but not so good when confronted with an incoherent white light source with intervening reflection, absorption, emission, transmission. And any way you look at it, I'm still going to have to go with QED and the Keldysh formalism on this one, even though the system under study and consideration here can be considered to be extremely dilute.<br /><br />Watching macroscopic geology meeting quantum physics is fairly entertaining though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com