Tropospheric Hot Spot- Why it does not exist...

[Wuwei]

Quantum mechanics is a fledgling hypothesis but it is used to explain things we do not understand.

Energy must be lost in photon transmission. Commonsense and observed reactions indicate there is no exception to this rule.. Work consumes energy..

But you still believe in the principle of the conservation of energy right?

 

[SSDD]

You say that like you think all of qm has been successfully tested...a couple of points have been successfully tested and some of the "successful testing" is nothing more than the output of computer models....

That is simply not true.

The level of precision of anything "measurable, observable, or repeatable" has been done to parts per billion or trillion. For example laboratory measurements of the energy states of hydrogen and helium. These measurements also agree with models at the same level of calculated precision: one part per trillion. Virtually every aspect of atomic physics that can possibly be observed and measured agrees with the modern physics models to unprecedented accuracy.

....the successful tests, while they are fine baby steps on a long road are hardly the major advances you claim...they are like comparing the first step of a child to the performance of a world champion try-athelete.

Quantum Electrodynamics has won the triathlon long ago. Of course you think science is taking baby steps because the only place that is taking baby steps is your understanding of modern physics.

Of course it is true...you apparently worship at the altar of science and go prostrate even over its failures....the fact is that quantum mechanics today is swirling with pseudoscience...even more pseudoscience than climate science...worship there if you like, but be prepared to see drastic alterations in your religion as time goes on...in 100 years, should you live that long, physics will look back on what we though we knew today with the same distain as we look back on the medical profession bleeding patients to get the bad humors out of their bloodstream.

 

[Crick]

Why don't you google "testing quantum mechanics" and then try telling us that bullshit one more time.

 

[Wuwei]

Of course it is true...you apparently worship at the altar of science and go prostrate even over its failures....the fact is that quantum mechanics today is swirling with pseudoscience...even more pseudoscience than climate science...worship there if you like, but be prepared to see drastic alterations in your religion as time goes on...in 100 years, should you live that long, physics will look back on what we though we knew today with the same distain as we look back on the medical profession bleeding patients to get the bad humors out of their bloodstream.

All that coming from somebody who doesn't understand some of the most fundamental aspects of science and who doesn't understand quantum mechanics at all. You look at one form of the SB law and insist on a weird interpretation. You find a statement on refrigerators and think it applies to radiation. You think that objects can't both radiate toward each other.

The amazing thing about your statement lashing out against modern science is that you covet old laws in days when quantum mechanics wasn't understood. But you don't even understand those laws correctly. No wonder you lash out against modern science. We are already looking back at your archaic opinions with disdain while you gnash your teeth at the the new world of understanding that left you far behind gnarling in a cave of ignorance.

 

[Crick]

Gnarling? Well... okay.

 

[Wuwei]

Gnarling? Well... okay.

I thought that added a poetic ring to a dark science nihilist.

 

[SSDD]

Of course it is true...you apparently worship at the altar of science and go prostrate even over its failures....the fact is that quantum mechanics today is swirling with pseudoscience...even more pseudoscience than climate science...worship there if you like, but be prepared to see drastic alterations in your religion as time goes on...in 100 years, should you live that long, physics will look back on what we though we knew today with the same distain as we look back on the medical profession bleeding patients to get the bad humors out of their bloodstream.

All that coming from somebody who doesn't understand some of the most fundamental aspects of science and who doesn't understand quantum mechanics at all. You look at one form of the SB law and insist on a weird interpretation. You find a statement on refrigerators and think it applies to radiation. You think that objects can't both radiate toward each other.

Sorry guy...but I am afraid the misunderstanding is all you...and most of it is due to your FAITH...that's right...faith in qm as something more than a theory. The fact is that your faith in the theory puts you in the minority...physicists certainly don't exhibit such faith as you.

Poll after poll among physicists have demonstrated that among them, there is precious little faith in the theory, or even what it means...and certainly nothing like agreement among them...physicists don't agree among themselves that qm is the apex achievement in modern physics...

The fact is that the polls have shown that fewer than 50% of all physicists today adhere to the Copenhagen interpretation as the main textbook interpretation of qm. The bottom line is that here in the early 21st century, remains a mystery with no actual meaning. In real science, theory without interpretation has no meaning and science without meaning simply is not real science...how could it be?.

If less than 50% of physicists agreed on the meaning and interpretation of the theories of classical physics such as Navier's, or Newton/Lagranges, or Navier/Stokes, and Maxwell, it would represent a complete disintegration of classical physics and physics as a science and subject of serious study....and yet, there stands qm, 100 years old, with less than 50% of physicists agreeing on even what is the primary textbook interpretation of the theory...and you hold it up as the pinnacle of modern science?

Far from being a topic of endless deliberation with no plausible end in sight, classical physics is what all of science wants to be because there is little if any disagreement from any quarter on the formulation and interpretation of the basic equations...

The polls strongly suggest that there will never be agreement on the place and meaning of Shrodinger's equation as the basis for qm...and without agreement on the basis, exactly what sort of science are we talking about here? Lubos Motl said, regarding a failure to widely accept the Copenhagen interpretation of qm:

the foundations of quantum mechanics were fully built in the 1020's, mostly in 1925 or at most 1926 and by 1930, all the universal rules of the theory took their present form...as the Copenhagen interpretation. IF you subtract all these rules, all this "interpretation", you will be LEFT WITH NO PHYSICAL THEORY WHATSOEVER. AT MOST, YOU WILL BE LEFT WITH SOME MATHEMATICS - BUT PURE MATHEMATICS CAN SAY NOTHING ABOUT THE WORLD AROUND US OR OUR PERCEPTIONS

Poll Reveals Quantum Physicists’ Disagreement About the Nature of Reality

Physicists Disagree Over Meaning of Quantum Mechanics, Poll Shows

Experts still split about what quantum theory means

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...sts-disagreement-about-the-nature-of-reality/

The amazing thing about your statement lashing out against modern science is that you covet old laws in days when quantum mechanics wasn't understood.

And so comes forth the bullshit...physicists themselves freely acknowledge themselves that no one understands qm....which explains why there is no agreement on the interpretation...or what qm even means...

But you don't even understand those laws correctly.

The laws are straight forward and the statements are perfectly understandable...you fail to grasp them because you are all tied up in trying to alter them with what you think we know about qm...the second law states clearly that neither energy nor heat will move spontaneously from a cold body to a warm body....that is the statement...to which you attempt to apply an unobservable, unmeasurable, untestable statistical theory into the mix (which isn't part of the second law) and claim that back radiation exists....alas...it is you who doesn't understand that qm hasn't altered the basic physical laws even in the least...and it appears that it never will...at this point qm can't even rightly be called a science...it is an area of interest and little more.

No wonder you lash out against modern science

A great deal of "modern science" is bullshit and deserves to be lashed out against....there are long tried and tested rules regarding what is and isn't science and a method for moving forward..."modern science" for the most part has forgotten those rules and the result is chaos and a steep and steady loss of credibility and trust...

We are already looking back at your archaic opinions with disdain while you gnash your teeth at the the new world of understanding that left you far behind gnarling in a cave of ignorance.

Perhaps you are...in your confusion and faith...but not actual science...there remains a virtual 100% agreement on what my old archaic physical laws mean, while there is less than 50% agreement among physicists on even the basic interpretation of qm...but you keep up your faith...maybe some day the great pumpkin will show up..

 

[Crick]

From your first link:

And yet “quantum theory is based on a clear mathematical apparatus, has enormous significance for the natural sciences, enjoys phenomenal predictive success, and plays a critical role in modern technological developments.”

Fool.

You attempt to attack QM by the route of macroscopic interpretations. Identify for us, for instance, the difference in the prediction of the outcome of a head on proton-proton collision in the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Hypothesis.

 

[SSDD]

From your first link:

And yet “quantum theory is based on a clear mathematical apparatus, has enormous significance for the natural sciences, enjoys phenomenal predictive success, and plays a critical role in modern technological developments.”

Fool.

You attempt to attack QM by the route of macroscopic interpretations. Identify for us, for instance, the difference in the prediction of the outcome of a head on proton-proton collision in the Copenhagen Interpretation and the Many Worlds Hypothesis.

And still....after 100 years, there still exists no agreement among physicists regarding the most basic interpretation of qm....at present...it is smoke and mirrors and even physicists admit that they don't understand it...I don't need to understand, or even speak the language in which the script of a play is written, to grasp that I am, in fact, watching a play.

 

[Crick]

You're a fool and every single one of those physicists would agree on that.

 

[SSDD]

You're a fool and every single one of those physicists would agree on that.

I am not the one placing such trust in a branch of "science" that even the physicists themselves admit to not grasping...that even the physicists themselves can't agree on something as basic as the interpretation of the theory....that would be you crick...the one who believes without evidence...the gullible one...

 

[Crick]

As you have shown us repeatedly, your grasp of all forms of basic physics seems to be intentionally twisted. You insist on impossible interpretations solely for the sake of being different and being able to use that to try to show you're smarter than the rest of the world. What it actually shows is that you need psychiatric help.

Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics or quantum theory), including quantum field theory, is a fundamental branch of physics concerned with processes involving, for example, atoms and photons. Systems such as these which obey quantum mechanics can be in a quantum superposition of different states, unlike in classical physics.

Quantum mechanics gradually arose from Max Planck's solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem (reported 1859) and Albert Einstein's 1905 paper which offered a quantum-based theory to explain the photoelectric effect (reported 1887). Early quantum theory was profoundly reconceived in the mid-1920s.

The reconceived theory is formulated in various specially developed mathematical formalisms. In one of them, a mathematical function, the wave function, provides information about the probability amplitude of position, momentum, and other physical properties of a particle.

Important applications of quantum theory[1] include superconducting magnets, light-emitting diodes, and the laser, the transistor and semiconductors such as the microprocessor, medical and research imaging such as magnetic resonance imaging and electron microscopy, and explanations for many biological and physical phenomena.

So, several of the functions of the computer you are viewing this on are based on QM processes and have no explanation in classical physics. But, you think most physicists reject it as an accurate description of the behavior of atomic scale processes. Got it.

Fool

 

[SSDD]

As you have shown us repeatedly, your grasp of all forms of basic physics seems to be intentionally twisted. You insist on impossible interpretations solely for the sake of being different and being able to use that to try to show you're smarter than the rest of the world. What it actually shows is that you need psychiatric help.

Sorry guy...I don't "interpret" anything....

Second Law of Thermodynamics - It is not possible for heatto flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I accept that statement at face value...do you accept it at face value or do you find that you must interpret it before you can accept it? Just in case you don't actually know the word, let me give you a definition for interpret as it applies...to perform or render according to one's own understanding or sensitivity

So do you accept the statement at face value? If so...good...we are in agreement...if you find that you must add, or take away, then you are interpreting.

So, several of the functions of the computer you are viewing this on are based on QM processes and have no explanation in classical physics. But, you think most physicists reject it as an accurate description of the behavior of atomic scale processes. Got it.

Got it...you fall down and worship at the altar of qm...the fact is that the things you attribute to qm would have been discovered anyway...qm is a theory upon which physicists can't even agree on a basic interpretation...to claim that qm, and qm alone has given us anything is delusion.

idiot.

 

[Crick]

Good fucking god, there is no end to your ignorance.

As you have shown us repeatedly, your grasp of all forms of basic physics seems to be intentionally twisted. You insist on impossible interpretations solely for the sake of being different and being able to use that to try to show you're smarter than the rest of the world. What it actually shows is that you need psychiatric help.

Sorry guy...I don't "interpret" anything....

Couldn't ask for a better example of your exceptional ignorance. You say you don't interpret anything and then proceed in the very next line to do exactly that.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - It is not possible for heatto flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

I accept that statement at face value...do you accept it at face value or do you find that you must interpret it before you can accept it? Just in case you don't actually know the word, let me give you a definition for interpret as it applies...to perform or render according to one's own understanding or sensitivity

So do you accept the statement at face value? If so...good...we are in agreement...if you find that you must add, or take away, then you are interpreting.

For anyone just wandering by, unfamiliar with SSDD's interpretation, he believes that all matter is able to throttle and aim its heat emissions so that it does not radiate towards warmer objects.

So, several of the functions of the computer you are viewing this on are based on QM processes and have no explanation in classical physics. But, you think most physicists reject it as an accurate description of the behavior of atomic scale processes. Got it.

Got it...you fall down and worship at the altar of qm...the fact is that the things you attribute to qm would have been discovered anyway...qm is a theory upon which physicists can't even agree on a basic interpretation...to claim that qm, and qm alone has given us anything is delusion.

And what would be the understanding of those effects under purely classical mechanics? Do you really think they could have or would have been exploited with no understanding of what was happening? Why would anyone have ever attempted to produce the Hall Effect? Tunneling? Photoelectrics? Do you think the world would have been happy, as you make yourself appear to be, to just accept a certain level of ignorance as to how the universe works?

God are you stupid.

 

[SSDD]

Good fucking god, there is no end to your ignorance.

Cant read a graph...can't read english either.

Couldn't ask for a better example of your exceptional ignorance. You say you don't interpret anything and then proceed in the very next line to do exactly that.

No interpretation there on my part...I accept the statement at face value...you don't therefore you are the one who finds it necessary to interpret.

For anyone just wandering by, unfamiliar with SSDD's interpretation, he believes that matter is able to throttle and aim its heat emissions so that it does not radiate towards warmer objects.

Again, I accept the statement at face value...it states that neither heat nor energy moves form cool objects to warm objects...it is a straight forward statement that isn't in the least ambiguous....you don't accept it and find that you must interpret it to mean something that it doesn't say.

And again...what sort of actual science has less than 50% of its practitioners agreeing on even a basic interpretation of the theory?..not science at all...sounds more like the sort of agreement you could get on any given religious doctrine.

 

[Crick]

Your interpretation requires all matter to be intelligent, able to observe the entire universe instantaneously, able to predict the future, able to throttle and aim its own emissions - all to accomplish what is accomplished by the simple and (aside from you) universal observation that all matter radiates constantly in all directions. Is that the sort of "critical thinking" you claim to be full of?

 

[Wuwei]

You obviously don't understand the difference between the philosophy of science and the mathematical models of science. The basic models of particles and atomic structure model are accurate to parts per billion or trillion, and every scientists believes these models work. These models (that always work) are so arcane that they allow many philosophical interpretations when it comes to explaining things in English (or German, etc.) That should be nothing for you to get excited about, except that you are an amateur and don't understand what the science is all about.

...the second law states clearly that neither energy nor heat will move spontaneously from a cold body to a warm body....that is the statement...

You are still obsessed by thermodynamics that you don't understand and try to blame me for not grasping what you think. Let me remind you what all scientists think:
All the following references define the Stefan Boltzman law specifically as

Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Stefan-Boltzmann law | physics
Stefan-Boltzmann Law -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics
http://www.public.asu.edu/~hhuang38/mae578_lecture_03.pdf
The Stefan-Boltzmann law
How to Calculate Heat Emission from a Blackbody Using the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant - dummies
Stefan-Boltzmann law - Hmolpedia
http://www.gsjournal.net/old/mathis/mathis64.pdf

The following references clearly show how the subtracted form can be simply derived from the above formula using the distributive law.

http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/strahlung/Original/Stefan1879.pdf see pp 413-414
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~physics/l...oltzmann.law/stefan.boltzmann.law.writeup.pdf
Radiation Heat Transfer
Unit Operations in Food Processing - R. L. Earle
Blackbody Radiation Theory in Heat Transfer
Heat Transfer: Radiation

Many references explicitly say that thermal radiation is exchanged between objects. The word exchange means that it is not one way radiation.

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
Thermal equilibrium • Wikipedia
Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation explained
http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf

Finally, the second law as defined by entropy, has no mention of any constraints on the flow of thermal radiation from cold to warm objects.

In short the many references of

the definition of the SB equation;
the derivation of the subtracted form;
the science of radiation exchange between any objects;
the law of entropy;​

all show that you are totally wrong about your understanding of thermodynamic systems.


You do all this in a vain attempt to show that there is no such thing as back radiation. Your views on the nature of thermodynamics are only a misguided opinion.

Again, let me remind you that this isn't about me or my ideas. It is about you and your denial of the entire historic body of science from 140 years ago to present, which disagrees with your opinion.

 

[SSDD]

Your interpretation requires all matter to be intelligent, able to observe the entire universe instantaneously, able to predict the future, able to throttle and aim its own emissions - all to accomplish what is accomplished by the simple and (aside from you) universal observation that all matter radiates constantly in all directions. Is that the sort of "critical thinking" you claim to be full of?

Again... you don't seem to be able to grasp basic english...I said that I accept the statement at face value...maybe you don't know what face value means...need some help...if the law says that neither heat nor energy moves spontaneously from cool to warm..I accept that...and all its ramifications...without interpretation....you don't...you must add...you must alter...you must interpret....again...I have no interpretation...

And all matter radiates in all directions when it is in a vacuum....take it out of the vacuum and things become different.

 

[SSDD]

Again, let me remind you that this isn't about me or my ideas. It is about you and your denial of the entire historic body of science from 140 years ago to present, which disagrees with your opinion.

You be sure to let me know when they rewrite the second law of thermodynamics to state that heat and or energy do move spontaneously from cool to warm...will you do that?....till then...I am afraid that the physical law supports my position....if I were an idiot, I too would take a position in opposition to physical law.

 

[IanC]

You do take a position in opposition to physical law.

Are you saying you're an idiot?