David Archibald writes in an email to WUWT:
The AGU Fall meeting has a session entitled “Aspects and consequences of an unusually deep and long solar minimum”. Two hours of video of this session can be accessed: http://eventcg.com/clients/agu/fm09/U34A.html
Two of the papers presented had interesting observations with implications for climate. First of all Solanki came to the conclusion that the Sun is leaving its fifty to sixty year long grand maximum of the second half of the 20th century. He had said previously that the Sun was more active in the second half of the 20th century than in the previous 8,000 years. This is his last slide:
McCracken gave a paper with its title as per this slide:
While he states that it is his opinion alone and not necessarily held by his co-authors, he comes to the conclusion that a repeat of the Dalton Minimum is most likely:
Solar Cycle 24 is now just over a year old and the next event on the solar calendar is the year of maximum, which the green corona brightness tells us will be in 2015.
John Finn:
My point being Leif, that if 1 watt from TSI is pretty much insignificant than 1.4 watts from CO2 is pretty much insignificant. I’m not saying one is right and one is wrong, I’m saying that they are in the same order of magnitude.
No – they are not the same order of magnitude. The extra 1 w/m2 from TSI is only operating ~25% of the time (due to day, night, dawn & dusk etc). Also a proportion of TSI (~30%) is reflected by snow ice and clouds. A 0.1% increase in TSI is 1.3 w/m2 but this corresponds to an average of only about 0.24 w/m2 over the earth’s surface.>
As per mu orgiginal post, about 0,25 w/m2 in crease over 0.7 w/m2 averaged over tine. Same order of magitude. If you wan to take the spinning rond thing fuirther, the 0.35 watts is as high a 1 watt at the eqautor at mid day, as lows a zero at the poles. The putative peak of 1.4 watts from CO2 would also not exist common across the board as the absence of water vapour and ozone in the polar regions makes for a much deduded GHG effect, so they wou;d be smaller numbers too.,,,and in rhe same order of magnitide.
Leif Svalgaard (18:13:10) wrote: “Pseudo-scientific nonsense has to be dismissed whenever it rears its head. But dismissal without subsequent education is barren, hence my attempts to teach you about our modern view of astronomy, the sun, and the universe.”
That’s why much of “modern” astronomy has to be dismissed because it’s pseudo-science — it’s not based on empirical observation & measurement, but, rather, it’s based on pre-space age theoretical constructs with mathematical equations unhinged from empirical observation & measurement, and fudge factors (pixie dust) employed to prop up the pre-space age theoretical constructs.
In regards to this discussion, I’ve provided peer-reviewed published scientific papers reporting empirical observations & measurements and scientifically accepted phyiscal relationships (physical “laws”) to back up my assertions.
All produced & provided by scientists working in goodfaith to increase Man’s knowledge & understanding.
All this is part of the empirical scientific method.
In response, Dr. Svalgaard has either stated in essence, “yes, but” and minimized as much as possible, or ignored the provided scientific evidence, or responded with general dismissals, or engaged in “put down” characterizations about the empirical scientific evidence or “put down” personal characterizations.
Most of the above is not part of the empirical scientific method nor an attempt at “education”, rather, it’s an attempt to protect the status quo in “modern” astronomy at all costs.
Frankly, if this course of conduct is necessary to defend the status quo in “modern” astronomy, it doesn’t speak well for the present state of “modern” astronomy and its status as an empirical science.
At this point, astronomy certainly isn’t the “queen” of the sciences.
In fact, it sets a bad example for Science in general and I suggest this type of conduct has been seen most publically in AGW “science” with the methodologies, tactics, and strategy its proponents have employed.
The results have been disasterous for AGW “science” and rightly so.
Such a continued course of conduct is disasterous for astronomy as well.
Because it will become obvious that astronomy is not interested in knowledge & understanding which is the quest of Science, but, rather, in protecting failed status quo ideas for reasons that have nothing to do with the purpose of Science.
James F. Evans (09:09:40) :
That’s why much of “modern” astronomy has to be dismissed because it’s pseudo-science — it’s not based on empirical observation & measurement, but, rather, it’s based on pre-space age theoretical constructs with mathematical equations unhinged from empirical observation & measurement, and fudge factors (pixie dust) employed to prop up the pre-space age theoretical constructs.
Read this carefully:
http://sdcc3.ucsd.edu/~ir118/MAE87S08/CosmicSoundWaves.pdf
Wow!, more phantoms!
Mr. Evans, you say:
This approach is not empirical science nor does it follow the scientific method. Rather, it is the stacking of theoretical assumptions — it’s a perfect example of why “modern” astronomy is in crisis.
In that sense, “modern” astronomy and AGW “science” have much in common.
And, since Dr. Svalgaard states AGW science is “voodoo” science, he should also state that “modern” astronomy is also “voodoo” science.
—–
Both climatology (not AGW) and astronomy are largely observational and theoretical in nature, dependent upon accurate measurement, sound application of theory and logic.
However, unlike climatology, astronomy has not been hijacked by scientists who have a clear social agenda and motives that are only now becoming known.
The astronomy is a very large field, and the subset of scientists who study astrophysics (especially solar astrophysics) is now starting to contribute to this argument.
My astronomy professor at the University of Illinois, Dr. James Kaler (emeritus) wrote this to me in a recent email:
“The sun has been extremely quiet since the end of the last cycle,
unusually so, so one cannot rule out a new extended minimum, yet the
cycle could just be delyaed — it’s too early to tell. The people who
thought they could predict this one seem to have failed, but all we can do
for now is to wait it out. I do not think climate models know quite what
to do with solar activity, but that’s just an opinion. One problem is how
this all factors into the politics of global warming.”
Compared to the emotional bleating coming from the alarmist climatology scientists, I’m on the side of the astronomers and astrophysicists. The sun is a highly variable star, and its effect upon climate has largely been discounted by Dr. Jones and others.
JonesII (11:16:02) :
Wow!, more phantoms!
Perhaps you are too harsh on Evans. Perhaps he didn’t mean ‘pixie dust’ in a literal sense [although one never knows…]
Dr. Svalgaard:
I did review the cosmic sound wave paper when you provided it earlier in this discussion thread. I will read it in total and study it.
But there are several issues: Attempting to demonstrate that there was a “beginning” to the Universe some 13.7 billion years ago and offering a physical description & explanation of how the “beginning” came about by way of observation & measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is problematic. Therefore, reliance on that as a predicate for demonstration of “dark” matter is also problematic.
Perhaps, there is some other reason why resorting to CMB for evidence of “dark” matter is scientifically fruitful and I missed that.
On another subject that was raised in this discussion thread:
Synchrotron radiation is emitted by astrophysical objects, most famously and where first observed, galaxy M87, the “jet” galaxy, where a “jet” emanates in a beam for 5000 light years distance from the M 87’s active galactic nucleus:
“[Synchrotron radiation] was first detected, in a jet emitted by Galaxy M87, in 1956 by Geoffrey R. Burbidge, who saw it as confirmation of a prediction by Iosif S. Shklovskii in 1953, but it had been predicted several years earlier by Hannes Alfvén and Nicolai Herlofson in 1950.”
(Interesting how Hannes Alfven pops up in terms of successful predictions about astrophysical phenomenon.)
Numerous other celestial objects subsequently have been observed & measured to emit synchrotron radiation, so the physical description & explanation for the cause of synchrotron radiation is critical for analysis & interpretation of astromonical objects.
I stated that synchrotron radiation is evidence for electric fields in space.
Dr. Svalgaard disagreed.
Evans: “Electric fields can be sustained over extended periods of time in space plasma. Synchrotron radiation is one evidence of this”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with electric fields, but occur when you force a relativistic [high-energy, near light-speed] particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.”
And Evans elaborated: “How do you “force” an electron to achieve a velocity near the speed of light? Answer: Accelerate the electron by channelling the electron through a powerful electric field. An electric field causes the acceleration of the electron, the magnetic field causes the electron to spiral within the magnetic field. That’s why synchrotron radiation is evidence of electric fields in space plasma.”
I was not satisfied with that elaboration, so have researched the issue further.
My elaboration was simplistic if not wrong. It is more complicated than that.
I located a peer-reviewed published scientific paper that reported the construction of an apparatus and the resulting physical processes of electron acceleration by magnetic induction, which I suspect, but not sure, is a forerunner of the synchrotron machine where synchrotron radiation was first observed & measured in 1947 by Elder, Gurewitsch, Langmuir, and Pollock.
The Acceleration of Electrons by Magnetic Induction, author, D. W. Kerst, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, peer reviewed journal, Phys. Rev. 60, 47
(1941):
http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/kerst41/eng.pdf
Taking Dr. Svalgaard at his word that he wants to educate, I have several questions:
One, is the above paper a report on an apparatus that is a forerunner, in principle if not power and sophistication, of the synchrotron machine developed by General Electric which produced the first observed & measured synchrotron radiation?
If not, what is the difference?
From the above linked paper:
Partial abstract: “Apparatus with which electrons have been accelerated to an energy of 2.3 Mev by means of the electric field accompanying a changing magnetic field is described.”
“Several investigators have considered the possibility of using the
electric field associated with a time-varying magnetic field as an accelerating
force.”
Reading through the paper, most of it is devoted to magnetic fields.
It seems there is a complicated interaction and relationship between magnetic fields and electric fields that is used (however, most ot the paper is devoted to the discussion of magnetic fields) to accelerate electrons to high voltage and high velocity.
It would seem intellectually fruitful to have a detailed knowledge & understanding of the physical description & explanation of the process of synchrotron radiation generation by way of Man’s technology in the laboratory and apply that knowledge & understanding to astrophysical objects.
Can you help me out in this regard, Dr. Svalgaard?
James F. Evans (12:23:59) :
way of observation & measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is problematic.
Why is that problematic?
It would seem intellectually fruitful to have a detailed knowledge & understanding of the physical description & explanation of the process of synchrotron radiation generation by way of Man’s technology in the laboratory and apply that knowledge & understanding to astrophysical objects.
Can you help me out in this regard, Dr. Svalgaard?
Certainly. In the lab we use electric fields to accelerate particles to high speeds. But when the particle has achieved its high speed, we can ‘let the cat out of the bag’ and let the particle fly free. If during its flight it encounters a magnetic field it will be deflected and will hence radiate. If we could [e.g. by a violent explosion] push a particle to relativistic speeds we could generate the radiation without any electric fields. In the Lab the electricity we use often comes out of copper wires, but that does mean that copper per se is needed to make synchrotron radiation. How Man happens to generate synchrotron radiation has little bearing on how Mother Nature does it. We do it our way, because we can’t do it her way. Anyway, synchrotron radiation follows from our theoretical understanding of the equations. No apparatus is needed [just like we can calculate the orbit of a new planet without needing a planet to be there].
A tutorial [with simple math] can be found here: http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/astroII/l4.html
No electric field enters into the equations as electric fields have nothing to do with synchrotron emission. It is enough that ultra-high-speed particles traverse a magnetic field. There is a good description of a foremost example: ‘the Crab Nebula’.
It is better to read the newer literature on this instead of papers from the 1940s.
If you are serious about the education bit, here is a ‘once-in-lifetime-deal’: To work our way through the CosmicSound paper paragraph by paragraph. There is some marvelous science described in that popular account. Other readers may also benefit from such an exercise.
The same lecture series also has a simple exposition of cosmology worth reading: http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/astroII/l12.html
CRS, Dr.P.H. (11:49:09) :
You indicate that Dr. Svalgaard and his associates should be given the benefit of the doubt or, perhaps, there is no doubt in your mind at all.
But consider this:
Evans: “Electric fields can be sustained over extended periods of time in space plasma. Synchrotron radiation is one evidence of this”
And Dr. Svalgaard responded: “Synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with electric fields, but occur when you force a relativistic [high-energy, near light-speed] particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.”
“I located a peer-reviewed published scientific paper that reported the construction of an apparatus and the resulting physical processes of electron acceleration by magnetic induction, which I suspect, but not sure, is a forerunner of the synchrotron machine where synchrotron radiation was first observed & measured in 1947 by Elder, Gurewitsch, Langmuir, and Pollock:
The Acceleration of Electrons by Magnetic Induction, author, D. W. Kerst, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, peer reviewed journal, Phys. Rev. 60, 47
(1941):”
http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/kerst41/eng.pdf
Partial abstract: “Apparatus with which electrons have been accelerated to an energy of 2.3 Mev by means of the electric field accompanying a changing magnetic field is described.”
“Several investigators have considered the possibility of using the
electric field associated with a time-varying magnetic field as an accelerating force.”
Well, it turns out my suspicion was right: Kerst’s betatron accelerator provided the foundation principles for the Synchrotron machine:
“It was in D.W. Kerst’s betatron, which he had invented in 1940 at the University of Illinois, that the theory leaped inevitably toward fact. Building on E.O. Lawrence’s idea of the proton-accelerating cyclotron, Kerst introduced the idea of accelerating electrons in circular orbits by using a changing magnetic field to produce an accelerating electric field, which served to achieve electron energies of 2.3 MeV.” — ALSNews Vol. 75 April 16, 1997
Futher, from the ALSNews article:
“Shortly after the letter was published, General Electric had under construction a 100-MeV betatron in Schenectady, New York, which was a large induction accelerator for x ray and nuclear research.”
“In the meantime, accelerator development was taking another tack on the West Coast and in Europe. In a letter to Physical Review in 1945, E.M. McMillan at UC Berkeley, and, independently, V.I. Veksler in the Soviet Union, proposed a new type of accelerator, now known as the synchrotron (Phys. Rev. 68:144, 1945). GE physicists in Schenectady were ready to run with the idea and design the prototype, since during the war they had worked with Lawrence and the Berkeley community of physicists on the Manhattan Project and were poised in 1946 to construct a new 70-MeV machine to test Vecksler and McMillan’s synchrotron principle… This first synchrotron had been designed with a transparent glass vacuum tube, and it is for this reason that the light that would be named synchrotron radiation was discovered on April 24, 1947.”
Read the entire article on the history of synchrotron radiation:
http://www.als.lbl.gov/als/als_news/news_archive/vol.75_041697.html
Knowledge of history is important: The real history of astronomy and its ideas reveals how the ideas were falsified many times, but instead of discarding the ideas or at least admitting the consideration of other ideas, some fudge factor or other device or change was come up with to keep the ideas “standard theory” and justify continued refusal to consider alternative ideas.
Getting back to synchrotron radiation, it’s clear that electric fields and magnetic fields in combination are central in causing synchrotron radiation.
“Kerst introduced the idea of accelerating electrons in circular orbits by using a changing magnetic field to produce an accelerating electric field, which served to achieve electron energies of 2.3 MeV.”
Dr. Svalgaard wrote: “Synchrotron radiation has nothing to do with electric fields, but occur when you force a relativistic [high-energy, near light-speed] particle to move in a curved path by a magnetic field.”
Nothing to do with electric fields?
CRS, Dr.P.H., do you still think Dr. Svalgaard should be given the benefit of the doubt or there is no doubt at all?
Only if you think Dr. Svalgaard didn’t know what he was talking about.
Can you see why I and others don’t give Dr. Svalgaard and his associates the benefit of the doubt?
Dr. Svagaard:
Science is taking what Man does know by empirical observation & measurement and attempting to gain knowledge & understanding of physical relationships, processes, and objects Man doesn’t understand by applying what Man already knows.
Man does know what causes synchrotron radiation in the laboratory.
Astronomy in general (there are important exceptions) doesn’t want to accept that electric fields and electric currents are central to astrophysical processes because it has staked its reputation (and grant money stream) on the gravity model.
There is no empirical observations & measurements, not withstanding Dr. Svalgaard’s lecture link, that mechanical explosions can cause electrons (charged particles) to gain relativistic velocity.
So what does Science have?
A theoretical construct that machanical explosions cause charged particles to accelerate to relativistic velocity.
Or,
Empirical observation & measurement that electric fields and magnetic fields in combination cause electrons to accelerate to relativistic velocity.
See what I mean when I stated earlier in this thread that “modern” astronomy when faced with a choice, puts theoretical constructs above empirical observation & measurement?
Because that is exactly what Dr. Svalgaard and others with similar view points have done.
And when a discipline places theoretical constructs above empirical observation & measurement to come to its conclusions, it is not a discipline based on the empirical scientific method.
Re: James F. Evans (Feb 19 15:23),
Once more, the patience Leif has with all these ramblings is amazing. We gain though from the links he provides :).
You seem to have no inkling of how electromagnetism works, have stuck obsessively on the idea of electric fields and take off into fantasy land drunk by vocabulary.
It would be funny if it were not sad.
You need to take a college level course in electricity and magnetism, if you are really serious , in order to discuss electromagnetism rationally .
In a nutshell, if you have the mathematics you know that what we call electricity and what we call magnetism changes with the coordinate system.Electric fields create magnetic fields and vice verso depending on the motion and the observer. Everything comes out beautifully from the solutions of the Maxwell equations. When I took the course, I thought the theory was so beautiful I felt like Snoopy, dancing around for joy.
You sound like somebody trying to solve a complicated algebra problem knowing only arithmetic. With only arithmetic one gets tied up in knots with problems that algebra solves in a second.
If you are serious about the education bit,
Perhaps naive of me to think for a minute that you were….
Dr T G Watkins (12:39:35) :
When is the CERN “Cloud” experiment expected?”
See: http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/documents_cloud/cloud_addendum_3.pdf
That paper contains the scheduling. It seems that year 1 was in 2006 when funded began. It should be already receiving beam time if on schedule. The way I understand it from way back, it is to use one of the step-up accelerators for its beam, not the LHC itself.
More: http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
anna v (20:39:31) wrote: “Electric fields create magnetic fields and vice verso depending on the motion and the observer.”
Yes, electric fields and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin.
And, magnetic fields are observed to be ubiquitous in the Universe.
That’s why it’s so ridiculous for Dr. Svalgaard to cling to the idea that electric fields and electric currents in space plasma are de minimis, so minor as to not be worth regarding.
Read Dr. Svalgaard’s comments on this thread, read his comments on past threads: This de minimis attitude drips from his comments.
It’s a contemptuous attitude. Dr. Svalgaard comes across with an arrogance that’s astounding considering the empirical observations & measurements available.
It certainly isn’t indicative of maintaining reasonable scepticism, yet keeping an open-mind, which is also part of the Empirical Scientific Method.
No, it’s the calcified attitude and face of dogma.
James F. Evans (08:36:59)
This says it all:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/427020main_pia12832-c.jpg
a Birkeland current inside Andromeda conecting stars with its Center.
Real knowledge, my dear James, it is not hidden, occult or whatever, it has always beeen there but it is always rejected by those who do not see it.
When Pitagoras made his experiments with the Monochord, showing the law of the octave, he was really striking a SIMILAR CORD.
Let me give it another try if you did not understand my analogy between algebra and arithmetic.
The modern scientific method is far advanced on what was the empirical alchemical method of the ancients . The Pythagorian world of the harmony of the spheres and the monochord are very far removed , and ironically very close to present scientific theories. Very far because there is a new scientific method now, and very close to the monochord because the modern theory of strings is really solutions of a chord in many dimensions.
The alchemical scientific method relied on observations and came up with the dictum as above so below. All these proposed “theories” of electrical universes are saying as below so above.
And herein lies the misunderstanding of people with limited mathematical and physics background who want to contemplate the universe with outdated methods. In the twentieth century it was realized that all physical observations can be stated in the language of mathematics in the following order: minimization of Action, leading to Lagrangians, leading to kinematic equations.
There is a limited number of classes of solutions of these kinematic equations, leading in similarities to the solutions, without meaning that the basic physics is the same. Example: there are waves in water, there are electromagnetic waves, there are acoustic waves, there are probability waves. All these are similar because they follow the solutions of similar differential equations but the physical origin is different.
Leif has been clarifying again and again that there is a plethora of data that supports the theory of General Relativity. One cannot refute it by throwing on the table an “electric universe”. In the same way that GR includes Newtonian mechanics as a limiting case, any new theory would have to include GR as a limiting case. A new theory would have to start from scratch and demonstrate mathematically that this is the case.
To be looking at similarities in the heavens of solutions of electromagnetic equations in the lab means nothing, since the differential equations are similar, similar solutions apply.
A competing theory would need to include all the observations that GR fits so well and predict new observations in a mathematical formulation appropriate for 21st century science.
anna v (22:21:09) :
~
Can’t believe yoU said that?
~
James F. Evans, Have you checked this out?
New 3D gas density maps of NaI and CaII interstellar absorption
within 300 pc,
B. Y. Welsh1, R. Lallement2, J.-L. Vergely3, and S. Raimond2
http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/200913202
PDF available at link.
An earlier laymans version, available:
http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/chimney.htm
anna v:
I’m not surprised, your response places you with Dr. Svalgaard’s associates:
Placing theoretical constructs above empirical observation & measurement.
But you prior comment was more germane:
anna v (20:39:31) wrote: “Electric fields create magnetic fields and vice versa depending on the motion and the observer.”
Although, it doesn’t depend on the observer, only the motion of the bodies of plasma relative to each other.
Maxwell’s equations have been demonstrated (and how the equations were formulated) by empirical observation & measurement.
As a matter of operational compulsion, electric fields and magnetic fields are two sides of the same coin.
Maxwell’s equations were formulated without reference to General Relativity.
It’s well known and accepted that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are not compatible, particularly at the micro-level.
I have to say, I don’t put a lot of stock in anna v’s ideas as she has previously commented favorably on String Theory and the existence multiple dimensions. String Theory is the classic example of mathematics unhinged from empirical observation & measurement: There are no empirical observations & measurements to support it.
Actually, and, again, typical of astronomers and some physicists is anna v’s statement: “…there is a plethora of data that supports the theory of General Relativity.”
Every supposed observational support for General Relativity has an alternative empirically validated physical relationship that explains the observation & measurement, but General Relativity proponents almost never acknowledge such is the case.
And, there are important falsifications of General Relativity as well: The presence of so-called “gravitational waves” are a central prediction of GR, but have never been observed & measured even though two generations of detection apparatus have been deployed in the quest to confirm this central prediction of GR.
This is an example of a falsification that invalidates the theory, but General Relativity proponents ignore the falsification and continuly promise the next generation of apparatus will detect the elusive “gravitational wave”.
How many generations of increasing sensitivity apparatus will have to be deployed with negative results before GR proponents will acknowledge the failure of this prediction and, thus, the theory? As Albert Einstein stated: “It only takes one falsification to invalidate a theory.
Sorry, that doesn’t wash: General Relativity has been falsified, unless or until “gravitational waves” are empirically observed & measured.
But discussion of General Relativity is a distraction: Science doesn’t need GR to know Maxwell’s equations describe electric fields and magnetic fields as being reciprical.
anna v exposes her point of view when she attempts to invalidate the empirical scientific method by smearing it with comparison with “alchemy”:
anna v wrote: “The modern scientific method is far advanced on what was the empirical alchemical method of the ancients .”
The empirical scientific method of observation & measurement is the Science of the 21st century.
Mathematics is the servant which quantifies the physical relationships that have been empirically observed & measured and is indispensible in that role.
Assumed a priori abstract constructs unsupported by empirical observation & measurement is the retrograde “science” of the 20th century.
I say, “Good riddance.”
To the extent that scientists wonder off into theoretical constructs unhinged from empirical observation & measurement and attempt to justify these theoretical “flights of fancy” by abstract mathematical relationships removed from the actual physical relationships (think computer models) Science will be in a new Dark Age.
anna v is one of many inside the cave determined to keep looking at shadows on the cave wall. Others refuse and insist on leaving the cave and directly observing & measuring the Sun light.
Here comes the Sun and I say…”it’s all right…”
Re: James F. Evans (Feb 21 08:50),
Me thinks, you are the one measuring shadows with compass and ruler, two dimensional constructs and calling them theory . While modern theoretical physics is trying to integrate back to the original source of the shadows, using calculus and functional integrals. For we are destined to live in the cave until we die, and the better mathematical tools we find the more we learn.
James F. Evans (08:50:02) :
Maxwell’s equations were formulated without reference to General Relativity.
It’s well known and accepted that Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity are not compatible, particularly at the micro-level.
Maxwell’s equations [19th century science] are also not compatible with Quantum Mechanics. Even the notion of an electric field is not what goes on at the microlevel. According to Maxwell’s equations two electrons repel each other because of the interaction of their electric fields. This is not how it works. A modern description of the repulsion goes more like this: an electron continuously emits [and absorbs] a cloud of virtual photons. A nearby electron does the same and will absorb any virtual photons hitting it from the other electron. Let us focus on a virtual photon emitted by the first electron and then absorbed by the second electron. Since a photon has momentum, the first electron recoils in the opposite direction of propagation of the photon [because momentum is conserved]. When the second electron absorbs the virtual photon it is given a kick in the direction of the propagation of the photon [because momentum is conserved and the electron takes up the momentum of the photon]. thus the two electrons will move in opposite directions, seemingly repelling each other. At the macro-level we don’t want to know about these details, so invent the notion of an electric field instead.
I have commented on this before: what we see here is not even pseudo-science, but anti-science, fueled by willful ignorance.
cosmology is very much an empirical and [precision] observational endeavor, and we have growing theoretical understanding of we we observe. Here is a good summary [does require some background]:
http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/QU/Tennessee07.pdf
Dr Svalgaard:
By your definition the same holds true for magnetic fields and then Maxwell’s equations.
Which would be to say Science doesn’t know much about anything.
And, at a certain level that holds true.
What you and anna v offer is little in substitution.
But go back to the theoretical development in the 19th century of radion decaying out of an electron orbit, then with development in the 20th century of apparatus to test the hypothesis (Kerst 1941) and further refinement and addition of power to the apparatus and further refinement of theoretical understanding, this theoretical radiation was empirically observed & measured (1947) and, now, Science’s understanding and knowledge of Synchrotron radiation and its physical relationships and dynamics is to a high level of precision.
This is the type of advance that is a credit to Science, Mathematics, and Human enterprise.
James F. Evans (14:34:38) :
This is the type of advance that is a credit to Science, Mathematics, and Human enterprise.
Indeed, synchrotron radiation is well understood. Sad to say, your anti-science, however, is a blot on human enterprise…
One may hope that such eventually will be forgotten, although my often voiced fear is that will not.