Old Geezers Should Communicate with Young Folks

[from billlifka, posted with his prior permission]

A few days ago, I heard an excellent talk by a local political guru of the Conservative persuasion. He was offering ideas how ordinary folks of his political persuasion might help the Republican Party do better in the coming election. The bottom line was that he recommended the old geezers in the audience should start communicating with young folks between the ages of fifteen and thirty.

His principal argument was that, beyond the age of thirty, people tend not to change much from what they have become and what they believe in at that point in their lives. Also, he argued that people in the target age range were open to considering new ideas, perhaps even eager to try new things. He cautioned that these strange young folks should be approached cautiously, even deviously, because if they knew an exchange of political ideas was the goal, they’d be turned off immediately.

I suspect he was right in all respects, at least for the majority of young adults. I’ve been following his recommended practice for a number of years, at least the basic idea. One of the great joys of my life is being able to learn new things that change my life even as I approach the end of life. I hope it will be the same for you.

As to a devious approach, it’s not like me not to say (or write) just what’s on my mind. Most folks who read what I write would judge it to be political, yet I argue that it may seem so to them but I am really writing about good governance, good goals and good process. If it turns out that the same people in office keep governing poorly, have troublesome objectives and use questionable means to achieve those objectives, it’s to be expected they will come off poorly in my writings.

Long before now you should have recognized that I prefer to focus on national issues I believe to be of greatest importance to the nation’s well-being, the elements of those issues, what history (should have) taught us about optional ways of addressing those issues and, usually, suggesting what I believe to be the best options.

As I do this, some people stand out as bad guys and, of late, these have all belonged to the left wing of the Democratic Party. I’m sorry about that because I really want our leaders to be outstanding leaders no matter which political party they call home. If they are not, then I am going to be against that party until they start running competent men and women for office who focus on the critical issues with honesty, coherence and perseverance.

I’ve never wanted anyone to vote for my preferred candidates just because they were my choice. What I want is for the overwhelming majority of voters to know the truth about main issues and how opposing candidates stand on those issues. I’ll never get what I want because the majority of voters don’t take time to become knowledgeable and the majority of politicians do their best to mislead the voters.

I pointed out precarious national and international conditions and the critical importance of competent leaders being elected. I emphasized that the vote of the young adults would determine the outcome. I was correct. 2014 is another critical election year. By now you should know how much your future has been adversely affected by the outcomes of elections for which you’ve been eligible voters.

For the record, I'm a registered Republican but, under that umbrella, a Conservative with a few Libertarian tendencies. I was a “cradle Democrat” and remained so until the current age of my oldest grandchild. I was an ardent fan of the Chicago Cubs who did manage to capture two pennants before they forgot how to play the game.

These days, rooting for the Republicans seems like rooting for the Cubs. Both teams have talented players, know the principles of the sport, play like gentlemen but seem not to understand the objective is to beat the opponents. It may be the absence of a good manager and an ossified front office. Maybe the players should mutiny.

Currently, 31% of the voting population considers itself to be Democratic, 25% considers itself Republican and 42% considers itself Independent. The Republican % is the lowest it’s been in modern times. It’s no wonder that Democratic political tactics are designed to solidify its base and to infuriate Republicans.

Rather than fighting the “enemy”, prominent Republicans yell at each other while elbowing members of their own team into less desirable vantage points from which to launch a campaign for the big enchilada. Tea partiers are similar to Republicans in many ways except they are mouthier and more fed up, but still mostly nice people. They have no effective central control which is another thing they’ve in common with Republicans.

Independents are growing in number, mostly cutting into the Republican fan base. The not-at-all independent media blames this on Republican ineptitude but a goodly part comes from people being tired of much political talk and little effective political results. While the Democrats are more guilty of that, their fan base expects them to be obnoxious and ineffective at governing; it’s part of their appeal.

It’s bad enough for Republicans to lose those Independents who used to show up for their bigger games but now many Republican fans avoid the big ones and hardly any buy season tickets. As for the younger fans, forget it; they enjoy the raucous Democratic play and can’t understand the headier Republican approach to the game.

Republicans needn’t play Democratic ball to win. It’s not necessary to throw at the batter’s head or slide into second with spikes high. However, barreling over a catcher blocking home plate is admirable; the runner has a right to the baseline. Forget longing for a star hitter with 50 HR’s a season and 500 K’s. They need single hitters with high batting averages, fielders who hit the cut-off man, pitchers who credit the fielding for their low ERA’s and runners who follow the coaching signs. It’s a team game, dummies, not a boxing match to determine a single champion!

This might be amusing if not for the serious matter of America’s heading for a cliff without a capable government. There’s a World Series each year but an America only once in 8,000 years of history Mike Huckabee is a good guy and was a viable candidate in 2008. He made the same main point as this essay, but with less colorful imagery. Unfortunately, he played to the stands allowing partisan “sportwriters” a chance for another “war on women” tirade. His lesser point could have been made by citing the Justice Dept’s war on the Little Sisters of the Poor; he would have been playing a winning game. There are Republicans who can do that.

billlifka

Global Warming - REAL, but NOT a Big DEAL

[UPDATE: I reposted this at WUWT, the most viewed Climate website in the world, and have over 10,000 page views and 230 comments.]
We've reached a turning point where it is hard for any Global Warming Alarmist to claim (with a straight face) that the world as we know it is about to end in a decade or two or three unless we stop burning fossil fuels. Anyone deluded or foolish enough to make such a claim would be laughed at by many audiences.

GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL

Yes, the world has warmed 1°F to 1.5°F (0.6°C to 0.8°C) since 1880 when relatively good thermometers became available. Yes, part of that warming is due to human activities, mainly burning unprecedented quantities of fossil fuels that continue to drive an increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels. The Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect is a scientific fact!

BUT GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT A BIG DEAL

As the animated graphic clearly indicates, the theoretical climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are handcuffed to inordinately high estimates of climate sensitivity (how much temperatures are expected to rise given a doubling of CO2). Since the advent of good satellite-based global temperature data in 1979, observed temperatures have risen at a fraction of the IPCC predicted rate even as CO2 continues to rise. Relax, there is not and never has been any near-term "tipping point". The actual Earth Climate System is far less sensitive to CO2 than claimed the IPCC climate theory, as represented by their computer models. Global Warming since 1880 is mainly due to Natural Cycles and Processes not under human control. Yes, the same Natural Cycles and Processes that were responsible for the many Ice Age cycles that repeatedly occurred about every 100,000 years or so.

MY JANUARY 2014 PRESENTATION 

By a stroke of good fortune, last week I was scheduled to present "Visualizing the Atmospheric 'Greenhouse' Effect - Global warming is real, but how much is due to human activities and how big is the risk?" to the Philosophy Club in the Central Florida retirement community where I live. This is a great time for Global Warming Skeptics to put the Alarmists in their place.

Everyone in the highly interactive and supportive audience was aware of newspaper and TV reports of the drama of those ill-fated Global Warming "Research" activists whose Russian ship, the Academik Shokalskiy, got stuck in the summer ice of the Antarctic. (Fortunately, those people are safe, having been rescued by a helicopter from a Chinese icebreaker.) In addition to the Antarctic adventure gone wrong, in the week leading up to and following my talk, the media was overrun by stories of the "polar vortex" literally freezing large parts of the US and even causing Florida temperatures to drop below 30°F.

Of course, we realize that the cold wave is only anecdotal evidence and "weather is not climate". However, photos and videos of researchers stuck in the Antarctic summer ice as well as scenes of American life frozen in place for days on end, when combined with clear and irrefutable evidence of a slowdown in warming since 1979 and no statistically significant warming since 1996 (as depicted in the graphic above), has considerable emotional impact.

My animated PowerPoint Show, which should run on any Windows PC, is available for download here. (NOTE: I knew that many members of The Philosophy Club audience, while highly intelligent and informed, are not particularly scientifically astute. Therefore, I kept to the basics and  invited questions as I proceeded. Since most of them think in Fahrenheit, I was careful to give temperatures in that system. By contrast, my 2011 talk to the more scientifically astute members of our local Science and Technology Club Skeptic Strategy for Talking about Global Warming was more technical. Both presentations make use of animated PowerPoint charts and you are free to download and use them as you wish.)

My presentation is based on my five-part series for the most viewed climate website in the world, "Watts Up With That" (WUWT) where I am a Guest Contributor. The series is entitled "Visualizing the 'Greenhouse Effect'" - 1 - A Physical Analogy, 2 - Atmospheric Windows, 3 - Emission Spectra, 4 - Molecules and Photons, and 5 - Light and Heat.  The series, which ran in 2011, generated tens of thousands of page views at WUWT, along with thousands of comments.

I wrote the series because WUWT is a "skeptic" website and attracts some viewers who reject the basic physics of the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect. (The owner of WUWT, Anthony Watts, like me, accepts the basic physics and the fact that some of the warming of the past century is indeed due to human activities, such as unprecedented burning of fossil fuels that have raised CO2 levels. However, we are skeptical about how much the Earth Surface has actually warmed, and how big a risk is posed by moderate increases in CO2 and temperature.)

HOW A REAL GREENHOUSE WORKS

I explained how a real physical Greenhouse works and how that is both similar and different from the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect. The Greenhouse descriptions I learned in high school, as well as those available on the Internet, consider only the RADIATIVE effect. The glass roof of the Greenhouse allows visible light to pass through freely, heating the soil, plants, and air, but is opaque to the resultant infrared radiation, which is partly re-radiated back down into the Greenhouse, warming it further.  That part is true, but far from the whole story. The MAIN reason a Greenhouse stays warm is that it is airtight to restrict CONVECTION and it is insulated to restrict CONDUCTION. In fact, it is possible to construct a successful Greenhouse using a roof made from materials that allow both visible and infrared to pass freely, but is impossible to make a working Greenhouse that is not both airtight and insulated.

HOW THE ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT WORKS

All warm objects emit radiation at a wavelength dependent upon the temperature of the object. The Sun, at around 10,000 °F, emits "short-wavelength" infrared radiation, centered around 1/2 micron (one millionth of a meter). The soil, plants, and air in the Greenhouse, at around 60 to 100 °F, emit "long wavelength" radiation, centered around 10 microns (with most of the energy between 4 and 25 microns).   

The Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect works because:

1. Short-wavelength radiation from the Sun passes freely through the gases that make up  the Atmosphere,
2. About a third of this Sunlight is reflected back by white clouds, dust, and light-colored objects on the Surface, and that energy is lost to Space,
3. The remaining two-thirds of  the Sunlight energy is absorbed by the Sea and Land Surface and causes it to warm,
4. The warm Surface cools by emitting long-wavelength radiation at the Bottom of the Atmosphere, and this radiation passes towards the Top of the Atmosphere, where it is ultimately lost to Space,
5. On the way to the Top of the Atmosphere, much of this radiation is absorbed by so-called "Greenhouse" gases (mostly water vapor and carbon dioxide) which causes the Atmosphere to warm,
6. The warmed Atmosphere emits infrared radiation in all directions, some into Space where it is lost, and some back towards the Surface where it is once again absorbed and further warms the Surface.
7. In addition to the RADIATIVE effects noted in points 1 through 6, the Surface is cooled by CONVECTION and CONDUCTION (thunderstorms, winds, rain, etc.)

THANK GOODNESS OR THE ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT

If not for the warming effect of "Greenhouse" gases, the Surface of the Earth would average about -1 °F, which would prevent life as we know it. This effect is responsible for about 60 degrees F of warming.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Earth Surface has warmed about 1.5 °F since good thermometer data became available around 1880. Some skeptics (including me) believe the actual warming is closer to 1 °F, and that government agencies have adjusted the thermometer record to exaggerate the warming by 30% or more.

However, it doesn't really matter whether the actual warming is 1 °F or 1.5 °F because we are arguing about only 0.5 °F, which is less than 1% of the warming due to the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect.

HOW SENSITIVE IS THE CLIMATE TO HUMAN ACTIVITIES?

The IPCC claims that the majority of the warming since 1880 is due to human activities. It is true that we are burning unprecedented amounts of fossil fuel (coal, oil, gas), and that we are making land use changes that may reduce the albedo (reflectiveness) of the Surface. Most of the increase in Atmospheric CO2 (a 40% rise from about 270 to nearly 400 parts per million by volume) is due to human activities.

The IPCC claims that Climate Sensitivity (the average increase in Surface temperatures due to a doubling of CO2) is between 3 °F and 8 °F.  Some skeptics (including me) believe they are off by at least a factor of two, and possibly a factor of three, and that Climate Sensitivity is closer to 1 °F to 3 °F.

As evidence for our conclusions, we point to the fact that virtually ALL of the IPCC climate models have consistently over-estimated future temperature predictions as compared to the actual temperature record. Indeed, for the past 17 years as CO2 levels continue their rapid climb, temperatures have leveled off, which is proof that Natural Cycles, not under human control or influence, have cancelled out warming due to CO2 increases. Thus, Natural Cycles must have a larger effect than CO2.

VISUALIZING THE ATMOSPHERIC "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT

As I noted above, I wrote the "Visualizing" series for WUWT (1 - A Physical Analogy, 2 - Atmospheric Windows, 3 - Emission Spectra, 4 - Molecules and Photons, and 5 - Light and Heat) because some WUWT viewers are "Disbelievers" who have had an "equal and opposite" reaction to the "end of the world" excesses of the Global Warming "Alarmists".  By failing to understand and accept the basic science of the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect, they have, IMHO, "thrown the baby out with the bathwater".

1 - A Physical Analogy

Albert Einstein was a great theoretical physicist, with all the requisite mathematical tools. However, he rejected purely mathematical abstraction and resorted to physical analogy for his most basic insights. For example, he imagined a man in a closed elevator being transported to space far from any external mass and then subjected to accelerating speeds. That man could not tell the difference between gravity on Earth and acceleration in space, thus, concluded Einstein, gravity and acceleration are equivalent, which is the cornerstone of his theory of relativity. Einstein never fully bought into the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics that he and others have called quantum weirdness and spooky action at a distance. He had trouble accepting a theory that did not comport with anything he considered a reasonable physical analogy!

So, if you have trouble accepting the atmospheric “greenhouse” effect because of the lack of a good physical analogy, you are in fine company.

Well, getting back to the Atmospheric "Greenhouse Effect, a "disbelieving" commenter on WUWT, suggested we think of the Sunlight as truckloads of energy going from the Sun to the Earth Surface, and the infrared radiation from the Surface as equal truckloads going the other way. How, he asked, could these equal and opposite truckloads do anything but cancel each other out as far as the amount of energy on the Surface of the Earth? In reply, I posted a comment with an analogy of truckloads of orange juice, representing short-wave radiation from Sun to Earth, and truckloads of blueberry juice, representing longwave radiation between Earth and the Atmosphere and back out to Space.

That thought experiment triggered my creativity. I imagined the Sun as a ball-pitching machine, throwing Yellow balls towards the "Earth" Surface (representing short-wave radiation) and Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation) bouncing back towards Space and interacting with the Atmosphere. The graphic below is one of my depictions of the physical analogy. Follow this link for more graphics and detail.


I imagined the Earth as a well-damped scale. The Yellow balls would bounce off the Surface and turn into Purple balls (representing long-wave radiation as the Earth absorbed the short-wave radiation and then emitted an equal quantity of long-wave radiation). The scale would read "1" unit.

If there was no Atmosphere, or if the Atmosphere contained no "Greenhouse" gases to obstruct the flight of the Purple balls, they would fly out towards Space.

I then imagined the Atmosphere as an obstacle that absorbed the Purple balls, split them in two, and emitted half of the smaller balls to Space and the other half back towards the Earth. The balls going towards Earth would be absorbed, further heating the Earth, and the warmed Earth would emit them back towards the Atmosphere. The process would be repeated with the balls being absorbed by "Greenhouse" gases in the Atmosphere, and then emitted with half going out to Space, and half back to the Earth. The sum of 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 +1/16 ... = 2 (approximately), so the scale reads "2" units.

Thus, in my simplified analogy, the "Greenhouse" gases in the "Atmosphere" cause the scale reading to double. So, the Atmospheric "Greenhouse" Effect causes the Earth Surface to be warmer than it would be absent the "Greenhouse" gases. I think Einstein would be pleased!  Read more detail at WUWT, including the 340 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...,

2 - Atmospheric Windows

A real greenhouse has windows. So does the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. They are similar in that they allow Sunlight in and restrict the outward flow of thermal energy. However, they differ in the mechanism. A real greenhouse primarily restricts heat escape by preventing convection while the “greenhouse effect” heats the Earth because “greenhouse gases” (GHG) absorb outgoing radiative energy and re-emit some of it back towards Earth.
There are two main “windows” in the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect”. The first, the Visible Light Window, on the left side of the graphic, allows visible and near-visible light from the Sun to pass through with small losses, and the second, the Longwave Window, on the right, allows the central portion of the longwave radiation band from the Earth to pass through with small losses, while absorbing and re-emitting the left and right portions.
Sunlight Energy In = Thermal Energy Out
The graphic is an animated depiction of the Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” process.

On the left side:
(1) Sunlight streams through the Atmosphere towards the surface of the Earth.
(2) A portion of the Sunlight is reflected by clouds and other high-albedo surfaces and heads back through the Atmosphere towards Space. The remainder is absorbed by the Surface of the Earth, warming it.
(3) The reflected portion is lost to Space.
On the right side:
(1) The warmed Earth emits longwave radiation towards the Atmosphere. According to the first graphic, above, this consists of thermal energy in all bands ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ.
(2) The ~10μ portion passes through the Atmosphere with litttle loss. The ~7μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by H2O, and the 15μ portion gets absorbed, primarily by CO2 and H2O. The absorbed radiation heats the H2O and CO2 molecules and, at their higher energy states, they collide with the other molecules that make up the air, mostly nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), and argon (A) and heat them by something like conduction. The molecules in the heated air emit radiation in random directions at all bands (~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ). The ~10μ photons pass, nearly unimpeded, in whatever direction they happen to be emitted, some going towards Space and some towards Earth. The ~7μ and ~15μ photons go off in all directions until they run into an H2O or CO2 molecule, and repeat the absorption and re-emittance process, or until they emerge from the Atmosphere or hit the surface of the Earth.
(3) The ~10μ photons that got a free-pass from the Earth through the Atmosphere emerge and their energy is lost to Space. The ~10μ photons generated by the heating of the air emerge from the top of the Atmosphere and their energy is lost to Space, or they impact the surface of the Earth and are re-absorbed. The ~7μ and ~15μ generated by the heating of the air also emerge from the top or bottom of the Atmosphere, but there are fewer of them because they keep getting absorbed and re-emitted, each time with some transfered to the central ~10μ portion of the longwave band.
 the infrared (long-wavelength). Read more detail at WUWT, including the 489 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

3 - Emission Spectra

The Atmospheric “greenhouse effect” has been analogized to a blanket that insulates the Sun-warmed Earth and slows the rate of heat transmission, thus increasing mean temperatures above what they would be absent “greenhouse gases” (GHGs). Perhaps a better analogy would be an electric blanket that, in addition to its insulating properties, also emits thermal radiation both down and up. The graphic below, based upon actual measurements of long-wave radiation as measured by a satellite LOOKING DOWN from the Top of the Atmosphere as well as from the Surface LOOKING UP from the Bottom of the Atmmsphere, depicts the situation.
,
Description of graphic (from bottom to top):
Earth Surface: Warmed by shortwave (~1/2μ) radiation from the Sun, the surface emits upward radiation in the ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ regions of the longwave band. This radiation approximates a smooth “blackbody” curve that peaks at the wavelength corresponding to the surface temperature.
Bottom of the Atmosphere: On its way out to Space, the radiation encounters the Atmosphere, in particular the GHGs, which absorb and re-emit radiation in the ~7μ and ~15μ regions in all directions. Most of the ~10μ radiation is allowed to pass through.
The lower violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 8.1 in Petty and based on measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking UP) indicates how the bottom of the Atmosphere re-emits selected portions back down towards the surface of the Earth. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300ºK (equivalent to 27ºC or 80ºF). Note how the ~7μ and ~15μ regions approximate that curve, while much of the ~10μ region is not re-emitted downward.
“Greenhouse Gases”: The reason for the shape of the downwelling radiation curve is clear when we look at the absorption spectra for the most important GHGs: H2O, H2O, H2O, … H2O, and CO2. (I’ve included multiple H2O’s because water vapor, particularly in the tropical latitudes, is many times more prevalent than carbon dioxide.)
Note that H2O absorbs at up to 100% in the ~7μ region. H2O also absorbs strongly in the ~15μ region, particularly above 20μ, where it reaches 100%. CO2 absorbs at up to 100% in the ~15μ region.
Neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in the ~10μ region.
Since gases tend to re-emit most strongly at the same wavelength region where they absorb, the ~7μ and ~15μ are well-represented, while the ~10μ region is weaker.
Top of the Atmosphere: The upper violet/purple curve (adapted from figure 6.6 in Petty and based on satellite measurements from the Tropical Pacific looking DOWN) indicates how the top of the Atmosphere passes certain portions of radiation from the surface of the Earth out to Space and re-emits selected portions up towards Space. The dashed line represents a “blackbody” curve characteristic of 300ºK. Note that much of the ~10μ region approximates a 295ºK curve while the ~7μ region approximates a cooler 260ºK curve. The ~15μ region is more complicated. Part of it, from about 17μ and up approximates a 260ºK or 270ºK curve, but the region from about 14μ to 17μ has had quite a big bite taken out of it. Note how this bite corresponds roughly with the CO2 absorption spectrum.
See more graphics and detail at WUWT, including the 476 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

4 - Molecules and Photons

In this part, we consider the interaction between air molecules, including Nitrogen (N2), Oxygen (O2), Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2), with Photons of various wavelengths. This may help us visualize how energy, in the form of Photons radiated by the Sun and the Surface of the Earth, is absorbed and re-emited by Atmospheric molecules.

The animated graphic has eight frames, as indicated by the counter in the lower right corner. Molecules are symbolized by letter pairs or triplets and Photons by ovals and arrows. The view is of a small portion of the cloud-free Atmosphere.

1. During the daytime, Solar energy enters the Atmosphere in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 0.1μ (micron – millionth of a meter) to 4μ, which is called “shortwave” radiation and is represented as ~1/2μ and symbolized as orange ovals. Most of this energy gets a free pass through the cloud-free Atmosphere. It continues down to the Surface of the Earth where some is reflected back by light areas (not shown in the animation) and where most is absorbed and warms the Surface.
2. Since Earth’s temperature is well above absolute zero, both day and night, the Surface radiates Photons in all directions with the energy distributed approximately according to a “blackbody” at a given temperature. This energy is in the form of Photons at wavelengths from about 4μ to 50μ, which is called “longwave” radiation and is represented as ~7μ, ~10μ, and ~15μ and symbolized as violet, light blue, and purple ovals, respectively. The primary “greenhouse” gases (GHG) are Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The ~7μ Photon is absorbed by an H2O molecule because Water Vapor has an absorption peak in that region, the ~10μ Photon gets a free pass because neither H2O nor CO2 absorb strongly in that region, and one of the 15μ Photons gets absorbed by an H2O molecule while the other gets absorbed by a CO2 molecule because these gases have absorption peaks in that region.
3. The absorbed Photons raise the energy level of their respective molecules (symbolized by red outlines).
4. The energized molecules re-emit the Photons in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
5. This frame and the next two illustrate another way Photons are emitted, namely due to collisions between energized GHG molecules and other air molecules. As in frame (2) the Surface radiates Photons in all directions and various wavelengths.
6. The Photons cause the GHG molecules to become energized and they speed up and collide with other gas molecules, energizing them. NOTE: In a gas, the molecules are in constant motion, moving in random directions at different speeds, colliding and bouncing off one another, etc. Indeed the “temperature” of a gas is something like the average speed of the molecules. In this animation, the gas molecules are fixed in position because it would be too confusing if they were all shown moving and because the speed of the Photons is so much greater than the speed of the molecules that they hardly move in the time indicated.
7. The energized air molecules emit radiation at various wavelengths and in random directions, some upwards, some downwards, and some sideways. Some of the re-emitted Photons make their way out to Space and their energy is lost there, others back down to the Surface where their energy is absorbed, further heating the Earth, and others travel through the Atmosphere for a random distance until they encounter another GHG molecule.
8. Having emitted the energy, the molecules cool down.

Read more detail at WUWT, including the 743 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

5 - Light and Heat

Solar “light” radiation in = Earth “heat” radiation to Space out! That’s old news to those of us who understand all energy is fungible (may be converted to different forms of energy) and energy/mass is conserved (cannot be created nor destroyed).
My Visualizing series [Physical Analogy, Atmospheric Windows, Emission Spectra, and Molecules/Photons] has garnered almost 2000 comments, mostly positive. I’ve learned a lot from WUWT readers who know more than I do. However, some commenters seem to have been taken in by scientific-sounding objections to the basic science behind the Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect”. Their objections seemed to add more heat than light to the discussion. This posting is designed to get back to basics and perhaps transform our heated arguments into more enlightened understanding :^)

Solar "light" energy in is equal to Earth "heat" energy out.

Read more detail at WUWT, including the 958 responses (comments received and my brilliant replies!)...

ANSWERING THREE OBJECTIONS TO BASIC ATMOSPHERIC “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” SCIENCE

First of all, let me be clear where I am coming from. I’m a Lukewarmer-Skeptic who accepts that H2O, CO2 and other so-called “greenhouse gases” in the Atmosphere do cause the mean temperature of the Earth Surface and Atmosphere to be higher than they would be if everything was the same (Solar radiation, Earth System Albedo, …) but the Atmosphere was pure nitrogen.

The main scientific question for me, is how much does the increase in human-caused CO2 and human-caused albedo reduction increase the mean temperature above what it would be with natural cycles and processes? My answer is “not much”, because perhaps 0.1ºC to 0.2ºC of the supposed 0.8ºC increase since 1880 is due to human activities. The rest is due to natural cycles and processes over which we humans have no control. The main public policy question for me, is how much should we (society) do about it? Again, my answer is “not much”, because the effect is small and a limited increase in temperatures and CO2 may turn out to have a net benefit.

So, my motivation for this Visualizing series is not to add to the Alarmist “the sky is falling” panic, but rather to help my fellow Skeptics avoid the natural temptation to fall into an “equal and opposite” falsehood, which some of those on my side, who I call “Disbelievers”, do when they fail to acknowledge the basic facts of the role of H2O and CO2 and other gases in helping to keep temperatures in a livable range.

Objection #1: Visual and near-visual radiation is merely “light” which lacks the “quality” or “oomph” to impart warmth to objects upon which it happens to fall.

Answer #1: A NASA webpage targeted at children is sometimes cited because they say the near-IR beam from a TV remote control is not warm to the touch. Of course, that is not because it is near-visual radiation, but rather because it is very low power. All energy is fungible, and can be changed from one form to another. Thus, the 240 Watts/m^2 of visible and near-visible Solar energy that reaches and is absorbed by the Earth System, has the effect of warming the Earth System exactly as much as an equal number of Watts/m^2 of “thermal” mid- and far-IR radiation.

Objection #2: The Atmosphere, which is cooler than the Earth Surface, cannot warm the Earth Surface.

Answer #2: The Second law of Thermodynamics is often cited as the source of this falsehood. The correct interpretation is that the Second Law refers to net warming, which can only pass from the warmer to the cooler object. The back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Earth Surface has been measured (see lower panel in the above illustration). All matter above absolute zero emits radiation and, once emitted, that radiation does not know if it is travelling from a warmer to a cooler surface or vice-versa. Once it arrives it will either be reflected or absorbed, according to its wavelength and the characteristics of the material it happens to impact.

Objection #3: The Atmospheric “Greenhouse Effect” is fictional. A glass greenhouse works mainly by preventing or reducing convection and the Atmosphere does not work that way at all.

Answer #3: I always try to put “scare quotes” around the word “greenhouse” unless referring to the glass variety because the term is misleading. Yes, a glass greenhouse works by restricting convection, and the fact that glass passes shortwave radiation and not longwave makes only a minor contribution.

Thus, I agree it is unfortunate that the established term for the Atmospheric warming effect is a bit of a misnomer. However, we are stuck with it. But, enough of semantics. Notice that the Earth System mean temperature I had to use to provide 240 Watts/m^2 of radiation to Space to balance the input absorbed from by the Earth System from the Sun was 255 K. However, the actual mean temperature at the Surface is closer to 288 K. How to explain the extra 33 K (33ºC or 58ºF)? The only rational explanation is the back-radiation from the Atmosphere to the Surface.

Ira Glickstein

Flatland, Particle-Wave Duality and Super-Luminal Effects

The animated graphic above shows our 3-D Space plus Time view of the physical world and contrasts it with the very different view of "Flatlanders" who are restricted to 2-D Space plus Time.

This posting explores the possibility that insights from consideration of Flatland may be extended to higher dimensionality and shed light on Particle-Wave Duality and Super-Luminal (faster than light) effects such as those that may be associated with the EPR (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen) experiments.

This is the second of a series. The first Flatland, Dimensionality, and QM Hidden Variables utilized "Flatland" analogies to explore what Feynman called "quantum weirdness" and Einstein called "spooky action at a distance". In particular, could it be that what we perceive as conflicts between ""particles" and "waves" are due to the limits of our perception to 3-D Space plus Time? If we imagine 4-D Space or higher dimensionality, could that help us better understand the "weirdness" and "spooky" nature of  Quantum Mechanics (QM)? Could we resolve questions about the Nature of the Universe such as deterministic vs probabilistic, discrete vs continuous, brain vs mind, and so on?

ANIMATED GRAPHIC

(a) and (b) in the graphic visualize "Particle-Wave Duality" based on the famous Double-Slit Experiment. In that experiment, sub-atomic objects, such as electrons or photons, act like either particles or waves, depending upon whether or not they are made to pass through a SINGLE or DOUBLE slit. If there is a SINGLE slit, they act like particles. If there is a DOUBLE slit, they act like waves.

(c) in the graphic visualizes "Super-luminal" (faster than the speed of light) effects such as those that may be associated with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiment. In the EPR experiments, the actions of an experimenter "A" appear to instantly affect the results measured by distant experimenter "B".

In the animation, we start with a 3-D object that is a bent red plastic tube:

(a) The bent tube is dropped into Flatland and lands on a Flatland shape that has a SINGLE-width slit in it. As the slit is too narrow for the bent tube to pass thru in that Horizontal orientation, the bent tube bounces and rotates 90° to a Vertical position and penetrates Flatland, leaving only a portion of a nearly vertical part of the bent tube in Flatland. The Flatlanders explore that part (the  tiny yellow circle) and call it a "PARTICLE". 

(b) The bent tube is dropped into Flatland and lands on a Flatland shape that has a DOUBLE-width slit in it. As the slit is  wide enough for the bent tube to pass thru in that Horizontal orientation, the bent tube lands there and  lies flat in a Horizontal position. The Flatlanders explore that part (the yellow wave) and call it a "WAVE".

Note that a 90° rotation in 3-D Space changes a "PARTICLE-like" object into a "WAVE-like" object for Flatlanders, and vice-versa.

Recall that in the first posting of this series Flatland, Dimensionality, and QM Hidden Variables a 90° rotation in 3-D Space changed the appearance of a Cola can from a CIRCLE to a RECTANGLE as viewed by Flatlanders.

A 90° rotation in  higher-dimension world appears to change the basic form of an object in a lower-dimension world. A PARTICLE appears to be a WAVE, a CIRCLE appears to be a RECTANGLE, and vice-versa.

Although not illustrated in the graphic, it turns out that a 180°rotation in a higher-dimensional world changes an object into its MIRROR-image as viewed in a lower-dimensional world.

(c) A human hand penetrates Flatland and is viewed by Flatlanders as five disconnected small yellow circles (or "PARTICLES"). A Flatland triangle-shape happens to touch the pinky of the human hand and the hand reacts by thrusting out its thumb, which happens to push a Flatland square-shape.

The Flatlanders are amazed that touching one PARTICLE (the pinky) causes a totally disconnected and distant PARTICLE (the thumb) to react "instantly" with no apparent means of communication. If we assume the highest speed of communication within Flatland is slower than the 3-D speed of light, to the Flatlanders this reaction seems to be SUPER-luminal (faster than light).


APPLYING FLATLANDER INSIGHT TO QUANTUM MECHANICS In my recent Dialog with Howard Pattee, we speculated on whether the Universe is actually probabilistic, which is the mainstream scientific view, or deterministic, which is definitely the minority view. I speculated that extending the Flatland scenario beyond 2-D and 3-D Space to 4-D and higher-dimensionality, might support an alternative QM interpretation such as that of David Bohm.


In a future posting, I plan to create an animated graphic that visualizes a 4-D Space world in which what we perceive as a PARTICLE-WAVE duality is actually a single object (Bohm's "pilot wave") as perceived by denizens of 4-D world.

Ira Glickstein 

Flatland, Dimensionality, and QM Hidden Variables

The animated graphic above shows our 3-D Space plus Time view of the physical world and contrasts it with the very different view of "Flatlanders" who are restricted to 2-D Space plus Time. This posting explores the possibility that insights from consideration of Flatland may be extended to higher dimensionality and shed light on what Feynman called "quantum weirdness" and Einstein called "spooky action at a distance".

In particular, could it be that what we perceive as conflicts between "particles" and "waves" are due to the limits of our perception to 3-D Space plus Time? If we imagine 4-D Space or higher dimensionality, could that help us better understand the "weirdness" and "spooky" nature of Quantum Mechanics (QM)? Could we resolve questions about the Nature of the Universe such as deterministic vs probabilistic, discrete vs continuous, brain vs mind, and so on?

ANIMATED GRAPHIC

Things we recognize as the same appear different to Flatlanders: 3-D Space residents recognize a can of cola as being the exact same object (a cylindrical solid) regardless of whether it is upright or on its side. However, when a 3-D can of cola intrudes upon the 2-D Space of Flatlanders, they see it as several different kinds of figures depending upon its orientation.

At the left edge of the graphic, the can is upright, and, to the Flatlanders, it appears as a CIRCLE of CONSTANT DIAMETER. When an identical can of cola is on its side, the Flatlanders first see a LINE as the lower part of the can intrudes upon their 2-D Space. Then, as the can is lowered, the LINE transforms into a NARROW RECTANGLE. As the can is lowered further, the RECTANGLE WIDENS. So, what is it? A CIRCLE? A LINE? A VARIABLE WIDTH RECTANGLE?

To we 3-D Space persons, the can is one, and only one, 3-D object, a CYLINDRICAL SOLID. To the Flatlanders, it is several different 1-D and 2-D objects.

Things we recognize as different appear the same to Flatlanders: Continuing to view the animated graphic, we see that a ball appears to us to be a 3-D SPHERE. To the Flatlanders, it is first a 0-D POINT, then a 2-D CIRCLE OF VARIABLE DIAMETER.

Furthermore, when the 3-D SPHERE intrudes such that the diameter of the Flatlander's 2-D CIRCLE is the same as the diameter of the upright can, they cannot distinguish between the can and the ball!

Things we recognize as a single object appear as multiple objects to Flatlanders: Continuing to view the graphic, when a moving 3-D hand intrudes into the 2-D Space, the Flatlanders see a wide variety of 0-D, 1-D, and 2-D objects. At first, when only three fingertips intrude, they see three POINTS. Then, as the fingers penetrate further, they see four small CIRCLES plus a POINT representing the thumb. Further penetration of the hand, beyond the wrist, yields an OVAL as viewed by Flatlanders.

APPLYING FLATLANDER INSIGHT TO QUANTUM MECHANICS

In my recent Dialog with Howard Pattee, we speculated on whether the Universe is actually probabilistic, which is the mainstream scientific view, or deterministic, which is definitely the minority view. I speculated that extending the Flatland scenario beyond 2-D and 3-D Space to 4-D and higher-dimensionality, might support an alternative QM interpretation such as that of David Bohm. This posting, which advocates what may be termed "Superdeterminism", is my attempt to support this alternate view.

Classical Physics vs Quantum Physics

Classical physicists accepted the view that the Universe is deterministic and this was the view of  Spinoza, Einstein, Bohm, (and it is also what I -Ira- would like to believe :^).

Quantum physicists generally accept the "Copenhagen Interpretation" of QM which is that the Universe is probabilistic. In our discussion, Howard supported the view that the Universe is probabilistic. While I accept the general consensus that the probabilistic interpretation of QM has stood the test of time and correctly predicted and explained the results of all experiments conducted to date, I nevertheless take the other view.

The Double Slit Experiment - Particles vs Waves

The Double Slit Experiment demonstrates that photons (or electrons) behave like particles when only one slit is open, but like waves when there are two slits. This raises the question: Is matter in general, or sub-atomic matter in particular, really waves or really particles, or something else?

Perhaps residents of a 4-D Space world would see matter as a single type of object and understand why we 3-D Space world residents sometimes see a wave and sometimes a particle? (The can of cola in the graphic above, which we in the 3-D Space world recognize as a single object no matter its orientation, is observed by Flatlanders either a circle with a continuous edge -or- as a line or rectangle with discrete edges.)

The EPR Paradox - Locality vs Realism

Einstein believed that the Universe exhibited both "Locality" (the influence of a distant event cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light) and "Realism" (the value of a measurement exists before the measurement is made). Experiments conducted in the 1980's appear to prove him wrong and indicate that we must choose between "Locality" and "Realism" - we cannot have both!

I believe Einstein, if he had to choose, would pick "Realism" over "Locality", meaning that a distant event could exert an influence faster than the speed of light. However, perhaps residents of a 4-D Space world would see that the 3-D Space world was curled up within the 4-D Space world such that objects that appear distant in 3-D Space are actually much closer in 4-D Space. In the graphic above, the fingers of the hand appear to Flatlanders as unconnected points or circles, but we, in the 3-D Space world see that they are all parts of a single object.

A cornerstone of the mainstream scientific interpretation of QM is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (1927), which is that it is impossible to exactly measure both the position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle.

In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published a paper that proposed a thought experiment ("EPR") designed to show that Heisenberg Uncertainty was not correct and that QM, as understood and interpreted at the time, was not complete. The EPR idea was to have an experimenter produce two electrons (or photons) that were "entangled" such that they would fly apart at the same velocity in opposite directions and with opposite momentum.

An experimenter at location A would measure the exact time of arrival (and thus velocity) of particle A and a second experimenter at location B (the exact distance in the opposite direction) would measure the momentum of particle B. Since the particles have the same velocity and opposite momenta, this experiment would yield the exact position and momentum of the particles.

According to Wikipedia:

In his groundbreaking 1964 paper, "On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox", physicist John Stewart Bell presented an analogy (based on spin measurements on pairs of entangled electrons) to EPR's hypothetical paradox. Using their reasoning, he said, a choice of measurement setting here should not affect the outcome of a measurement there (and vice versa). After providing a mathematical formulation of locality and realism based on this, he showed specific cases where this would be inconsistent with the predictions of QM.

In 1982, Alain Aspect performed an experiment that did not turn out well for Einstein's expectations. Aspect (and others) experimentally showed that QM was correct and that Einstein's expectations for both "locality" and "realism" could not be supported. In short, you either had to choose "locality" or "realism", but not both!

Einstein had passed away by the time the EPR experiments overturned his expectations. I believe, given the choice, he would insist upon "realism" and abandon "locality". In other words, he would accept that the action of an experimenter "Alice" at point A could instantaneously affect the results obtained by "Bob" at distant point B! (Please note that the EPR experiments did NOT show that INFORMATION could be transmitted from point A to point B faster than the speed of light, only that the actions of the distant experimenter could influence the results obtained locally.)

"Quantum Non-Locality":  The mainstream view of QM is founded on what Feynman called "quantum weirdness" and Einstein termed "spooky action at a distance". The technical term is "quantum non-locality" which means that microscopic measurements may reveal that sub-atomic "particles" that happen to be far apart in Space may never-the-less be "entangled" such that measurement of the state of one "particle" superluminally (faster than the speed of  light) affects the state of the other, no matter how far away it might be!

According to the mainstream view, the action of an experimenter "Alice" at point A could instantaneously affect the results obtained by "Bob" at distant point B! Despite the apparent "weirdness", Feynman accepts the mainstream view. However, Einstein clung to what is now termed "local realism", which is the view that the Universe has both "Locality" and "Realism".

"Locality" means that an object is DIRECTLY influenced ONLY by its immediate surroundings. Thus, the influence of a distant event will be delayed by a length of Time that is at least the distance multiplied by the speed of light. "Locality" is NOT a property of the mainstream interpretation of QM.

"Realism" means that all objects have a VALUE for any possible measurement and that this value EXISTS PRIOR to the measurement. According to the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment, the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM seems to entail that a cat in a sealed box may be both dead and alive until an experimenter opens the box and looks into it! According to that view, the "collapse of the wave function" requires the intervention of a CONSCIOUSNESS. In other words, the Moon may not exist if no one is currently observing it. "Realism" is NOT a property of the mainstream interpretation of QM.

Superdeterminism

According to Wikipedia:

John Bell discussed "Superdeterminism" in a BBC interview.  

There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will. Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the "decision" by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears.  

There is no need for a faster than light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already "knows" what that measurement, and its outcome, will be.  

Although he [Bell]  acknowledged the loophole, he also argued that it was implausible. Even if the measurements performed are chosen by deterministic random number generators, the choices can be assumed to be "effectively free for the purpose at hand," because the machine's choice is altered by a large number of very small effects. It is unlikely for the hidden variable to be sensitive to all of the same small influences that the random number generator was. 

Superdeterminism has also been criticized because of perceived implications regarding the validity of science itself. For example, Anton Zeilinger has commented: "[W]e always implicitly assume the freedom of the experimentalist... This fundamental assumption is essential to doing science. If this were not true, then, I suggest, it would make no sense at all to ask nature questions in an experiment, since then nature could determine what our questions are, and that could guide our questions such that we arrive at a false picture of nature."

As I read the above objections to Superdeterminism (or as I usually call it "Absolute or Strict Causality") it seems to me that Bell and Zeilinger are wrong to assume that the experimenter is "effectively free" or "we always assume the freedom of the experimentalist". As Bell acknowledges in the quote above, it is well known that what we commonly call a "random" number generator running in a digital computer is actually bit-for-bit DETERMINISTIC. That is, if we repeatedly start the "random" number generator with a given key number, the computer will repeat the exact same sequence of supposedly "random" numbers AND that sequence will pass statistical tests of "randomness"!

We all agree that a digital computer is a discrete, finite, deterministic machine. According to my view, so is the Universe. Yes, the Universe is much, much, much more complex, but it, and all biological organisms within the Universe, including humans, are machines! 


[UPDATE 29 Dec 2013] I have posted a follow-up to this Topic, with a new animated graphic, that extends the Flatland 2-D Space vs our 3-D Space dichotomy into higher dimensionality to further explore implications for our understanding of QM, see Flatland, Particle-Wave Duality and Super-Luminal Effects.

Ira Glickstein

Dialog with Howard Pattee - Part 5 - Flatland and Higher Dimensions

From Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid 
by Douglas Hofstadter.
A 3D block projects three different
letters when illuminated along the three axes.

Howard Pattee's 2008 paper Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages is available for download here. I recently re-read it in detail and engaged in what was for me an interesting and rewarding email dialog with Howard.

This is the fifth in a planned multi-part posting that includes portions of our email dialog.

Click for Part 1 - His 2008 Paper

Click for Part 2 - Determinism vs Probability

Click for Part 3 - QM and Chess Analogy

Click for Part 4 - Property Dualism

INTRODUCTION

The following excerpts are from emails from Ira Glickstein to Howard Pattee (Oct 19 11:06 PM, Oct 21 11:56, Oct 23 10:21 PM, Oct 22 12:34 AM) and his replies (Oct 21 3:01 PM, Oct 23 10:21 AM).


[IRA GLICKSTEIN]  Howard, THANKS for your prompt and courteous replies to my questions and critique on your 2008 paper. If I have your permission, I am considering putting a new Topic on my Blog linking to your newly posted 2008 paper and possibly including our recent email dialog. … I think a new Pattee Topic with a specific paper link will be welcomed by your many admirers. So, please let me know how you feel about this "opportunity" :^)

[HOWARD PATTEE]  Ira, You have my permission to publish my more-or-less "scholarly" email discussions with you, but notify or link me to it so I know what's being discussed. …

[IG] Thanks for permission to publish your scholarly replies to my probing response to your 2008 paper. I will certainly link it to you when I publish it …

[HP] Other thoughts. Within a few years 90% of the population will have smartphones, and I estimate that much less than 1% will have any idea of how they work, or even have the background knowledge to understand how they work.

The world is already divided into the very rich and very poor, and all the large financial institutions owned by the rich have proven to be corrupt without help from technology. Technology divides us further into a priesthood of techies (good and evil) and the Luddites. This is now a very unstable situation as we are already experiencing with the NSA/CSS leaks and all the international hacking activities (e.g., Stuxnet and who knows what else?).

Experts say our infrastructure (power, transportation, finance) is at risk. I would say that compared to this technological instability global warming is a minor risk. What do you think? Howard

[IG] Well, as you know, I am a Guest Contributor to the world's most popular climate website. I accept that the mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased since 1880, and that part of that increase is undoubtedly due to human activities such as unprecedented burning of fossil fuels increasing Atmospheric CO2 from about 270 to the current 400 ppmv. However, I am sure the official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has over-estimated the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity - ECS (how much the surface will warm given a doubling of CO2) by at least a factor of two, and perhaps three. That is why all IPCC warming predictions since their first in 1990 have been on the high side compared to measured temperatures.

That IPCC error explains why temperatures have stabilized over the past 17 years even as CO2 levels continue their rapid rise. Thus, most of the warming is due to Natural Cycles, not under human control. The moderate warming and moderate CO2 increase experienced so far may be net beneficial to human civilization, and, in any case, poses no real danger. (And, even if it does pose a risk, since most of it is due to Natural Cycles we humans cannot control, we really cannot stop it, so we will have to adapt, using TECHNOLOGY.)

So, I agree with you that technological instability IS a greater risk than global warming. Technological instability includes, IMHO, a genetic engineering disaster, nuclear disaster, political chaos disaster due to runaway debt triggering riots and class warfare leading to tyranny, etc. But, the only way we can continue human civilization given the inevitability of Natural Cycles of global warming (and global cooling - see the ice core record of alternating ice ages and warm ages about every 100,000 years) IS adaptation using technology.

Thus, we have to accept the risk of technological instability as the price of survival. Ira

[IG] Howard, you earlier brought up property dualism, where a single Material Substance can have both "physical" and "mental" properties as described in the linked Wikipedia entry. I think of these properties as being different aspects or views of a single material thing, such as continuous vs discrete, finite vs infinite, particles vs waves, energy vs matter, mind vs brain, etc. Thinking about it, I came up with the following analogy to Flatland, …

[HP] Ira: … Your idea of knowledge as projection from higher dimensions is essential. It also shows us that there is no one right answer. Complementary views are necessary, even when they appear contradictory …

[IG] … a 3D cylinder (like a can of soda) intrudes upon the Flatlander's 2D plane of existence. If it approaches slowly and side first, they will initially sense a line segment. Then, as it penetrates further they will sense a long, narrow rectangle. Further penetration will result in a somewhat wider rectangle. On the other hand, if the can approaches end first, they will sense a circle of constant diameter.

[HP] See jacket of Hofstadter's Godel_Escher_Bach [NOTE: Illustrated above] where one block's projections cast three different letters. … I think the earliest example of projection is the allegory of Plato's_Cave. …

[IG] So, what is it? A line, a rectangle, or a circle? …

[HP] Projections from higher dimensions is basic in quantum mechanics where we model the "states of reality" by an infinite dimensional, complex, normed vector space (Hilbert space). A measurement is a projection of this space rotated by the choice of the basis vectors. Nobody agrees on what the "states of reality" means. Read a little of Schlosshauer's Elegance_and_Enigma:   The Quantum Interviews (The Frontiers Collection) Maximilian Schlosshauer ...

[IG] Thinking about aspect dualism further, if the can approaches at an angle, it will appear to the Flatlanders to be in any of a variety of shapes. It could look like a trapezoid, an ellipse, a triangle with one curved side, etc. However, when in circle mode, a cylinder will always have a constant diameter.

If a sphere (ball) approaches their plane of existence, they will initially sense a point, then a small circle, increasing in diameter. However, the sphere will never appear to be an ellipse nor anything containing a sharp angle. Flatlanders distinguish a cylinder from a sphere by it having a variable diameter and by never having a sharp angle.

So, if we humans are stuck (evolved) in a world where sensing 3D plus time is all that is needed to survive and replicate, we will forever be limited in how we sense 4D and higher material objects that intrude upon our 3D solid of existence. Sometimes material objects will appear to be continuous (like the edge if a can when it is in its circle mode in Flatland) and sometimes discrete (like the edge of a can when it is in it's rectangle mode in Flatland. Sometimes the intrusions will seem to us to be particles, sometimes waves, and so on.

But what about material vs "information" (otherwise known as brain vs "mind")? Well, I would say that "information" is an abstraction that may never be absolutely true, and will seldom be absolutely false. The Flatlanders may all agree that an intrusive object of type “C” has multiple modes (line, rectangle, trapezoid, circle, ellipse, and so on) and that it never has the ability to change diameter, and that an intrusive object of type “B” may change diameter but never have sharp angles, and thus correctly call them by different names (which we -but not them- understand to be a can and a ball), but that "information" is a mere abstraction that does not capture the material truth. …

[HP] Many physicists interpret the mathematics of QM as an expression of the statistical information that is just sufficient to give the best predictions. The wave function or a vector in Hilbert space is just a strange kind of potential distribution from which we calculate probabilities of measured events (N.B. Born's_Rule and Gleason's _Theorem appear to rule out determinism). When we get new information from a measurement, the probability distribution is immediately changed ("collapse of the wave function").

Born argued that this is also the case in classical mechanics because empirically it is not deterministic. I agree with Born that all dynamic models should be understood as change of probability distributions in time. …

[IG] Thus we (scientists) gather "information" and come up with ways to measure and distinguish different hyper-dimensional objects that intrude upon our solid of existence, and notice and document and quantify the correspondence between "electrons" or "photons" when in their "particle" mode or in their "wave" mode, but we will never really, really apprehend what these hyper-dimensional objects "really" are!

We know how to convert "matter" to "energy" (nuclear energy) but we will never know what they "really" are.

Like the child (or senior citizen) who knows how to skillfully operate his or her HDTV set and DVR and PC and iPad, but has no real knowledge of radio frequency waves or computers or software, we will forever possess incomplete "information" that is a rough abstraction of real, real, "reality"!

[HP] This should be called Ira's modern view of Plato's Cave-- the Allegory of the iPad. Howard

Ira Glickstein

Dialog with Howard Pattee - Part 4 - "Property Dualism"

"Property Dualism" based on Wikipedia

Howard Pattee's 2008 paper "Physical and functional conditions for symbols, codes, and languages" is available for download here. I recently re-read it in detail and engaged in what was for me an interesting and rewarding email dialog with Howard.

This is the fourth in a planned multi-part posting that includes portions of our email dialog.

Click for Part 1 - His 2008 Paper

Click for Part 2 - Determinism vs Probability

Click for Part 3 - QM and Chess Analogy

Click for Part 5 - Flatland and Higher Dimensions

INTRODUCTION

By the time I wrote my Oct 19th email (excerpted below), I had carefully re-read the remaining sections of Howard's paper.

For Blog readers who have not yet read the original paper (and to remind those who have), and to provide context regarding Howard's personal journey from the "material school" to what is now called "biosemiotics", here is the first part of Section 4 of his paper:

4. Early personal history of the problem

There are more requirements for a polymer sequence to function as a symbol besides energy degeneracy, coding rules, and the ability to fold into a specific catalyst. The entire system must be able to replicate and to persist by heritable variation and natural selection. It was only after studying the nature of hierarchical organization, von Neumann’s logic of self-replication, and the measurement problem that I began to understand the essential semiotic requirement that symbols and codes must be part of a language to allow open-ended evolution. To explain this I need to recount a brief personal history.

The symbol-matter problem first arose in my thinking about the origin of life. I have to agree with Laotsu that symbols emerged from the lawful material universe at the origin of life. From an evolutionary point of view I do not see how one can support the claim that semiotic principles are on the same footing as physical laws. Symbols and life are coextensive concepts and their occurrence in the universe is cosmically very recent and exceedingly sparse, at least for life as we know it.

Before the discoveries of the genetic code and protein synthesis, physicists often viewed life as a basic challenge to natural laws, and many expressed doubt that life is reducible to physical laws. Bohr (1933), Delbrück, and Schrödinger are prominent examples of those whose thoughts on the subject are in the literature (e.g., McKaughan, 2005). Like many other physicists at the time, I was challenged by the central question raised by in Schrödinger’s "What Is Life?” He asks how the gene, “that miniature code,” could reliably control the development of such highly complicated organisms. In the 1960s there were two schools of thought; one school focused on the molecular structure and biochemistry of life, the other school (that should now be recognized as “biosemiotics”) focused on the informational aspects of genetic control (e.g., Beadle, 1963; Kendrew 1968; Stent, 1968; Delbrück, 1970).

I first belonged to the material school because my physics research was on x-ray microscopic and micro diffraction techniques for studying cell structure. Because the origin of life certainly requires understanding the origin of higher levels of organization, I also began to study hierarchical structures, specifically how new levels of organization are distinguished and whether higher levels of structure were objective, a descriptive convenience, or an epistemic necessity. …

The following excerpts are from an email from Ira Glickstein to Howard Pattee (Oct 19, 12:30 AM) and his reply (Oct 19, 10:58 AM).

NOTE: In his email, Howard includes the following links to Wikipedia that, for some reason, I could not get to be clickable within the quoted excerpts below, so here they are in clickable form: mind-matter problem, information-entropy distinction, and property dualist.

[IRA GLICKSTEIN] Howard, I just completed reading the remaining sections of your paper in detail. Of course I am always impressed by your writing style and calm, non-threatening attitude of presentation. I found it quite satisfying to once again spend time reading and trying to understand your reasoning processes, and I totally respect your valuable contributions to our understanding of hierarchy theory, complexity, the semiotic cut, biosemiotics, semiotic closure, and so on. So, please take the following in a positive sense as I intend it.

[HOWARD PATTEE] Ira, Here are my comments stimulated by your thoughtful discussion of my paper.

[IG] You contrast two schools of thought in the 1960s, one (with you, initially, as a member) that focused on the "material" aspects of molecular structure and biochemistry of life, while the second focused on the "informational" aspects of genetic control, that you note would now be called "biosemiotics".

You also ask whether hierarchical descriptions of complex systems are simply accepted and employed by humans because they make it easier to describe and understand these complex systems, or whether these levels actually exist. You, I am fairly sure, would now say the correct focus is on the informational aspects and that the hierarchical levels and structures are real and actually exist.

[HP] No, I am not focusing only on informational aspects. All information must have a physical embodiment. Symbols vehicles are matter or energy. I'm focusing on the symbol-matter problem. I consider the symbol-matter problem the primitive and simpler case of the philosophers' mind-matter problem. In physics it is related to the information-entropy distinction. I am a property dualist, or what I call an epistemic dualist; I am not a Cartesian substance dualist which is what you are worried about.

[IG] I would like to join your view, but I am worried that it veers too close to the Scilla and Charybdis of dualism - the idea that material and "spirit" are separate and distinct (and only interact thru the agency of God). You are careful to say you are not a dualist and that everything is material. The "mind" is not separate from the physical brain, and so on. But, is that a tenable position? Useful it definitely is, but is it in any sense to be literally interpreted?

[HP] Yes, I expect to be interpreted literally, which by definition means "following the words of the original very closely and exactly." I am a property dualist (which is not close to substance dualism) and I state that all symbols and symbolic activity require a material basis, which includes all forms of matter and energy, known and unknown.

[IG] At IBM and Lockheed Martin I conceptualized and designed complex avionics systems and software. On my diagrams, I had a hierarchy of software modules inside a number of physical computers. … Now, if you and I examined an actual aircraft, we would find the avionics as a number of metal boxes, connected by wires. … We would be hard-pressed to find that hierarchy of software modules and systems and subsystems I used to conceptualize and design that avionics system! What happened to my neat and easily conceptualized hierarchy of systems, subsystems, components and modules? It vanished into thin air like your fist when you unclench it to shake hands.

The above reasoning seems to me to support the idea that the actual avionics system is merely "material" and all the "informational" and "hierarchical" stuff is simply the way we humans have come up with to make it more convenient for us to conceptualize, design, and construct a complex system.

[HP] It is not "merely material." It is carefully selected matter precisely assembled only by virtue of the information in your brain (which is also a material structure). This design and construction information is certainly not just a "convenience." It is an absolute necessity. The genetic information performs the same design and construction information for the organism.
 
[IG] Even the computer program, when loaded into the computer as a string of electrical pulses, causes millions of semiconductor junctions to physically flip to different electrical states (that we call "1" and "0"). It is all physical!

[HP] Of course as a monist it must be all physical. To a physicalist, existence is all physical. But you have to understand what "physical" really entails. The laws of physics are moot without the information acquired from measurement of initial conditions and boundary conditions. Information structures are boundary conditions that control the lawful dynamics.

[IG] Yes, the specific order of those computer bits does control the displayed symbols and does make the radar antenna scan back and forth and so on, and (if it is the flight control subsystem) actually control the engine and airfoils and make the plane fly, but all the "information" is in the "minds" of us human engineers and programmers. Oh, and our "minds" (as you agree) are merely patterns of neuronal connections among the physical neuronal cell of our brains! So, where is the "information"? The "hierarchy"?

[HP] As I said, the computer code and the neural structure are not "merely" anything. They form the informational boundary conditions that control the dynamics.

[IG] Don't tell me the information and hierarchy is on my diagrams and computer program listings.

[HP] That is exactly what I'm telling you. The hierarchical levels are obvious in computer design, and not so obvious in brains. Without your information there would be no computers, and without genetic information there would be no brains.

[IG] Nope, all those are merely paper with ink marks, or computer chips with various voltages on millions of tiny structures, and displays with complex dots of light. None of this is "information" until a human looks at it, and, even then, all it is is patterns and weights of neural connections. OY!

[HP] Four billion years before humans looked at genes, their information was instructing matter how to replicate and evolve into humans.

[IG] As I write the above I feel a sense of loss. I never really believed in God as an intelligence external to the Universe, but I can imagine how a true believer might feel a big loss if we reasoned him or her out of the "God delusion". Is the "mind" a delusion if we really believe it exists? But you say you are a materialist, and I believe you are.

[HP] What do you think you have lost? Eddington: "There is nothing to prevent the assemblage of atoms constituting a brain from being of itself a thinking object [with 'free will'] in virtue of that nature which physics [the laws] leaves undetermined and undeterminable." Most of the structures in the universe are not determined by laws, but by chance (Gell-Mann's "frozen accidents").

[IG] … the "mind" is a word we use to conveniently describe something that is too complex to describe in full neuronal detail. Just as "God" is a word we use to describe the aspects of the Universe that we will never understand in full detail - the wonderful Laws of Nature, the Universal substance we can only perceive as interchangeable "energy" and "matter", of "waves" and "particles", of "random" and "deterministic", of "infinite" and "finite", of "continuous" and "discrete". … but I am optimistic:

“My candle burns at both ends / It will not last the night; / But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends - / It gives a lovely light.” Edna St. Vincent Millay, "A Few Figs from Thistles", 1920

Love from Ira (who did not expect this tome to keep me up past midnight)