Putting A Face On Machine Mutation - 6

If Atoms Were Cars

When does smashing something not damage it and distort its composition?

In a previous Dredd Blog post the "collider" experiments were seen as and discussed as a strange technique:

"One has to wonder sometimes about how much a warmongering ideology makes an impact on that particular discipline within the realm of what we call "science":

"Have you ever heard of atom smashers? Certain particle accelerators, called colliders, are special machines that can “smash” atoms into pieces using charged particles like protons or electrons. First, the accelerator uses electricity to “push” the charged particles along a path, making them go faster and faster. The charged particles can go almost as fast as the speed of light. Then, the accelerator uses magnets to steer the particles at top speed into a target. When the fast-moving particles hit the target, the atoms in the target split apart. Scientists study the pieces to learn what makes up an atom and how it is held together."

(About Particle Accelerators and Radiation Research). And one has to wonder sometimes about how much warmongering ideology impacts upon the realm of what we call "sports":

University of Demolition Research

"Demolition derby is a non-racing motorsport usually presented at county fairs and festivals. While rules vary from event to event, the typical demolition derby event consists of five or more drivers competing by deliberately ramming their vehicles into one another. The last driver whose vehicle is still operational is awarded the victory. Demolition derbies originated in the United States and quickly spread to other Western nations. For example, Australia's first demolition derby took place in January 1963. In the UK and parts of Europe, demolition derbies (sometimes called 'destruction derbies') are often held at the end of a full day of banger racing." 

(Demolition Derby). Accelerating things to the highest speed they can attain, then crashing them together is not a good way to find out what they are made of at the "factory", or what their natural shape is/was."

(On The Origin of The Containment Entity - 3). One wonders why the "colliders" (not a rock band) are still being used to make crushing discoveries.

[about 49.38 minutes into the video:]

... the LHC ... discovered the Higgs boson in 2012. And soon afterwards,
it closed down for two years. It had an upgrade. And last year
in 2015, the LHC turned on again with twice the energy that it
had when it discovered the Higgs. And the goal was twofold.
The goal was firstly to understand the Higgs better, which it has
done fantastically, [contra see this or this] and secondly, to discover new physics that
lies beyond the Higgs, new physics beyond the standard model ...
... [at about 54.20]
... So the LHC has been running. It's been running for two years. It's
been running like an absolute dream. It's a perfect machine. Two years.
This is what it's seen. Absolutely nothing. All of these fantastic
beautiful ideas that we've had, none of them are showing up at all.

(Quantum Fields: The Real Building Blocks of the Universe, video link). I wonder about this because as an astute physicist insists, we have known the tiniest yet largest 'part' of nature almost since dirt was first discovered:

"The fundamental building blocks of nature are fluid-like substances which are spread throughout the entire universe and ripple in strange and interesting ways. That's the fundamental reality in which we live. These fluid-like substances we have a name for. We call them fields. So this is a picture of a field. This isn't the kind of field that physicists have in mind. You know, this is what you think a field is if you're a farmer or if you're a normal person. If you're a physicist, you have a very different picture in your mind when you think about fields. And I'll tell you the general definition of a field, and then we'll go through some examples so that you get familiar with this. The physicist's definition of a field is the following. It's something that, as I said, is spread everywhere throughout the universe. It's something that takes a particular value at every point in space. And what's more, that value can change in time. So a good picture to have your mind is fluid, which ripples and sways throughout the universe. Now, it's not a new idea. It's not an idea that we've just come up with. It's an idea which dates back almost 200 years. And like so many other things in science, it's an idea which originated in this very room. Because as I'm sure many of you are aware, this is the home of Michael Faraday. And Michael Faraday initiated this lecture series in 1825. He gave over a hundred of these Friday evening discourses, and the vast majority of these were on his own discoveries on the experiments he did on electricity and magnetism. So he did many, many things in electricity and magnetism over many decades. And in doing, so he built up an intuition for how electric and magnetic phenomena work. And the intuition is what we now call the electric and magnetic field. So what he envisaged was that threaded everywhere throughout space were these invisible objects called the electric and magnetic fields. Now, we learned this in school. Again, it's something that we sort of take for granted because we learned it at an early age, and we don't sort of appreciate just how big of a radical step this idea of Faraday's is. I want to stress, it's one of the most revolutionary abstract ideas in the history of science, that these electric and magnetic fields exist."

(ibid). So, we are smashing things that are not quantum fields to find out what pieces of smashed not-fields seem to look like?

There is a lot of 'contra' in academia that is not satisfied with some of the dogma of modern quantum physics (Unzicker's Real Physics, In Search Of Ocean Heat - 20).

That is to be expected (How To Identify The Despotic Minority - 16).

The previous post in this series is here.

---

---

In Search Of Ocean Heat - 20

Fig. 1 Photons-All Sectors

I. Potential Enthalpy

In today's post we are taking a look at ocean heat content, a.k.a. "potential enthalpy" (h^o) in Antarctic waters.

We know that ocean heat content (amount of joules per kg) in seawater is radiated to colder water around it.

In two previous posts of this series we took a look at, among other things, how potential enthalpy (h^o) is calculated  (In Search Of Ocean Heat - 18, In Search Of Ocean Heat - 19). It is a TEOS-10 concept.

II. Graphs

Today's graphs (Fig. 1 - Fig. 9, from Sectors A, B, and All-Sectors) indicate that in measurements in Epipelagic depths some or all of the values derived from potential enthalpy values become negative numbers.

Fig. 2 Photons-Sector B

That is the opposite of what happens in seawater north of Antarctica and south of the Arctic Ocean where warmer seawater prevails at the surface or near the surface.

At polar regions the ocean surface seawater begins at the bottom of any floating ice shelf flowing from land-based glaciers.

So, there is some question as to what negative potential enthalpy (h^o) values mean when they are calculated using the in situ measurement averages of temperature and salinity.

It is reasonable to conclude that negative (h^o) values indicate how much warming (Conservative Temperature increase) would have to take place before the potential enthalpy value becomes a positive number again.

Fig. 3 Photons-Sector A

The most surprising take-home is that the warmer waters are generally down below the Epipelagic depths and in the Mesopelagic and Bathypelagic depths in Antarctic tidewaters.

Which means that the Second Law of Thermodynamics (hot/warm flows to cold/cooler) would indicate that the infrared photon flow is from deeper to shallower.

The laws of the thermodynamic effects in the ocean is solid science according to probably the most famous scientist of our time.

The TEOS-10 version is Josiah Gibbs inspired, of which Albert Einstein was quite respectful:

"Listening to Gibbs, who is perhaps the most influential historical voice in ocean thermodynamics (encapsulated in TEOS-10) would also help:

"Albert Einstein called him 'the greatest mind in American history.' Gibbs’s studies of thermodynamics and discoveries in statistical mechanics paved the way for many of Einstein’s later discoveries."

(American Physical Society or APSloane). Especially since "encapsulated" means:

"TEOS-10 is based on a Gibbs function formulation from which all thermodynamic properties of seawater (density, enthalpy, entropy sound speed, etc.) can be derived in a thermodynamically consistent manner."

(Thermodynamic Equation Of Seawater - 2010, emphasis added)."

(In Search Of Ocean Heat - 5). The graph lines were projected by calculating the 'height' (Z), pressure (P), Absolute Salinity (SA), Conservative Temperature (CT) of World Ocean Database and Princeton University in situ measurements.

Fig. 4 (h^o)-All Sectors

Those detailed measurements have been taken around the coast of Antarctica for long enough that we can see that the laws of thermodynamics are clearly major players.

That is why Dredd Blog presents graphs and other data generated by the TEOS-10 C++ library [ZIP file].

When TEOS-10 is in the toolbox of oceanographic researchers they will be able to use Gibbs functions along with many others to determine what researchers without them are likely to miss (Thermosteric Sealevel Change Revisited - 4).

III. Complaints By Scientists

Fig. 5 (h^o)-Sector B

Since Albert Einstein himself said that the thermodynamics oriented work by Gibbs was likely to outlast, in terms of accuracy, quantum mechanics of more speculative sorts, let's listen to some of the scientists who agree with Albert's suspicions:

 

Alexander Unzicker

The Physics Detective

These contra hypotheses are not coming from scientists who reject quantum mechanics, no, they only complain about the inaccurate hypotheses running amok in some of the work of current physics researchers.

Fig. 6 (h^o)-Sector A

Like Dredd Blog, they merely want a better body of quantum physics which is not composed of non-falsifiable hypotheses, radical speculation, and unverified allegations (e.g. Small Brains Considered - 7).

The "contra" science at issue is not limited to quantum mechanics and unfathomable subjects.

Note that a team of prominent oceanographers are concerned that oceanographic related textbooks do not understand or present sound ocean heat dynamics.

Over the years Dredd Blog has furnished posts featuring concerns scientists have about this and related issues:

Fig. 7 CT-All Sectors

"The quest in this work is to derive a variable that is conservative, independent of adiabatic changes in pressure, and whose conservation equation is the oceanic version of the first law of thermodynamics. That is, we seek a variable whose advection and diffusion can be interpreted as the advection and diffusion of ‘heat.’ In other words, we seek to answer the question, ‘what is heat’ in the ocean?
     ...

The variable that is currently used for this purpose in ocean models is potential temperature referenced to the sea surface, θ, but it does not accurately represent the conservation of heat because of (i) the variation of specific heat with salinity and (ii) the dependence of the total differential of enthalpy on variations of salinity.
...

For example, an increase in pressure of 107 Pa (1000 dbar), without exchange of heat or salt, causes a change in enthalpy that is equivalent to about 2.5ЊC. We show in this paper that in contrast to enthalpy, potential enthalpy does have the desired properties to embody the meaning of the first law.

    ...

Fig. 8 CT-Sector B

Present treatment of oceanic heat fluxes is clearly inconsistent. Ocean models treat potential temperature as a conservative variable and calculate the heat flux across oceanic sections using a constant value of heat capacity. By contrast, heat flux through sections of observed data is often calculated using a variable specific heat multiplying the flux of potential temperature per unit area (Bryan 1962; Macdonald et al. 1994; Saunders 1995; Bacon and Fofonoff 1996). Here it is shown that the theoretical justification of this second approach is flawed on three counts. While the errors involved are small, it is clearly less than satisfactory to have conflicting practices in the observational and modeling parts of physical oceanography, particularly as an accurate and convenient solution can be found.
    ...
 it is perfectly valid to talk of potential enthalpy, h0, as the 'heat content' ...”

(Potential Enthalpy: A Conservative Oceanic Variable for Evaluating Heat Content and Heat Fluxes, McDougall 2003, pp. 945-46, emphasis added ...

(In Search Of Ocean Heat, Dredd Blog 2018). These scientists are for real.

Even the publication "Oceanography The Official Magazine of The Oceanography Society" in a recent issue asked:

"Can Climate Models Be Trusted?

Fig. 9 CT-Sector A

'Climate models have long predicted a significant AMOC slowdown in response to global warming, including a corresponding cold blob (see Figure 12 for a recent version). In fact, I wrote two commentary pieces for Nature on that topic in the 1990s (Rahmstorf, 1997, 1999), and then as now, the amount of predicted weakening differed greatly among different models. The latest, sixth IPCC report found that, even for a low emissions scenario, the AMOC will weaken between 4% and 46% by the year 2100, depending on the model. In the high emissions scenario, the reduction ranges between 17% and 55% (IPCC, 2021). The IPCC report also concluded: “While there is medium confidence that the projected decline in the AMOC will not involve an abrupt collapse before 2100, such a collapse might be triggered by an unexpected meltwater influx from the Greenland Ice Sheet.'

...

'Implications: Uncertainty Is Not Our Friend

'The risk of a critical AMOC transition is real and very serious, even if we cannot confidently predict when and whether this will happen. ' "

(Oceanography Journal, 2024, emphasis added). Take that seriously.

IV. Closing Comments

All we are saying is give accuracy a chance by using up-to-date official developments:

"TEOS-10 (Thermodynamic Equation of Seawater - 2010) is the international standard for the use and calculation of the thermodynamic properties of seawater" 

(Wikipedia). It has been over a decade since TEOS-10 was instituted.

The previous post in this series is here.