Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Ron W Nielsen

Publications and source records attributed to Ron W Nielsen.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2023

Towards a better understanding of the Anthropocene

(1) Results of analysis of new sets of anthropogenic data are presented. They confirm earlier results of similar analyses. The expected and inevitable massive deceleration of human-induced global change process is demonstrated as an ongoing phenomenon. Human activities and impacts on the Earth System, while in general remaining strong, are now systematically slowing down. (2) It is now clearly stated, by supporters of the concept of the Great Acceleration, that the so-called Great Acceleration is not acceleration and that this term is open to misinterpretation. (3) There was no systematic sharp increase in anthropogenic growth trajectories around 1950 CE (Common Era) or around any other recent time. (4) Close inspection of data suggests that the Anthropocene is not a geological epoch, but a historical event, also reflected as a geological event. (5) The Anthropocene has no convincingly determinable beginning. What is described as the Anthropocene appears to be an integral part of a long process transcending the Pleistocene and Holocene epochs, a natural continuation of the past developments of human interaction with nature. (6) Using the concept of the Jinji unconformity, the embryonic beginning of human (hominid) interaction with the environment could be placed at the time of the first use of stone tools millions of years ago. Gradually the intensity of this interaction was increasing and culminated monotonically in an event described as the Anthropocene.

physics.soc-ph↗
arXiv2017

Computer simulations of the extinction of megafauna

Computer simulations carried out by Alroy (2001) are examined. Contrary to the claim of their Author, there is no convincing evidence that the extinction of megafauna was caused by humans. Intentionally or unintentionally, attempt was made to force the human-induced extinction of megafauna by assuming an absurdly fast growth of the hypothetical human population in North America. The assumed growth rate was around two-orders of magnitude larger than normally expected. It is well known that the past growth of human population was slow, but in these simulations, the growth of the hypothetical human population was unreasonably fast. However, even under this unreasonable assumption about the growth of human population, computer simulations do not support the postulate of human-assisted extinction of megafauna because there is no clear correlation between the growth of the hypothetical human population and the distributions describing the decline in the population of megafauna.

q-bio.PE↗
arXiv2017

Extinction of megafauna: How could the research get so wrong?

Published evidence for the human-mediated extinction of megafauna is examined and is found to be unsubstantiated. It is shown that the claimed evidence is not based on data describing the growth of human population but on the fabricated data. However, even these fabricated data, which were claimed to support the human-induced extinction of megafauna, contradict this claim. The belief in the human-induced extinction of megafauna appears to be so strong that even contradicting evidence based on the fabricated data is interpreted as the evidence supporting this belief.

q-bio.PE↗
arXiv2016

Nuclear Reactions: Mechanism and Spectroscopy. Volume I

Volume I of two. This document could be of interest to anyone who wants to have a comprehensive inside information about the research in nuclear physics from its early beginnings to later years. It describes highlights of my research work from the late 1950s to the late 1980s. It presents a panorama of experimental and theoretical methods used in the study of nuclear reactions (their mechanism and their application to the study of nuclear structure), the panorama ranging from simple detection techniques used in the early research to more complicated in later years, from simple theoretical interpretations to more complicated descriptions. This document describes my research work in Poland, Australia, Switzerland and Germany using various particle accelerators and a wide range of experimental and theoretical techniques. It presents a typical cross section of experimental and theoretical work in the early and later stages of nuclear research in the field of nuclear reactions

nucl-ex↗
arXiv2016

The unresolved mystery of the great divergence is solved

The so-called great divergence in the income per capita is described in the Unified Growth Theory as the mind-boggling and unresolved mystery about the growth process. This mystery has now been solved: the great divergence never happened. It was created by the manipulation of data. Economic growth in various regions is at different levels of development but it follows similar, non-divergent trajectories. Unified Growth Theory is shown yet again to be incorrect and scientifically unacceptable. It promotes incorrect and even potentially dangerous concepts. The distorted presentation of data supporting the concept of the great divergence shows that economic growth is now developing along moderately-increasing trajectories but mathematical analysis of the same data and even their undistorted presentation shows that these trajectories are now increasing approximately vertically with time. So, while the distorted presentation of data used in the Unified Growth Theory suggests generally sustainable and secure economic growth, the undistorted presentation of data demonstrates that the growth is unsustainable and insecure. The concept of takeoffs from stagnation to the sustained-growth regime promoted in the Unified Growth Theory is also dangerously misleading because it suggests a sustainable and prosperous future while the mathematical analysis of data shows that the current economic growth is insecure and unsustainable.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2016

Mathematical analysis of historical income per capita distributions

Data describing historical growth of income per capita [Gross Domestic Product per capita (GDP/cap)] for the world economic growth and for the growth in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, former USSR, Africa and Latin America are analysed. They follow closely the linearly-modulated hyperbolic distributions represented by the ratios of hyperbolic distributions obtained by fitting the GDP and population data. Results of this analysis demonstrate that income per capita was increasing monotonically. There was no stagnation and there were no transitions from stagnation to growth. The usually postulated dramatic escapes from the Malthusian trap never happened because there was no trap. Unified Growth Theory is fundamentally incorrect because its central postulates are contradicted repeatedly by data, which were used but never analysed during the formulation of this theory. The large body of readily-available data opens new avenues for the economic and demographic research. They show that certain fundamental postulates revolving around the concept of Malthusian stagnation need to be replaced by the evidence-based interpretations. Within the range of analysable data, which for the growth of population extends down to 10,000 BC, growth of human population and economic growth were hyperbolic. There was no Malthusian stagnation and there were no transitions to distinctly faster trajectories. Industrial Revolution had no impact on changing growth trajectories.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2016

Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the Mathematical Analysis of the Historical Growth of Human Population

Data describing the historical growth of human population global and regional (Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, former USSR, Africa and Latin America) are analysed. Results are in harmony with the earlier analysis of the historical growth of the world population in the past 12,000 years and with a similar but limited study carried out over 50 years ago. This analysis is also in harmony with the study of the historical economic growth. Within the range of analysable data, there was no Malthusian stagnation. Takeoffs from stagnation to growth, postulated by the Unified Growth Theory never happened. There were no escapes from the Malthusian trap because there was no trap. This analysis and the earlier studies of the Gross Domestic Product lead to the conclusion that there were also no takeoffs in the income per capita distributions, claimed by the Unified Growth Theory. Consequently, the claimed in this theory differential timing in takeoffs never happened. Unified Growth Theory is contradicted yet again by the mathematical analysis of the same data, which were used, but never analysed, during the formulation of this theory. However, this study, as well as the earlier publications on the related topics, shows also that some fundamental postulates used in the economic and demographic research are repeatedly contradicted by the mathematical analysis of data.

q-bio.PE↗
arXiv2016

Puzzling properties of the historical growth rate of income per capita explained

Galor discovered many mysteries of the growth process. He lists them in his Unified Growth Theory and wonders how they can be explained. Close inspection of his mysteries reveals that they are of his own creation. They do not exist. He created them by his habitually distorted presentation of data. One of his self-created mysteries is the mystery of the alleged sudden spurt in the growth rate of income per capita. This sudden spurt never happened. In order to understand the growth rate of income per capita, its mathematical properties are now explored and explained. The explanation is illustrated using the historical world economic growth. Galor also wonders about the sudden spurt in the growth rate of population. We show that this sudden spurt was also created by the distorted presentation of data. The mechanism of the historical economic growth and of the growth of human population is yet to be explained but it would be unproductive to try to explain the non-existing and self-created mysteries of the growth process described in the scientifically unacceptable Unified Growth Theory. However, the problem is much deeper than just the examination of this theory. Demographic Growth Theory is based on the incorrect but deeply entrenched postulates developed by accretion over many years and now generally accepted in the economic and demographic research, postulates revolving around the concept of Malthusian stagnation and around a transition from stagnation to growth. The study presented here and earlier similar publications show that these postulates need to be replaced by interpretations based on the mathematical analysis of data and on the correct understanding of hyperbolic distributions.

q-fin.GN↗
arXiv2016

Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the Economic Growth in Latin America

Historical economic growth in Latin America is analysed using the data of Maddison. Unified Growth Theory is found to be contradicted by these data in the same way as it is contradicted by the economic growth in Africa, Asia, former USSR, Western Europe, Eastern Europe and by the world economic growth. Paradoxically, Unified Growth Theory is repeatedly and consistently contradicted by the same data, which were used, but never properly analysed, during the formulation of this theory. Unified Growth Theory does not explain the mechanism of the economic growth because it explains features contradicted by data. This theory is based fundamentally on the unfortunate lack of understanding of the properties of hyperbolic distribution and on the unscientific analysis of data. There was no transition from stagnation to growth at the end of the alleged Malthusian regime because the economic growth was hyperbolic. There was no escape from Malthusian trap because there was no trap. There was no takeoff. On the contrary, at the time of the alleged takeoff economic growth started to be diverted to a slower trajectory. Unified Growth Theory is dissociated from the reality. This theory needs to be revised or replaced. In its present form, it is a collection of irrelevant stories based on impressions and on the unscientific use of data.

q-fin.GN↗
arXiv2016

Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the Absence of Takeoffs in the Gross Domestic Product

Data describing historical economic growth are analysed. They demonstrate convincingly that the takeoffs from stagnation to growth, claimed in the Unified Growth Theory, never happened. This theory is again contradicted by data, which were used, but never properly analysed, during its formulation. The absence of the claimed takeoffs demonstrates also that the postulate of the differential takeoffs is contradicted by data.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2016

The Postulate of the Three Regimes of Economic Growth Contradicted by Data

Economic growth in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, countries of the former USSR, Africa and Latin America were analysed. It is demonstrated that the fundamental postulate of the Unified Growth Theory about the existence of the three regimes of growth (Malthusian regime, post-Malthusian regime and sustained-growth regime) is contradicted by data. These regimes did not exist. In particular, there was no escape from the Malthusian trap because there was no trap. Economic growth in all these regions was not stagnant but hyperbolic. Unified Growth Theory is fundamentally incorrect. However, this theory is also dangerously misleading because it claims a transition from the endless epoch of stagnation to the new era of sustained economic growth, the interpretation creating the sense of security and a promise of prosperity. The data show that the opposite is true. Economic growth in the past was sustained and secure. Now, it is supported by the increasing ecological deficit. The long-term sustained and secure economic growth has yet to be created. It did not happen automatically, as suggested incorrectly by the Unified Growth Theory.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2016

Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the Economic Growth in Asia

Historical economic growth in Asia (excluding Japan) is analysed. It is shown that Unified Growth Theory is contradicted by the data, which were used (but not analysed) during the formulation of this theory. Unified Growth Theory does not explain the mechanism of economic growth. It explains the mechanism of Malthusian stagnation, which did not exist and it explains the mechanism of the transition from stagnation to growth that did not happen. The data show that the economic growth in Asia was never stagnant but hyperbolic. The alleged dramatic takeoff around 1900 or around any other time did not happen. However, the theory contains also a dangerous and strongly-misleading concept that after a long epoch of stagnation we have now entered the epoch of sustained economic growth, the concept creating the sense of security. The opposite is true. After the epoch of sustained and secure economic growth we have now entered the epoch of a fast-increasing and insecure economic growth.

q-fin.GN↗
arXiv2016

Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the Economic Growth in the Former USSR

Historical economic growth in countries of the former USSR is analysed. It is shown that Unified Growth Theory is contradicted by the data, which were used, but not analysed, during the formulation of this theory. Unified Growth Theory does not explain the mechanism of economic growth. It explains the mechanism of Malthusian stagnation, which did not exist and it explains the mechanism of the transition from stagnation to growth that did not happen. Unified Growth Theory is full of stories but it is hard to decide which of them are reliable because they are based on unprofessional examination of data. The data show that the economic growth in the former USSR was never stagnant but hyperbolic. Industrial Revolution did not boost the economic growth in the former USSR. Unified Growth Theory needs to be revised or replaced by a reliable theory to reconcile it with data and to avoid creating the unwarranted sense of security about the current economic growth.

q-fin.GN↗
arXiv2016

Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the Economic Growth in Europe

Historical economic growth in Western and Eastern Europe is analysed. These regions should have produced the best and the most convincing confirmation of the Unified Growth Theory because they, and in particular Western Europe, were the centre of the Industrial Revolution, which according to Galor was the prime engine of economic growth. However, the data for Western and Eastern Europe show a remarkable disagreement with the Unified Growth Theory. There is no connection, whatever, between the data and the Unified Growth Theory. The data show that there was never a transition from stagnation to growth because there was no stagnation. Industrial Revolution, which should have the strongest influence in these regions, had absolutely no impact on changing the economic growth trajectories. The alleged remarkable or stunning escape from Malthusian trap did not happen because there was no trap. Unified Growth Theory does not explain the mechanism of the economic growth because its explanations are based on mythical features, which did not exist, the features contradicted by data. This theory needs to be either thoroughly revised or most likely replaced by a theory supported by a professional analysis of economic growth data.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2016

Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the Economic Growth in Africa

One of the fundamental postulates of the Unified Growth Theory is the claimed existence of three distinctly different regimes of economic growth governed by three distinctly different mechanisms of growth. However, Galor also proposed that the timing of these regimes is different for developed countries and for less-developed countries. Africa is the perfect example of economic growth in less-developed countries. The data used by Galor, but never properly investigated, are now analysed. They turn out to be in dramatic contradiction of this theory.

econ.GN↗
arXiv2015

Unified Growth Theory Contradicted by the GDP/cap Data

Mathematical properties of the historical GDP/cap distributions are discussed and explained. These distributions are frequently incorrectly interpreted and the Unified Growth Theory is an outstanding example of such common misconceptions. It is shown here that the fundamental postulates of this theory are contradicted by the data used in its formulation. The postulated three regimes of growth did not exist and there was no takeoff at any time. It is demonstrated that features interpreted as three regimes of growth represent just mathematical properties of a single, monotonically-increasing distribution, indicating that a single mechanism should be used to explain the historical economic growth. It is shown that using different socio-economic conditions for different perceived parts of the historical GDP/cap data is irrelevant and scientifically unjustified. The GDP/cap growth was indeed increasing slowly over a long time and fast over a short time but these features represent a single, uniform and uninterrupted growth process, which should be interpreted as whole using a single mechanism of growth.

q-fin.GN↗
arXiv2015

Early Warning Signs of the Economic Crisis in Greece: A Warning for Other Countries and Regions

Warning signs about the developing economic crisis in Greece were present in the growth rate of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and in the growth of the GDP well before the economic collapse. The growth rate was strongly unstable. On average, in less than 50 years, it decreased 10-folds but after reaching a low minimum it quickly increased 6-folds only to crash before completing the full cycle. The decreasing growth rate was leading to an asymptotic maximum of the GDP but it was soon replaced by a fast-increasing growth rate propelling the GDP along a pseudo-hyperbolic trajectory, which if continued would have escaped to infinity in 2017. Such a growth could not have been possibly supported. Under these conditions, the economic collapse in Greece was inevitable.

q-fin.GN↗