Setterfield and the variable speed of light model

[Helen]

I've been ignoring a lot of posts here because I have been busy culling through years of Barry's emails and responses to people (I'm not done yet), and getting them up on a discussions page on his website.

So, for those who are at all interested in the subject, here
http://www.setterfield.org/Discussions.htm

There's more coming, but that is a good sized chunk of stuff there now. It should help for anyone who is interested. By the way, I know that the subtitles on the index page there don't link yet. They will as soon as I have had some sleep...

next day edit: they link now!

[ April 03, 2003, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Helen ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Setterfield faster than light theory remains solidly in opposition to the astronomical evidence. The key point is that he asserts light has slowed down tremendously by factors of a million and more from the time the light started out from the objects we see in the heavens.

Something, therefore, illuminated by that now greatly slowed light, should now appear before our eyes to be moving slower by that same factor. But there is no evidence that ANYTHING has been observed to slow down in spite of being "played out" before our eyes and astronomical instruments by light now moving over a million times slower than when generated.

For example, cepheid variables in other galaxies continue to wax and wane in their wonted frequencies. Even that part of their cycle that involves matter blown up into space and falling back to the surface of the star under the influence of the star's gravity seems to take place in unslowed, normal time frames.

For example, galaxy rotation speeds, determined by stars orbiting within their galaxies under the influence of gravity, are directly measured to continue at the same rates clear out to the farthest observable galaxies. Galactic rotation speeds have been extensively measured very carefully from our own galaxy out to the edges of the observable universe. Where is the predicted slowing of rotation with distance? It is absent.

We observe, then, without exception, that all things maintain the same temporal relationships regardless of distance, including those things determined by the force of gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces. There is not one single evidence of variation from the ratios we observe in our present light-speed epoch. That is, no variation appropriate to Setterfield's extreme values.

In fact, there is a weak slowing that necessarily accompanies the red shifts of the galaxies. For a red shift of z = 1, then everything is observed to be seen moving slower by a factor of 2^1, which is two. This is because the object with that red shift is moving away from us and light must travel progressively further and further distances as the time goes by. For those objects showing a red shift due to being in a gravity well, the slowing represents a true slowing of time itself at the bottom of gravity wells. This slowing is well understood in the astronomical community and compensated for in normal discussion of the evidence. Things observed at a red shift of z=2 are observed to be moving slower by a factor of 2^2, or 4. This modest slowing that is directly coupled to the red shift of retreating objects does not count as being a point in favor of Setterfield light speed change theory, mainly because it is such a small amount compared to what Setterfield theory requires.

 

[Helen]

Well, Paul, I can tell you didn't read the page! Here are some of the responses to your repeated and unchanged crits:

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Setterfield faster than light theory remains solidly in opposition to the astronomical evidence. The key point is that he asserts light has slowed down tremendously by factors of a million and more from the time the light started out from the objects we see in the heavens.

Something, therefore, illuminated by that now greatly slowed light, should now appear before our eyes to be moving slower by that same factor. But there is no evidence that ANYTHING has been observed to slow down in spite of being "played out" before our eyes and astronomical instruments by light now moving over a million times slower than when generated.

Here: http://www.setterfield.org/AstronomicalDiscussion.htm#slow

We observe, then, without exception, that all things maintain the same temporal relationships regardless of distance, including those things determined by the force of gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces. There is not one single evidence of variation from the ratios we observe in our present light-speed epoch. That is, no variation appropriate to Setterfield's extreme values.

Setterfield is not arguing ratios, Paul. For instance 'hc' remains invariant. However both Planck's constant 'h' and the speed of light 'c' have been measured as changing -- and changing inversely to each other.

The recommended values for h, according to the physics literature, as referenced, are

1939 -- 6.6214 erg-sec x 10^-27
1941 -- 6.6242
1947 -- 6.6237
1950 -- 6.62363
1952 -- 6.6252
1955 -- 6.62517
1963 -- 6.62559
1965 -- 6.62592
1969 -- 6.626196
1973 -- 6.626227
1986 -- 6.626076

If you graph these out on a graph sensitive enough on the axes to show the changes, you will see a consistent trend upward.

Here are the references for the above:

1939 -- Dunnington, F.G., The Atomic Constants, Reviews of Modern Physics, 11 (2), 65-83, Apr. 1939

1941 -- Birge, R.T., A New Table of Values of the General Physical Constants, Reviews of Modern Physics, 13 (4), 233-239, Oct. 1941

1947 -- DuMond, J.W.M., and E.R. Cohen, Our Knowledge of the Atomic Constants F, N, m and h in 1947, and of Other Constants Derivable Therefrom, Reviews of Modern Physics, 20 (1), 82-108, Jan. 1948

1950 -- Bearden, J.A., and H.M. Watts, A Re-Evaluation of the Fundamental Atomic Constants, Physical Review, 81, 73-81, Jan. 1, 1951

1952 -- DuMond, J.W.M., and E.R. Cohen, Least Squares Adjustment of the Atomic Constants, 1952, Reviews of Modern Physics, 25 (3), 691-708, Jul. 1953

1955 -- Cohen, E.R., et al., Analysis of Variance of the 1952 Data on the Atomic Constants and a New Adjustment, 1955, Reviews of Modern Physics, 27 (4), 363-380, Oct. 1955

1963 -- Cohen, E.R., and J.W.M. DuMond, Present Status of our Knowledge of the Numerical Values of the Fundamental Constants, p.152-186, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Nuclidic Masses, Vienna, Austria, July 15-19, 1963, W.H. Johnson, Jr., editor, Springer-Verlag, Wien, 1964

1965 -- Cohen, E.R., and J.W.M. DuMond, Our Knowledge of the Fundamental Constants of Physics and Chemistry in 1965, Reviews of Modern Physics, 37 (4), 537-594, Oct. 1965

1969 -- Taylor, B.N., W.H. Parker, D.N. Langenberg, Determination of e/h Using Macroscopic Quantum Phase Coherence in Superconductors: Implications for Quantum Electrodynamics and the Fundamental Physical Constants, Reviews of Modern Physics, 41 (3), 375-496, Jul. 1969

1973 -- Cohen, E.R., and B.N. Taylor, The 1973 Least-Squares Adjustment of the Fundamental Constants, Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data, 2 (4), 663-718, 1973

1986 -- E.R. Cohen , B.M. Taylor, The 1986 Adjustment of the Fundamental Physical Constants, Codata Bulletin #63, Pergamum Press, Nov. 1986

As one would expect, the changes in subatomic masses are consistent with this (same references for same years)

1939 -- 9.1028 x 10^-28 grams
1941 -- 9.1066
1947 -- 9.1055
1950 -- 9.1071
1952 -- 9.1085
1955 -- 9.1083
1963 -- 9.10908
1965 -- 9.10934
1969 -- 9.109558
1973 -- 9.10956
1986 -- 9.10939

In fact, there is a weak slowing that necessarily accompanies the red shifts of the galaxies. For a red shift of z = 1, then everything is observed to be seen moving slower by a factor of 2^1, which is two. This is because the object with that red shift is moving away from us and light must travel progressively further and further distances as the time goes by. For those objects showing a red shift due to being in a gravity well, the slowing represents a true slowing of time itself at the bottom of gravity wells. This slowing is well understood in the astronomical community and compensated for in normal discussion of the evidence. Things observed at a red shift of z=2 are observed to be moving slower by a factor of 2^2, or 4. This modest slowing that is directly coupled to the red shift of retreating objects does not count as being a point in favor of Setterfield light speed change theory, mainly because it is such a small amount compared to what Setterfield theory requires.

I think, if you study the scientific literature a little more closely, you will find that movement smears out the redshift measurements, as has been found at the center of the Virgo cluster. Barry has an entire page of answering questions regarding the redshift here:
http://www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm

Hope that helps a little...

 

[Helen]

Barry just gave me the 1998 measurements for both h and m and the reference:

1998 -- Codata Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants, 1998, by P.J. Mohr and B.N.Taylor in Reviews of Modern Physics, April, 2000 http://physics.nist.gov/constants

m -- 9.109382
h -- 6.626069

Both of these have dipped a tiny bit, indicating the same oscillation that Barry has been claiming all along is imposed on the trends and shows up as all the changes are slowing now, towards what is very probably the end of time in this creation.

 

[UTEOTW]

But what of Paul's claim that you would observe slow motion effects.

To quote from Barry own the Astronomical Discussion page

Additional Note: In order to clarify some confusion on the SN1987A issue and light-speed, let me give another illustration that does not depend on the geometry of triangles etc. Remember, distances do not change with changing light-speed. Even though it is customary to give distances in light-years (LY), that distance is fixed even if light-speed is changing.

To start, we note that it has been established that the distance from SN1987A to the sheet of material that reflected the peak intensity of the light burst from the SN, is 2 LY, a fixed distance. Imagine that this distance is subdivided into 24 equal light-months (LM). Again the LM is a fixed distance. Imagine further that as the peak of the light burst from the SN moved out towards the sheet of material, it emitted a pulse in the direction of the earth every time it passed a LM subdivision. After 24 LM subdivisions the peak burst reached the sheet.

Let us assume that there is no substantive change in light-speed from the time of the light-burst until the sheet becomes illuminated. Let us further assume for the sake of illustration, that the value of light-speed at the time of the outburst was 10c now. This means that the light-burst traversed the DISTANCE of 24 LM or 2 LY in a TIME of just 2.4 months. It further means that as the travelling light-burst emitted a pulse at each 1 LM subdivision, the series of pulses were emitted 1/10th month apart IN TIME.

However, as this series of pulses travelled to earth, the speed of light slowed down to its present value. It means that the information contained in those pulses now passes our earth-bound observers at a rate that is 10 times slower than the original event. Accordingly, the pulses arrive at earth spaced one month apart in time. Observers on earth assume that c is constant since the pulses were emitted at a DISTANCE of 1 LM apart and the pulses are spaced one month apart in TIME.

The conclusion is that this slow-motion effect makes it impossible to find the value of c at the moment of emission by this sort of process. By a similar line of reasoning, superluminal jets from quasars can be shown to pose just as much of a problem on the variable c model as on conventional theory. The standard explanation therefore is accepted here.

You gave Paul a reference to a short answer that says that in the case of atomic processes that the rate would be proportional to how much faster light was at that time and would thus not produce a change in perceived rate. This does not, however, deal with the objection to seeing physical processes happening at a different rate in the past. We can measure the rates at which galaxies are orbiting about their centers and stars rotate about each other. For example, see this recent study of stars at the center of our galaxy.

LINK

Now this is a direct measurement of the speed of an individual star 26000 light years away. For light to have reached us from the center of the galaxy in the time frame proposed, light would have had to have been traveling significantly faster at the time (I'll leave it to you to tell me how long ago light that has travelled 26000 light years to reach us now really left and what the actual speed of light relative to today's value was.) and the slow motion effect would mean that the speed measured by the astronomers was wrong. Why is that the astronomers did not think that something was wrong with their observations? That is, why was the measured speed not in stark disagrement with what would have been expected? Looking farther out into the universe, and using one of Paul's examples, it doen't take time appearing to slow by too much to get some pretty amzing values for the speed at which objects must be orbiting in the disks of far away galaxies.

 

[mdkluge]

Well, the alleged changes in c, h and m might just as well be due to increased precision of measurement as to real physical changes in those parameters. But we've been through that elsewhere. Here I wish only to point out that changes in multiple fundamental physical parameters (here c, h and m) do not provide significant additional evidence that any of them are actually changing.

To see this, suppose, for example, that measured values of c are changing in a secular way (increasing or decreasing beyond experimental error over time). For this discussion it matters not whether the observed changes are due to a real change in c or in improved experimental accuracy and or precision.

Now some people make measurements of h over time. You don't, however, measure h directly. You measure various other things and calculate h from those experimental measurements. In those calculations you use formulae involving relationships between the physical parameter you want to determine, other fundamental parameters, and your experimental results. For the other fundamental physical parameters you use the current (as of the time of your experiment) best values.

Thus if someone tried to measure h in, say, 1940, she made her measurements and then calculated her value of h based upon the 1940 best value the speed of light. If someone did the same experiment now and got the same measurements, he would find a different value of h because he would us today's best value of c. The different values of h is then, not necessarily evidence of actual changes of h over time.

Originally posted by Paul:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In fact, there is a weak slowing that necessarily accompanies the red shifts of the galaxies. For a red shift of z = 1, then everything is observed to be seen moving slower by a factor of 2^1, which is two. This is because the object with that red shift is moving away from us and light must travel progressively further and further distances as the time goes by.

Helen responded:

I think, if you study the scientific terature a little more closely, you will find that movement smears out the redshift measurements, as has been found at the center of the Virgo cluster.[/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Helen, you're a little bit confused here. Motion pse does not smear out a red shift. Rather, random motion broadens spectral lines, and in that sense "smears out" red shifts, since the center of a broadened spectral line is usually more difficult than locating the center of a narrow spectral line.

Now when we measure the red shift of a rotating galaxy one observes a similar broadening, since some stars are moving away from us less quickly than the galaxy as a whole, while others recede from us more quickly. However, if you measure the red shift of only one edge of a galaxy, then the motion of those stars due to galactic rotation will be either predominantly towards or away fom us, You still get some line broadening due to random motion of those stars, but because their rotational velocities (around their galaxy's center) are all about the same spectral lines are narrower--and shifted either towards the red or blue depending upon whether we measure the edge whose stars are moving away or towards us in their galactic rotation.

(I don't necessarily mean to endorse Paul's claims about what slowing would or would not be observed in Setterfield's cosmology.

Although Setterfield has indicated that the dimensionless electromagnetic fine structure constant, e^2/(2*pi*hc) and its strong and weak analogs are strictly constant in his theory, he has neverforthrightly answered what is the behavior in the gravitational analog. In setterfield's cosmology, how does Gh/c^4 depend on time?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Thank you, brother Kluge, for your informative addition to the thread. Allow me to help make very clear what Setterfield cosmology does with regard to orbital velocities in the universe. Setterfield cosmology postulates that the earth has only orbited the sun about 6000 times since the creation of the universe. This mapping of 6000 years is imposed on the apparant electromagnetic - light speed determined history of 13 billion years for the universe, or if you wish to be generous, 4 or 5 billion years for the solar system. It is apparant that the annual circlings of the earth must become very much slower in times past in relation to the speed of light in order for this mapping to be possible. Setterfield theory does not make anything special about the orbit of the earth All orbits are assumed to follow that pattern in previous epochs due to the universal change in Newton's constant G.

 

[Helen]

Barry is not ignoring you folks. This is his territory now. He is asleep in Australia as I write this (will be home in nine days!), and has only had time to get part of a response written. He is trying to get net references that anyone can see regarding what he wants to say, so it is taking a little more time. Thank you for your patience.

 

[Helen]

Barry just emailed the following to me. He will be home next Wednesday, so any further responses from him will have to wait until jet lag is a bit under control...

============

Paul of Eugene and Mark Kluge raise the following matters in relation to changing lightspeed: The slow-down effect of events on distant objects proportional to the drop in the speed of light, and its implications for Cepheid variables and galaxy rotation rates. Additional comment has come about measured changes in lightspeed, c, Planck’s constant, h, and electron rest-mass, m, and various combinations of these constants. Mark has also ‘corrected’ a statement about the smearing of the redshift, but has misunderstood what was being referred to, and has also asked about mass and gravity.

Let us take these comments in reverse order. First, then, let me state that the mass and gravity issue is still being finalized. A preliminary paper is being prepared on the matter and discussions about it are continuing with some physicists. Until this process is complete, a definitive statement will not be issued. It is of interest to note that this is also a major topic of discussion (along with the validity of Einstein’s famous equation) by other scientists involved with variable speed of light (VSL) theories, and they have not reached any final conclusions on this matter either.

Second, Mark has really misunderstood what Helen was talking about with the redshift and smearing and has tried to ‘correct’ her. In actual fact Helen was basically correct for what she was discussing, since she was talking about the effect of motion on the quantisation of the redshift. It is significant that the redshift quantisation exists throughout the Virgo cluster. However, at a conference on quantisation in Tucson, Arizona, in April 1996, it was pointed out that at the centre of the Virgo cluster, deep in the gravitational potential well where galaxy motion is expected to be higher than elsewhere, it turns out that this galaxy motion destroys the quantisation. In other words, since a real physical motion of galaxies smears out the quantisation, clusters of galaxies must be relatively ‘quiet’ with very little actual motion except near the cluster centres. This conclusion had already been reached by Halton Arp and some others [H. Arp, “Seeing Red”, p.199 etc, Apeiron].

Third, Mark has stated “that changes in multiple fundamental physical parameters (here c, h, and m) do not provide significant additional evidence that any of them are actually changing.” He then goes on to note that in measuring h, for example, other physical parameters may be involved which may be linked with lightspeed, and so any changes in the official value of lightspeed will also register as changes in h. In this way the trends in the accepted values of h may be explained.

This is an interesting argument. However, closer examination of the proposal reveals that the actual situation is somewhat different. In the vast majority of cases, the value for h was determined by the h/e ratio, where e is the electronic charge, which is a constant. As a result, any random variations in e will only give random variations in h. This leaves the values of h to define a genuine trend with some random variation on top of it. Indeed, Sanders has pointed out that the increasing value of h can only be partly accounted for by improvements in instrumental resolution and changes in the accepted values of other constants [J. H. Sanders, “The Fundamental Atomic Constants”, p.13, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1965]. In this, Sanders has tacitly admitted that h has increased with time. One anonymous reviewer of the 1987 Report made a similar comment. He stated that instrumental resolution and changing values of other constants “may in part explain the trend in the figures, but I admit that such an explanation does not appear to be quantitatively adequate.” In other words, it is reluctantly admitted that the measured value of h has indeed increased with time in a manner that is independent of changes in other constants or improvement in experimental techniques.

In view of this, Mark’s comment “that changes in multiple fundamental physical parameters (here c, h, and m) do not provide significant additional evidence that any of them are actually changing” is incorrect. Since it is acknowledged by those in the field that the measured value of h has increased with time, then the behaviour of the multiple parameter hc is of vital importance. As noted in the 1987 Report, the measured value of hc by astronomical methods indicates that the parameter is invariant. This is an important contribution to our knowledge of the topic. Since h is measured as increasing, and c has been measured as decreasing, this result can only mean that c varies in a manner that is proportional to 1/h. In other words the decline in c is not proportional to1/h2, nor inversely proportional to the square-root of h, or to any other exponent of h. It limits all c variation to 1/h precisely. Therefore, this result from the data of a multiple fundamental parameter does indeed supply significant new information which must govern our theories.

The other issue that both Paul and Mark raised was the slow-down effect of events on distant objects as light at our reception point on earth is now travelling slower and hence bringing information about events to us more slowly than at the point of emission. They expressed particular concern about the behaviour of Cepheid variables and galaxy rotation rates.

Cepheid variable stars undergo a pulsation that is produced by the behaviour of a thin layer of the star’s material near its surface. This pulsation gives a characteristic curve of variation in light intensity, while the actual period of the variation depends on the size, and hence brilliance of the star. The knowledge that a star with a given luminosity has a set period of oscillation allows these stars to be used as distance indicators. Paul and Mark’s concern is that, if light is slowing down in transit, the pulsation rate that we observe will not be the same as that of the star itself, and hence our distance indicators would be unreliable.

However, a possible answer is discernable. The behaviour of the relevant segment of the star's outer layers is directly linked with its opacity as described by Ostlie and Carroll [‘An Introduction to Modern Stellar Astrophysics,’ Addison-Wesley, 1996]. A brief outline of the subject can be found at http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsotm/0802.stm. More specifically, on the Vc model that is being discussed here, stellar opacities can be shown to be dependent on the speed of light. What this means in practice is that any slow-down effect of light in transit will already have been counteracted by a change in the pulsation rate of this layer at the time of emission due to changing opacities. The final result will be that any given Cepheid variable will appear to have a constant period for the light intensity curve, no matter where it is in space and no matter how long we observe it.

The other matter that was raised was galaxy rotation rates. At this point in time, the resolution of that matter depends partly on the outcome of the gravity and mass analysis, which is continuing. In addition, the effects of higher lightspeed on the Doppler equation, coupled with the redshift as an intrinsic property of all distant emitters, and the behaviour of light photons in transit, are all factors that need careful examination before a final answer is given. Until that examination is complete a definitive reply will not be attempted.

Despite the “work in progress” signs, I trust that this gives a feel for the direction that this research is taking.

Barry

 

[mdkluge]

I thank Barry Setterfield for his response through Helen.

Setterfield wrote:

Paul of Eugene and Mark Kluge raise the following matters in relation to changing lightspeed: The slow-down effect of events on distant objects proportional to the drop in the speed of light, and its implications for Cepheid variables and galaxy rotation rates….

The other issue that both Paul and Mark raised was the slow-down effect of events on distant objects as light at our reception point on earth is now…

Let’s give Paul full credit for these questions. I raised neither, at least in this current thread, although I believe I have raised similar issues in previous discussions. I did not, however, raise those issues here because they cannot be resolved within Setterfield’s framework in its currently incomplete form. Until Setterfield decides how the dimensionless gravitational coupling constant Gh/c^4 changes over time his theory can make absolutely NO predictions about time-variation of anything involving gravitation. Untill he settles the matter it is premature to try to do any cosmology at all with his theory.

Mark has really misunderstood what Helen was talking about with the redshift and smearing and has tried to ‘correct’ her. In actual fact Helen was basically correct for what she was discussing, since she was talking about the effect of motion on the quantisation of the redshift.

I did indeed misunderstand what Helen was talking about. In making my response to Helen I had assumed that she was actually responding to Paul. She wasn’t. Paul was talking about actually-observed red shifts thought to be indicative of galactic rotation. Whether or not red shifts are “smeared out” in the centers of some galaxies and whether this obscures some quantization effect is not relevant to what Paul was discussing.

Third, Mark has stated “that changes in multiple fundamental physical parameters (here c, h, and m) do not provide significant additional evidence that any of them are actually changing.” He then goes on to note that in measuring h, for example, other physical parameters may be involved which may be linked with lightspeed, and so any changes in the official value of lightspeed will also register as changes in h. In this way the trends in the accepted values of h may be explained.

This is an interesting argument. However, closer examination of the proposal reveals that the actual situation is somewhat different. In the vast majority of cases, the value for h was determined by the h/e ratio, where e is the electronic charge, which is a constant. As a result, any random variations in e will only give random variations in h.

I commend Barry Setterfield for at least trying to move his argument forward, above. Although, as I shall show below, his argument above is wrong or incomplete, it is at least the right KIND of argument that he needs to develop in order to make his point that multiple parameters are changing with time.

To see the problem, consider the determination of Planck’s Constant (or Plank’s Parameter if it is time-varyint?!) by one “h/e ratio” methods. (There are several). Although the method I analyze here is not one used in precise contemporary determinations of h, I use it because it is illustrative and because (I hope) many board readers will understand the physics involved. Whether all “h/e ratio” methods used have this problem I have not determined. If time-varying “h/e ratio” method results are to be used as evidence of time-varying h, then it will be necessary to determine which methods have the problem and which do not, and to recalculate best historical values of h based only upon the latter.

The method I choose to illustrate is that of the photoelectric effect, which we can describe in elementary terms. In this experimental setup, light of various frequencies impinges upon a clean metal surfact, causing the emission of photoelectrons. For light of frequency f the (maximum) energy of emitted photoelectrons is

E = hf – W (Equation 1),

where W is the so-called work functio of the metal upon which light is shined. It is a type of binding energy, being the energy needed to remove an electron from the metal.

The Energy E of the photoelectrons is measured by placing a potential difference V between the metal surface and the detector. The photoelectron current will be some function of V. However, there will be some maximum value of V (Vmax) for each frequency and metal beyond which no photoelectrons will be detected, since they will not be sufficiently energetic to overcome the potential difference between metal surface and detector. The electron energy and Vmax are related simply by E = e*Vmax, where e is the charge on the electron. Substitutin into Equation 1 we simply obtain:

e*Vmax = hf – W, or

Vmax = (h/e)f – W/e (Equation 2).

Experimentally, then, we shine various frequencies of light on the metal surface and determine Vmax as a function of frequency. Plotting Vmax versus frequency yields a straight line with slope h/e (and intercept W/e, which we get for free). Taking the slope and multiplying by e gives us h. It would seem, then, that Setterfield is correct that changes in h can be isolated from changes in all fundamental physical parameters other than e, except….

(Readers might want to pause here to see if they can spot the problem for themselves.)

…Except that we didn’t really measure the frequencies of the light striking the metal surface. (Well, it is possible now to “directly” measure optical frequencies now by comparing them to frequency-multiplied radio waves, historically that was not the case.) What we actually measured were the wavelengths of the light (using a diffraction grating or similar apparatus) and relating wavelength L and frequency by the simple formula

f*L = c, or
f = c/L.

Plugging this into our Equation 2 we obtain:

Vmax = (hc/e)*(1/L) – W/e (Equation 3).

Equation 3 gives a different picture. We plot Vmax as a function of 1/L, and obtain a straight line with slope hc/e. We can extract h only if we have values for both e and c. Note, however, that if this experiment is done at different times, that different contemporary values of c will be used. We would expect to see spurious changes over time in measured h whether or not the changes over time of “best contemporary values” of c are real or not.

I have not determined whether modern “h/e ratio” methods (such as direct measurement of the quantum Hall Coefficient, etc.) can evade this problem or not Clearly it is necessary that they do evade the problem in order for Setterfield’s apparent time-variation of h to have the significance he gives it, but if so that needs to be established.

Indeed, Sanders has pointed out that the increasing value of h can only be partly accounted for by improvements in instrumental resolution and changes in the accepted values of other constants [J. H. Sanders, “The Fundamental Atomic Constants”, p.13, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1965].

To rely upon such arguments is to stand on quicksand. Experience shows that when a reviewer like Sanders says “can only be partly accounted for by” he means “has only be[en] partly accounted for by”. One simply does not know the precision of historical measurements beyond what the historical measurers wrote and a good deal of informed guesswork about the sources of error that the original measurers did not fully grasp. I know that Setterfield would like it to mean “can only be partly accounted for IN PRINCIPLE” or the like, but reviewers just don’t write that way! You, the reader, have to take such sentences and interpret their intent in as guarded a way as possible. Remember that reviewer Sanders participated in few (or none) of the experiments being reviewed. He is not responsible for their quality. He tries to account for as much of the perceived change in h as HE CAN as due to identifiable (by him) experimental imprecision or changes in accepted values of other parameters. He does his best job and because he’s good at what he does, probably one of the best in the world. Maybe someone else can account for more of the apparent change in h over time, but he has accounted for as much as he can, and there is still some left, for which he cannot account.

In this, Sanders has tacitly admitted that h has increased with time.

No he hasn’t. He has told us that measured values of h have an upward trend. He can account for part of that trend in terms of changing experimental precision, systematic errors, and the like, and changing accepted values for other fundamental physical parameters. The rest he cannot account for. Period. Note that I do not say that he thinks the data are incompatible with an actual increase in Planck’s Constant over time. He is noncommittal, either explicitly or tacitly. One must guard against understanding the ambiguous statements of another as tacitly supporting oneself!

Cepheid variable stars undergo a pulsation that is produced by the behaviour of a thin layer of the star’s material near its surface. This pulsation gives a characteristic curve of variation in light intensity, while the actual period of the variation depends on the size, and hence brilliance of the star. The knowledge that a star with a given luminosity has a set period of oscillation allows these stars to be used as distance indicators. Paul and Mark’s concern is that, if light is slowing down in transit, the pulsation rate that we observe will not be the same as that of the star itself, and hence our distance indicators would be unreliable.

The problem is worse. Setterfield (apparently) requires the gravitational constant G to change also, although he hasn’t told us how. Cepheid periods do depend on G! Without knowledge of the behavior of G(t) there is no way we can discern any prediction at all about the apparent periods of distant Cepheids.

The other matter that was raised was galaxy rotation rates. At this point in time, the resolution of that matter depends partly on the outcome of the gravity and mass analysis, which is continuing. In addition, the effects of higher lightspeed on the Doppler equation, coupled with the redshift as an intrinsic property of all distant emitters, and the behaviour of light photons in transit, are all factors that need careful examination before a final answer is given.

In other words, the elementary theory has to be developed. The effect of higher light speed on everything has yet to be determined.

Some of you readers may recal a post of mine from about a year ago in which I attempted (since Setterfield or someone else has not) to determine what modifications in Newton’s Laws of Motion would be necessary under Setterfield’s theory. That this elementary exercise has been done by no one else testifies to the current juvenile state of Setterfield’s theory.

 

[Helen]

Well, hey, Mark, at least you've upped him from bogus to juvenile. I guess that's an improvement..

IN the meantime, you might check some of the discussion stuff on his website as well as read some of his more recent material.

www.setterfield.org

He'll be home Wednesday but probably not responding to much for a few days while jet lag has the upper hand. We're getting old and stumbly now, you know...

 

[mdkluge]

I made a stupid mistake in an earlier post in this thread. I wrote:

Although Setterfield has indicated that the dimensionless electromagnetic fine structure constant, e^2/(2*pi*hc) and its strong and weak analogs are strictly constant in his theory, he has neverforthrightly answered what is the behavior in the gravitational analog. In setterfield's cosmology, how does Gh/c^4 depend on time?

Of course Gh/c%4 is not the gravitational analog of the fine-structure constant, since the former is not even dimensionless! This is related to the time-variation of G and m, which, Setterfield now says, he has not determined. Fair enough.

What I realy wanted, though, was the time-variation of some dimensionless quantity involving G. A little calculation shows that it is impossible to construct such a number from just G, h, and c. However, behavior of hc/(Gm%2), where m is the electron mass would be of great interest, and is absolutely necessary if the theory is to make sensible cosmological predictions. Also, since it seems that now even the behavior of m is unsettled, one needs the time-variation of m/M, where M is a typical nuclear mass of some sort. One also needs the time-dependence of the ratio of the Planck Length to the Bohr radius.

Really, although Setterfield Theory has had many incarnations, I have understood that all of the non-gravitational dimensionless parameters are strictly constant within Setterfield Theory. This means that the only observational manifestations of the theory involve gravitation. Until the behavior of gravitation can be determined it is safe to say that the theory makes no observable predictions.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Helen, could you confirm or comment on my remark above about Setterfield theory mapping 6000 orbits of earth into at least the tradiationally perceived 4.5 billion year history of earth as determined by (amoung other things) radioactive decay analysis and also the 13 billion year supposed age of the universe? I'm under the impression that much is pretty firmly fixed by y'all . . . thanks!

 

[Helen]

It's all on his webpage, Paul.

 

[mdkluge]

Helen wrote:

Well, hey, Mark, at least you've upped him from bogus to juvenile. I guess that's an improvement..

Actually I was talking about his theories, not him

But hey, why can't it be both bogus AND juvenile???

Seriously, though, perhaps "juvenile" was misunderstood by readersIt may have had connotations beyond what I intended. While I did not intend it to be exactly flattering, I did not want "juvenile" to be constructed beyond "undeveloped" or "unable to stand on its own two feet." If someone has construed my use of "immature" in the sense one uses "childish" or "babyish", then I am sorry.

IN the meantime, you might check some of the discussion stuff on his website as well as read some of his more recent material.

Thank you. Most of that material is familiar to me. I had not, however, seen much of the material in "ATOMIC QUANTUM STATES, LIGHT, AND THE REDSHIFT". Is this the paper Setterfield tried to have published, but was rejected by a couple of editors for reasons which you considered insufficient? I hope to have a couple of remarks on that paper for a future post here. (Getting late now.)

Regarding Pau of Eugene's remark that Setterfield theorysays that the earth has made about 5000 revolutions about the sun in its history: I can only urge Helen (or Barry Setterfield) to either confirm or correct Paul's statement. Helen, it may be somewhere within the references you gave. It might even be clear to you where it is written, but it is not so to others, hence the straightforward question. I should mention that this falls under the ambit of gravitational behavior, which, even Setterfield acknowledges, is not currently determined by his theory. Under these circumstances admonishment to look in the references is unhelpful and inappropriate.

I hope you will enjoy your trip dow under

 

[Peter101]

Perhaps someone can answer these questions:

1. Does Barry Setterfield have any sort of degree, in physics or anything else?

2. Has he ever published in the peer reviewed literature, and if so what?

3. Has he ever been on the faculty of a university?

4. Has he ever done any research at a recognized institution?

5. How has he made his living over the last 20 years?

 

[Helen]

Please feel free to check the biography section of his webpage
www.setterfield.org

Thank you.

Helen Setterfield, wife

 

[Peter101]

Thanks Helen. The first four questions have to do with Barry's credentials and according to his biographical information, the answer to each question is that he does not have the educational experience or other credentials that I mentioned. Of course, he still might be correct in what would be a revolutionary suggestion. But the odds are against it.

 

[Helen]

Why don't you now start reading his papers, or take a look at the history section of the speed of light research discussion area? You might be surprised at how much the old fellow has managed to tuck into his brain through the years!

http://www.setterfield.org/scipubl.html

http://www.setterfield.org/history.htm

 

[mdkluge]

Setterfield does not understand the meaning of the word "isotropic". It means "the same in all directions". It does not mean "the same everywhere". "Homogeneous" means "the same everywhere".

Consider some two-dimensional examples. First consider the space inside a circle. The circle is isotropic about its center. It is not isotropic about any point other than its center since if you rotate a circle about any point other than its center the rotated circle does not map onto the unrotated circle.

A Euclidean plane is both homogeneous and isotropic everywhere.

Now consider the open square in the Euclidean plane bounded by x = 0, x = 1, y = 0, and y = 1. Identify all points (x, 0) and (x, 1), as well as (0, y) with (1, y). Topologically this is the surface of a torus or donut. You can visualize this by pretending to roll up the square parallel to its x axis and taping the lines y - 0 and y - 1 together. This gives an open-ended cylinder along the x axis. Now, pretending that the paper is flexible, bend the cylinder ends around and tape them together. You have your topological donut. However, in doing this you have distorted the square. I want you to consider the point-identification I described without the distortion. The space is then topologically like that of a donut (S1 X S1 for those of you who know some topology-- a direct product space of two 1-dimensional spheres (also known as circles)).

Anyway, this space is homogeneous, but not isotropic. It is homogeneous because you can always go exactly 1 unit in either the x or y directions before repeating yourself. It is not isotropic, however, because if you go in any direction other than along x or y axis you have to go a distance other than 1 unit before getting back to your original point. For example, if you move along the diagonal of the square you have to travel a distance of sqrt(2).

In Setterfield's article "ATOMIC QUANTUM STATES, LIGHT, AND THE REDSHIFT" at http://www.setterfield.org/quantumredshift.htm#isotropcandrel Setterfield misuses "isotropic", although he does correctly use "homogeneous". For example, he writes:
pquote]These zero-point fields (ZPF) are homogeneous and isotropic, and look the same to two observers no matter what their velocity or position is with respect to each other. [/quote]
But isotropy has nothing to do with velocity here. It has to do with sameness in all directions. It is true that the ZPE actually IS isotropic, but Setterfield misunderstands the term.

If any of these properties change isotropically, then atomic behaviour would also vary throughout the cosmos.

Here Setterfield should have used "homogeneously". If, for example, some property varied at some point and that variation spread out at some speed from that point such that the spead of spread were the same in all directions, then the property would vary isotropically about the initial point, but obviously atoms at different distances from that point would experience the effect at different times: The effect would not be homogeneous.

See also his Section 4.5. The Isotropic Nature of Light-speed and Relativity. He explains:

In the model presented here, light has the same speed at any instant throughout the entire cosmos.

and says nothing about direction invariance in the section.

There are other examples of this same misuse of "isotropic" in Setterfield's work.

One might consider this just a minor blunder except that in virtually every work on cosmology the term "isotropic" or its cognate "isotropy" is used to mean "the same in all directions", while "homogeneous" means "the same everywhere". In every serious introductory cosmology text the terms are actually explained. It is impossible for someone familliar with scientific cosmology to misuse those words for long.

Finally, I note that there is a certain sense in which "isotropy" can be used in Special Relativity to describe invariance of physics under Lorentz transformations (invariance under transformations between inertial coordinate systems in SR). The Lorentz Transformation does have many formal properties similar to a rotation in 4-dimensional space-time. However, that doesn't work for Setterfield: Under his model, if physicas is invariant under Lorentz Transformations locally, then in all coordinate systems but one, there will be spatial variation in the speed of light. Nowhere does Setterfield talk of spatial variation in c. (Put another way, Setterfield is correct when he points out that time-variation of c is not incompatible with a fairly obvious generalization of Special Relativity; but he has to include spatial variations as well for that compatibility to exist.)