Setterfield and the variable speed of light model

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.

 

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

To quote from Barry own the Astronomical Discussion page

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.

 

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.

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?

 

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.

 

I thank Barry Setterfield for his response through Helen.

Setterfield wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

 

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

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.

 

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 wrote:

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.

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

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

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:

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.)