Setterfield and the variable speed of light model

Setterfield, in his article "ATOMIC QUANTUM STATES, LIGHT, AND THE REDSHIFT" at http://www.setterfield.org/quantumredshift.htm#isotropcandrel tries to invoke time-varying permeability of free space in his theory of the changing speed of light.

But the permeabiity of free space cannot vary. It is, in the MKS system, equal to 4Ipi*10^-7 MKS Units. Always has. Always will. This is known by all physicists, since it is explained in every introductory university physics text. Saying that the permeability of free space varies with time makes about as much sense as saying that the value of the number 4 varies with time. No one would take physics based upon time-varying 4 seriously. There is no reason to take physics based upon time-varying permeability of free space seriously either.

Permeability of free space is a defined constant and serves only to relate the units we choose to measure electric current with those of magnetic field strength

 

Helen writes:

I have said no such thing. It is the permeability of free space, not the permitivity, which is a defined quantity. Time-variation of the permitivity of free space is perfectly acceptable.

The problem with time-dependent permeability is that it's physically meaningless to do so. Recall that for a particular geometry, magnetic field strength is proportional to current. Also the force due to a magnetic field on a second test current is proportional to the magnetic field strength. We do not in any other way measure magnetic field strengths. We can measure currents in a magnetic-field producing wire or set of wires. We can measure the current in a test wire, and we can measure the force exerted by the magnetic field on the test wire, but we never directly measure magnetic fields themselves. We can measure force/current ratios, but not magnetic fields themselves.

To make this clearer consider two long (infinite) parallel wires separated by distance r. Suppose they carry currents i1 and i2 respectively. The magnetic field strength produced by wire 1 at the position of wire 2 would be k*i1/r, where k is some proportionality parameter. (By convention we take k1 to be mu0/(2Ipi)). The force per unit length on wire 2 due to the field B1 produced by wire 1 is K*B1*i2, where K is another proportionality constant (conventionally considered to ha e value 1).

The force per unit length between the wires is then k*K*i1*i2/r. We can measure this force, we can measure the currents, and we can measure the wires' separation. Note, however, that in terms of measured quantities, the constants k andk K appear only as the product kK. We are free to arbitrarily, without physical content, assign values to k and K separately as long as their product is correct. This is what has been done. K and k have been DEFINED with constant values, and through them magnetic field strength has been defined. There is, however, nothing physical in the definition of either parameter separably. All a (possibly time-dependent) redefinition does is redefine magnetic field strength; but since that is measured only in terms of the forces it exerts on currents or moving charges, there is no physics in such a redefinition.

That is incorrect even in Setterfield physics. Granting for the sake of argument that there has been in some sense time variation in the speed of light, that sense is as follows: We define fundamental units of length, time (and mass), and compare measurements to them. So if L is our length standard unit, and T our time standard unit, when we say we measure the speed of light we really mean the ratio c*T/L. If we say that the measured speed of light varies in time what we mean is that cT/L varies in time.

But sometimes we change to different standards. For example, in about 1960 the standard of length was changed from L0, the length of the standard meter bar held in Pairis, to L1, a certain number of wavelengths of a certain spectral line. Similarly, the standard of time changed (I do not recall when) from T0, a certain fraction of the length of the year 1900 to T1, a certain number of periods of vibration of a certain radio spectral line. Of course the numerical values of L0 1nd L1, and T0 and T1 were made to be as close as experimentally possible. Under the old standard when one measured the speed of light one measured c*T0/L0, while under the newer (but not now current) standard one measured c*T1/L1. One would then have spoken of time-variation of the speed of light as time-variation of c*T0/L0 or c*T1/L1 respectively. It would have been possible for either or both of them to vary with time.

Strictly speaking it never made sense to say that c was time-varying; but that really caused no problem for physicists who understood that when someone said c was time-vary8ng they meant c*T/L was time-varying, for suitable T and L standards. That the lay public does not understand is another matter.Under the 1 standard if c*T0/L0 is time-varying, it is not possible to say whether c or T0 or L0 is the culprit. Similarly for the 1 standard.

Still later c was defined to be a constant. What this means is that a new length and time standards L2 and T2 are introduced. T2 is the same as T1; but L2 is defined as cT2. Now when we measure c we really measure c*T2/L2 = c*T2/C*T2 = 1. But we haven’t reall lost any fundamental units. We’ve just replaced a fundamental length with a fundamental speed. There is no loss of physics, though.

In the case of time-varying permeability one is simply introducing time-variation in the proportionality constant between electric currents and the magnetic field stren gth they produce. This is physically meaningless unless one specifies a time-variation in the proportionality between magnetic field strength and force it produces on currents. As I noted above, only the product of constants kK is of physical interest. Time variation of either is of no interest unless one specifies fariation in force between current-carrying wires.

 

>>>>>>>In the latter part of the 20th century the speed of light was defined as a constant, too. They have also defined length in terms of the speed of light, since it was defined as being constant. However, measurements have shown that the speed of light is varying. Measurements have also shown that there other 'constants' which have varied.<<<<<<

In the quote above, Setterfield, via Helen, does not accurately describe the status of his theory. He may think that he has shown that the speed of light has varied, but it is a fact that he has not been able to gain acceptance of his theory. Most scientists who have read his unpublished papers on this topic disagree that he has shown that the speed of light has varied. Setterfield ought not to lay claim to this in the words that he has used. I think that experienced and talented scientists would not describe the situation as he has above, given the same circumstances. His claim does not make it so, and it is especially misleading to those who are not acquainted with the situation, to describe it in the way that he does above. It is a fact that hardly anyone accepts his ideas.

 

>>>>>May I respectfully suggest you read some of the material regarding the history of the speed of light research, sir?<<<<<

I have read it. I wonder why you would think I would comment on it without reading it? I am not a creationist.

 

It may be that Setterfield's original theory has been cleaned up some as a reaction to criticism, but I think the comments below, based on a very early version of his theory, illustrate the importance of having a solid educational background before attempting to revolutionize physics. Here is part of a critique by Robert Day, at the link given:

"The final blow to Setterfield's credibility is his statistical analysis of the results, given in Appendix 3, in which he discards 3 of the 41 data points shown in an earlier table, and claims a coefficient of determination r2 of "1 to nine significant figures, indicating a near perfect fit to the data" (emphasis added). As anyone with even the most basic knowledge of analysis will know (and as Setterfield will later learn the hard way), a coefficient of determination of 1 can only be realized if the data points lie precisely on the curve in question, yet Setterfield shows a pathetic ignorance of this fact by following the above claim with, "All told, 17 values were above the curve and 21 below, the r2 value indicating a perfectly balanced distribution of the cluster of points as well as close proximity to the curve."

In fact, as Setterfield openly admits, not a single data point of the 38 considered lay on the curve, yet this does not prevent him from claiming a perfect correlation."

The above is from: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

 

The link mentioned in my post above has some additional material that I found interesting. I am sure that Helen or Setterfield will object that these critical comments are on an old paper but nevertheless, it does show how Setterfield got started on this theory. Here is another quote from the previously mentioned link:

>>>>After several critical letters to the editor regarding Setterfield's work, stressing particularly the suspicion of carefully selected data, Setterfield was finally forced into some damage control. In vol. 5, no. 3, Setterfield's article, part two (b) has the revealing subtitle, "Using all measurements of c."

Having taken quite a pounding until then regarding his statistical analysis, Setterfield begins by defining his 'Co-efficient of Determination,' r2, and its relation to the standard correlation coefficient. He follows this up by again (correctly) explaining the significance of an r2 value of 1, but finally twigs to the many objections by adding, "It was subsequently noticed that [the r2 value] had been obtained at an incorrect point in the computer programme, and a check gave the value as r2 = 0.99+ which appeared in the International Edition."

(This value, unfortunately for Setterfield, turns out to be wrong as well. In a later publication of the same journal, Setterfield again revises his value of r2 downward to 0.986 based on, of all things, correspondence from readers who calculated it for themselves. In all, five different values for r2 were published.)

At this point, one might almost give Setterfield the benefit of the doubt and accuse him only of gross incompetence and mathematical illiteracy, but the saga does not end just yet. A cursory examination of Setterfield's data on which his curve is based reveals that the exact formula for the curve is heavily dependent on two values from the 17th and 18th century, and it behooves us to ask just how much confidence we can place in values this old, or whether Setterfield has even recorded the values properly.

The very first value in his table, dated 1675, is credited to Romer and is listed as 301,300 plus or minus 200 km/sec. According to Setterfield, "'Sky and Telescope' June '73 45:353 gave Romer's 1675 value after reworking a selection of his data. The result was 0.5% above the current value i.e. 301,300. Froome & Essen placed it higher. The minimum value was used." The first question is how, given two conflicting values, Setterfield could arbitrarily choose between them, or whether he should choose either of them. The next issue is considerably more serious.

The referenced article in Sky and Telescope is actually a short summary of a full article by Goldstein, Trasco and Ogburn in the Feb. 1973 issue of The Astronomical Journal.

Why Setterfield chose not to refer to the original article is unclear, but there is little doubt that this is extremely unprofessional behaviour, although this is insignificant compared to what one finds upon reading the original article. After considerable mathematical analysis, the three authors conclude, "... we estimate that the difference between light travel time three hundred years ago and today's value is less than 0.5%" (emphasis added). In fact, the authors plot a set of residuals against light travel time and state, "The best fit occurs at zero where the light travel time is identical to the currently accepted value value," completely contradicting the value in Setterfield's table. In short, the 1675 value is completely fictitious and is based on deliberate misrepresentation.

Precisely this accusation was made by a Mr. R. Holt in a letter to the editor in the vol. 1, 1984 issue of the creationist journal EN Tech. J. (apparently an abbreviation for Ex Nihilo Technical Journal, although every effort is made to conceal this). Holt minced no words and described the 1675 value as "not only erroneous, but entirely unsupported by his references and contrary to the actual data." Setterfield's response was that the reference "... was not a direct use of the Goldstein et al result." If this is true, what was the point of using an indirect reference to the article in the first place, if not to use its results? <<<<<<<<<<

 

You must understand that Barry and Helen are not relying only on historical data measurements, but also on biblical data. They take the Genesis account of creation together with the generations recorded from Adam on down as absolute proof of a young age of earth, and this data is considered to be as reliable as any other data known to science.

Logical reasoning can only procede from unproveable axioms we take on faith. They start from interpreting Genesis literally on faith and work from there. They take the extreme position that anything that goes against Genesis must be wrong, even if we are talking about a non religious subject such as astronomy.

Most of us find that taking this extreme view winds up being inconsistent with our other logical conclusions and make some modification of how we use Genesis accordingly. To some, including Helen and Barry, to do so is a breach of faith in God. This justifies incredible departures from hard won knowledge in physics and history and paleontology and geology and astronomy, just to mention a few. And this is done in spite of the lessons of history regarding Copernicus, Galleleo, and others.

 

Setterfield's response to Day's critique:

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_bs_02.asp

Helen, Setterfield's response to Day's critique is given at the web site above. However, a comparision of the response to Day's critique, part of which I have given in previous posts, reveals that Setterfield does not address some of the main criticism. Day was quite harsh in discussing Setterfield's use of statistics, as well as the selection of certain data points, which according to Day, had no basis in reality. Setterfield does not refute either of these complaints. That is understandable if Setterfield cannot refute those points, but otherwise it is strange. If someone questioned my honesty, in a public way, I would take pains to address the criticism in considerable detail. Since Day's criticism is still on the Internet, it is useless to say that this stuff is too obsolete to comment on.

 

Helen writes:

Unfortunately some truths are difficult or painful to face; among the most difficult are the follies of our past. We might wish that others would ignore them by keeping up to date with our present activities (follies and other). It is less than honest, however, to forthrightly confront our pasts.

While it is doubtless unpleasant for you, and for Barry Setterfield to recount that old embarrassment of his spurious near-perfect correlation, you need to do so. By the ordinary standards applied to the ordinary work-a-day scientist, Setterfield's claiming .9999+ correlation for data with large visually-apparent scatter has to rank as one of the silliest things ever purported to be published as scientific literature. I doubt a similar mistake has ever appeared anywhere in the ordinary scientific literature. One looks at the data, one sees a .999+ correlation come out of the computer...and one sees immediately that something is wrong. NOBODY who publishes in the ordinary scientific literature would fail to see this. It might not be apparent immediately what's wrong, but no scientist would have failed to see that something was wrong. And most, seeing .9999_ correlation would suspect something wrong with that computation.

... a blunder of this magnitude, to be lived down, needs to be frankly acknowledged as a blunder of the immense magnitude that it is. This is true of author, editor, referee, and audience. All of them, as putative scientists, failed completely as scientists or as a scientific community.

Regardless of Setterfield's past motivations Paul is correct that he and you do use Biblical chronological data as input--perhaps without realizing it. Remember that up until now Setterfield has not specified any time-behavior for G (or m). (Or rather, the specifications he previously made have been retracted and not replaced). Without such behavior, his theory predicts no time-behavior at all. Young earth or universe do not come out of his theory, and cannot until those behaviors are specified. The only reason to suppose that his theory is now a young-earth theory is that he (and you) filter out behaviors of G and m based upon whether they can give young-earth results or not. Without knowing the time-evolution of G and m one cannot know how many times the earth has revolved about the sun during the four and a half billion atomic years of its history.

[edited by Administrator]

[ April 26, 2003, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

It has been said that the more flak the pilot receives, the closer to the target he is. Barry Setterfield must be saying something worthy of note if that is the case.

It is time to remind the people here to read the rules though. Personal attacks are not allowed on Baptist Board. Please refrain from personal challenges and epithets and discuss the issues.

Thank you.

The Administrators

 

Our Administrator wrote:

That reminds me of something I once heard from a preacher's pulpit. The preacher told us of a wise man whom he knew. When asked his secret the wise man explained that when he heard two people arguing he waited to see which first became angry, and then took the side of the other.

But I knew of a wiser man. When he heard two people arguing he reminded himself that he really did not understand their argument and frankly admitted that he didn't know who was right.

 

Helen,

The link you referred to does not do what you claim it does. Mongomery's paper contains a new analysis by Montgomery on the data Setterfield was using and not a defense of Setterfield's statistical interpretation. It appears to be almost entirely a response to Ardsma's critique. But what I was saying is that neither Setterfield or anyone else, as far as I can tell was responsive to Day's criticism. Now Setterfield did post a response, which is in the links on this thread, but Settefield's response didn't discuss the issues that Day raised. Since I believe that Setterfield's original paper is still on the Internet, or at least was published in a creationist journal and since Day's critique is still on the Internet, the issue is not laid to rest until Setterfield really responds. And your characterization of the situation is also in error. You said that Setterfield's use of statistics was defended by a professional statistician. You should be more careful, because from what I can see, that did not happen. Again I say to you and anyone else is listening that there was no defense, by anyone of Setterfield's statistical mistakes. There can be no defense, because as has been pointed out, the mistakes were breathtaking in their silliness. Not to mention the data point of the year 1675.

 

Helen,

The net result is that Setterfield's original statistical work is not defensible. That is why neither Setterfield nor anyone else has answered Day's critique. The only way out for Setterfield on that issue is simply to admit he was mistaken. If he tries to defend what he did, only digs his hole deeper. As for the use of the data point from the year 1675, it might be possible to explain and respond to Day's critique on that, but so far, it has not been done. Setterfield's mistake on the statistics is important because of the fact that it reveals his rather weak background in a way that is telling for most scientists in that it is easily understood.