collected by Lambert Dolphin
Ongoing Discussion: Barry Setterfield's web site now features discussion sections where the following issues, and many more, are currently being posted and discussed. You may email Barry at barry@setterfield.org. (March 9, 2003)
Australian astronomer Barry Setterfield suggests that all "constants" which carry units of "per second" have been decreasing since the beginning of the universe. Constants with dimensions of "seconds" have been increasing inversely. This is born out with some degree of statistical confidence by studying the available measurements of all the constants over time. The case for the velocity of light decreasing is better established than changes in any other constants because more data over longer time periods is available for c.
Measurements on constants of physics which do not carry dimensions of time (seconds or 1/seconds; or powers thereof) are found to be truly fixed and invariant. The variability of one set of constants does not lead to an unstable universe, nor to readily observable happenings in the physical world. The principal consequence is a decreasing run rate for atomic clocks as compared to dynamical clocks. The latter clocks depend on gravity and Newton's Laws of Motion.
In the first thorough statistical study of all the available data on the velocity of light in recent decades, presented in Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman's 1987 report The Atomic Constants, Light, and Time, the authors also analyzed (in addition to values of c), measurements of the charge on the electron, e, the specific charge, e/mc, the Rydberg constant, R, the gyromagnetic ratio, the quantum Hall resistance, h/e2, 2e/h, and h/e, various radioactive decay constants, and Newton's gravitational constant G.
Three of these Norman and Setterfield quantities found to be truly fixed constants, namely e, R, and G. These constants are either independent of time or independent of atomic processes. The other five quantities, which are related to atomic phenomena and which involve time in their units of measurement, were found to trend, with the exception of the quantum Hall resistance.
Montgomery and Dolphin re-analyzed these data, carefully excluding outliers. Their results differed from Norman and Setterfield's only for the Rydberg constant where Montgomery and Dolphin obtained rejection of constancy at the 95% confidence level for the run test (but not the MSSD). The available measurements of radioactive decay constants, they found, do not have enough precision to be useful. Montgomery's latest work answers his critics and used statistical weighting.
Norman and Setterfield also believe that photon energy, (hf), remains constant over time even as c varies. This forces the value of (hc) to be constant in agreement with astronomical observations. What is measured astronomically are light wavelengths, not frequency. The consequence of this is that h must vary inversely with c and therefore the trend in the constants containing h are restricted as to their direction. The Fine Structure constant is invariant. An increasing value of h over time affects such things as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Montgomery and Dolphin calculated the least-squares straight line for all the c-related constants and found no violation of this restriction. In all cases the trends in "h constants" are in the appropriate direction. In addition, a least squares line was plotted for c, the gyromagnetic ratio, q/mc, and h/e for the years 1945-80. The slopes continued to remain statistically significant, and in the appropriate direction. Furthermore the percentage rate of change varied by only one order of magnitude---very close, considering how small some of the cells are. By contrast, the t test results on the slopes of the other three constants (e, R, and G) were not statistically significant. See Is The Velocity of Light a Constant in Time?
To summarize: The Bohr Magnetron, gas constant R(0), Avogadro's number, N(0), Zeeman Displacement/gauss, the Schrodinger constant (fixed nucleus), Compton wavelengths, the Fine Structure Constant, deBroglie wavelengths, the Faraday and the Volt (hf/2e) all can be shown to be c-independent. The gravitational constant G, actually more properly speaking Gm, appears to be a fixed constant.
The velocity of electromagnetic waves has its present value of 299,792.458 km/sec, only in vacuum. When light enters a denser medium, such as glass or water the velocity in the medium drops immediately by a factor of one over the index of refraction (n) of the medium. For practical purposes, the index of refraction is equal to the square root of the dielectric constant of the medium---which is the real part of the dielectric permittivity of the medium. Materials other than vacuum are lossy, causing electromagnetic waves to undergo dispersion as well a change in wavelength in the medium.
For example, the dielectric constant of water at radio wavelengths is about 81, so the velocity of radio waves in water is 299,792.458 / 9 or 33,310.273 km/sec. In the visible light band, n is about 1.3 for water, giving a velocity of 225,407.863 km/sec for visible light rays.
Actually the velocity of light is a scaling constant, or metric, which appears in James Clerk Maxwell's equations for the propagation of electromagnetic waves in any medium. The velocity of light is dependent not only on the dielectric permittivity, e,---in free space designated as e(0); but also on the magnetic permeability of a medium, m,---which for free space is designated as m(0).
The propagation velocity for electromagnetic waves, c, is related to e and m according to the following equation,
1/c2 = m0e0
c = 1/[m0e0]1/2
After discussing both options as to whether it was m or e that might be varying, Setterfield and Norman originally suggested that the permittivity of free space has not changed with time according to the best available measurements. It was probably the permeability which was changing---possibly inversely proportional to c squared. The permeability of space was apparently related in some way to the stretching out of free space at the time of creation (Genesis 1:6-8, Psalm 104:2). It might be possible, therefore, that when God stretched out the "firmament of the heavens"---on the second day of creation week---that the value of (m) had its lowest value and had since increased.
According to this earlier hypothesis, sometime after creation the heavens apparently "relaxed" from their initial stretched-out condition, much as one would let air out of a filled balloon. If the universe had its maximum diameter at the end of creation week and had since shrunk somewhat, then the Big Bang theory of an expanding universe is incorrect. The shrinkage of free space would then account for the observed slowing down of the velocity of light. The red-shift would not be a measure of actual radial velocities of the galaxies receding from one another, but instead would be due entirely to a decrease in the value of c since creation. An initial value of c some 11 million times greater than the present value of c was suggested.
William Sumner's recent paper (see abstract) proposes a cosmology in which permittivity rather than permeability is the variable. Glenn R. Morton discusses both possibilities and their consequences in his useful CRSQ paper, Changing Constants and the Cosmos. (Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 27 no. 2, September 1990)---available from Creation Research Society
More recently Barry Setterfield (private communication) has suggested that he now believes that both e and m are varying. This follows from the fact that in the isotropic, non-dispersive medium of space, equal energy is carried by the Electric and Magnetic vector components of the electromagnetic wave, and the ratio of E/H is invariant with any change in c. Therefore both e and m have been changing over time since creation. In the revised view, the apparent decrease in c since creation could be due to a step input of Zero Point Energy (ZPE) being fed into the universe from "outside"---as a function of time, beginning just after the heavens were stretched out to the maximum diameter on Day Two of creation. The diameter of the universe has been fixed (static) ever since, so one must look for another explanation of the Red Shift than the old model of an expanding universe. This view does not rule out possible subsequent decreases in the ZPE input from the vacuum which might be associated with such catastrophes in nature as the fall of the angels, the curse on the earth at the fall of man, and the flood of Noah catastrophe. Such changes would result in the universe being more degenerative now than it was at the end of creation week.
Some additional published information by Setterfield is available by mail from Australia (Reference 1), but most Setterfield's later work is awaiting final peer review for journal publication as of this writing.
From Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, we can also calculate what is known as the "impedance of free space" (commonly used in antenna design). The present value is 377 ohms, and the formula is,
Z = [m0/e0]1/2
n = [e/m][E/H]
As noted above, the impedance of free space tells us how radio waves, or photons of light, will travel through space. Z also gives us the ratio of the electric field vector, E, to the magnetic field vector, H, in free space. Z is also invariant with changes in c. The refractive index of any medium---whether empty space or other material, n, measures the property of a glass lens to bend a beam of light for example. If c were found to be decreasing over the history of the universe it follows that optical path lengths everywhere in the universe have been changing since creation. This result has a number of consequences for astronomy---the true size and the age of the universe would be greatly affected for instance. It has been argued that no change in light spectra from distant stars has ever been observed and hence c could not have changed. As will be seen below, what is measured in light spectra is always wavelength not frequency; light wavelengths stay constant with varying c. Constants such as alpha, the fine-structure constant, (and so on) are invariant if c changes.
The energy carried by an electromagnetic propagating wave is contained in both the oscillating magnetic field and the oscillating electric field. The total energy flux is known as Poynting's Vector, S. S is equal to c times the cross product of the E and H vectors. Energy is conserved in propagating waves---at least no one wishes to throw out such an important principle at least as a first approach.
Assuming energy is conserved under conditions of decreasing c the following must be true:
The energy of a photon can be calculated from Einstein's famous equation relating mass and energy. If we use this formula, it is easy to see that the photon has "apparent mass" as is often noted. Photon energy is also known to be equal to hf, where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the emitted light of the photon. The energy of a photon can also be expressed in terms of wavelength, lambda, rather than frequency,
Energy, E = mc2
E = hv = hc/l
if c is non-constant then hc = constant and h ~ 1/c.
If c is not a fixed constant, Planck's "constant" should vary with time, that is inversely proportional to c. (That this is so experimentally is borne out with reasonable statistical confidence levels by data given in the Setterfield and Norman 1987 report and also by Montgomery and Dolphin in their Galilean Electrodynamics paper).
In their original theory Setterfield and Norman believed that the wavelength of radiation, at the time a radio-wave or light photon is emitted, is invariant for constant energy. However, once a radio-wave leaves the source, or a photon departs from its parent atom, energy and momentum are apparently both conserved. Also the product (hc) is a true constant which does not vary with time.
In their 1987 report, Setterfield and Norman show that the deBroglie wavelengths for moving particles and the Compton wavelength are c-independent. The energy of an orbiting electron, the fine-structure constant, and the Rydberg constant are also shown to be c-independent and thus truly constant with time. The gyro-magnetic ratio, g = e/ 2mc, is found to vary inversely proportionally to c.
Setterfield and Norman originally claimed that the wavelength of light emitted from atoms, (for instance, the atoms on a distant star), was independent of any changes in c. However, the relative energy of the emitted light wave is inversely proportional to c, and if c decreases while the light wave is on its journey, its energy and its momentum must be conserved in flight. The intensity of the light, related to the wave amplitude, increases proportionally to c. Thus there should be proportionally less dimming of light from distant stars. In order for light to maintain energy conservation in flight, as c decays, the frequency of the emitted light must decrease inversely proportionally to c. The relaxation of free space, causing the observed c-decay, and increasing optical path length, occurs everywhere in the universe at the same time.
A new explanation of the (quantized) red-shift involving a static (non-expanding) universe is the subject of a paper now in preparation by Barry Setterfield.
Setterfield's early attempts to explain the red shift as caused by the decrease in light velocity over time were not satisfactory. Several other researchers also tried to explain the red-shift as a Doppler-like effect. Setterfield revised his model in 1993 along the following lines:
Barry now assumes that energy flux from our sun or from distant stars is constant over time. (Energy flux is due to atomic processes and is the amount of energy radiated from the surface of a star per square centimeter per second). Setterfield also now proposes that when the velocity of light was (say) ten times higher than now, then 10 times as many photons per second (in dynamical time) were emitted from each square centimeter of surface. Each photon would however carry only one tenth as much energy, conserving the total energy flux. Setterfield says, "This approach has a dramatic effect. When light-speed c was 10 times higher, a star would emit 10 photons in one second compared with one now. This ten-photon stream then comprised part of a light beam of photons spaced 1/10th of a second apart. In transit, that light beam progressively slowed until it arrived at the earth with today's c value. This speed is only 1/10th of its original speed, so that the 10 photons arrive at one second intervals. The source appears to emit photons at today's rate of 1 per second. However, the photon's wavelength is red-shifted, since the energy per photon was lower when it was emitted."
Setterfield continues, "This red-shift of light from distant galaxies is a well-known astronomical effect. The further away a galaxy is from us, the further down into the red end of the rainbow spectrum is its light shifted. It has been assumed that this is like a Doppler effect: when a train blowing its whistle, passes an observer on a station, the pitch of the whistle drops. Similarly light from galaxies was thought to be red-shifted because the galaxies were racing away from us. Instead, the total red-shift effect seems due to c variation alone."
"When this scenario is followed through in mathematical detail an amazing fact emerges. The light from distant objects is not only red-shifted: this red-shift goes in jumps, or is 'quantized' to use the exact terminology. For the last 10 years, William Tifft, an astronomer at (an) Arizona Observatory USA, has been pointing this out. His most recent paper on the matter gives red-shift quantum values from observation that are almost exactly (those) obtained from c-variation theory. Furthermore, a theoretical value can be derived for the Hubble constant, H. As a consequence, we now know from the red-shift how far away a galaxy was, and the value of c at the time the light was emitted. We can therefore find the value of c right out to the limits of the universe...Shortly after the origin of the universe, the red-shift of light from distant astronomical objects was about 11 million times faster than now. At the time of the Creation of the Universe, then, this high value of c meant the atomic clock ticked off 11 million years in one orbital year. This is why everything is so old when measured by the atomic clock." (Ref. 1)
Setterfield's original reasoning concerning the relationships between energy and mass were somewhat as follows: The energy, E, associated with a mass, m, is E = m c2, as stated earlier. This means that the mass of an object would seem to vary as 1/c2. At first this seems preposterous. However Setterfield noted that "m" in the above equation is the atomic (or rest) mass of a particle, not the mass of the particle if the particle were weighed on a gravity type scale.
The factor for converting mass from atomic mass to dynamical mass is precisely c squared. As c decreases no change in the mass of objects is observed in our ordinary experience because we observe the gravitational and inertial properties of mass in dynamical, not atomic time. To better understand the difference between atomic rest mass, and mass weighed in the world of our daily experience, consider Newton's Law of Gravity.
As far as gravity is concerned, the gravitational force, F, between objects of mass m and M is given by Newton's formula,
F = GMm/r2
where G is the universal gravitational constant and r is the distance between the objects. Space has built-in gravitational properties similar to its electrical properties mentioned above. This gives rise to the so-called "Schwartschild metric for free space," which also is related to the stretched-outness of free space. In this way of viewing things macroscopic mass measured by gravity is atomic rest mass multiplied by the so-called gravitational permeability of free space, corresponding to electromagnetic permeability in Maxwell's equations. (See Ref. 2)
Incidentally, the accepted value of G is 6.67259 x 10-11) and the units are: meters3 kg-1) sec-2. Clues as to which units should be fixed and which are invariant, as noted in the first paragraph above, are "constants" containing "seconds" or "1/seconds" or powers thereof. If Gm is invariant, then Setterfield's latest work implies that G itself varies inversely with c to the fourth power.
More recently Setterfield has attempted to relate a decreasing velocity of light with astronomer William Tifft's discovery that red-shifted light from the galaxies appears to be quantized. Setterfield also notes (as does Hal Putoff) that in classical atomic theory electrons circling the nucleus are accelerated particles and ought to radiate energy, but apparently they don't--according to the tacit assumptions of modern physics. Setterfield suggests that energy is actually being fed into every atom in the universe from the vacuum at precisely the rate electrons are dissipating this energy. The calculated total amount of this energy input is enormous, of the order of 1.071 x 10117 kilowatts per square meter. (Some have physicist have claimed that the latent energy resident in the vacuum is infinite, but Setterfield is content to be conservative, he says!) 10117 is of course a very large number in any case. [The total number of atoms in the universe is only ~ 1066, the total number of particles in the universe is only ~ 1080, the age of the universe is only about ~ 1017 seconds. And any event with a probability of less than 1 part in 1050 is considered "absurd."]
After the initial creation of space, time and matter, and the initial stretching out of the universe to its maximum (present) diameter, the above-mentioned energy input from the vacuum commenced as a step impulse and has continued at the same rate ever since. [Assuming no subsequent disruptions from "outside"]. This energy input has raised the energy density of the vacuum per unit volume over time and means the creation and annihilation of more virtual particles as time moves forward. Photons are absorbed and reradiated more frequently as this takes place, hence the velocity of light decreases with time. All this is another way of saying that the properties of the vacuum as measured by mu and e have changed as a function of time since the creation event.
Furthermore as the velocity of light drops with time, atoms in the vicinity continue for a certain time period radiating photons of the same wavelengths for a season, and then abruptly every energy level drops by one quantum number. According to Setterfield's estimates, the velocity of light must decrease by the incremental value of 331 km/sec for one quantum jump of wavelength in photons radiated from atoms to occur. (There have been somewhere around 500,000 total quantum jumps since the universe began, he estimates). The last jump occurred about 2800 B.C.
This, then, in brief provides a new explanation for the red-shift and the quantization of red-shifted light from the galaxies which has been documented by Wm. Tifft and others in recent years.
Setterfield now suggests that the product of G and m is a fixed constant, rather than G itself. When one attempts to measure G in the laboratory (this is now done with great precision) he claims that we actually measure Gm. In Setterfield's latest work, rest mass m varies inversely as c squared except at the quantum jumps when m is inversely proportional to c to the fourth power. In such a model energy is not conserved at the jumps, because more energy is being fed into the universe from the vacuum. Energy conservation holds between the quantum jump intervals. Since Setterfield's latest work has not been published, the best source of related information is his last published report and video, (Reference 1). Three charts from that report are accessible from this web page.
Setterfield's paper on this subject is in final journal review as of this writing. Overview of theory, Atomic Behaviour, Light and The Red-Shift.
Consider the Bohr atom for purposes of illustration. The centripetal force pushing electrons away from the nucleus is exactly balanced by the electrostatic (Coulomb) force between electron and nucleus.
F = e2/4pe0r2 = mv2/r
v = e2/e02nh
hence v varies as c
v is the orbital velocity of the electron, e is its charge, h is Planck's constant, r is the orbital radius of the electron, F the force and m the rest mass of the electron.
From this simplistic approach, if c is decreasing with time, then Planck's constant is increasing, and orbital velocities were faster in the past---thus the "run rate" of the atomic clock was faster in the past. Of course Setterfield has worked out the mathematics for more sophisticated quantum mechanical models of the atom, and also shown that his conclusions do not conflict with either General or Special Relativity Theories.
If the above equation is solved for rest mass m, then m is proportional to Planck's constant squared. That makes m inversely proportional to c squared in the Setterfield model.
Additional notes from the 1987 Setterfield and Norman report: "For energy to be conserved in atomic orbits, the electron kinetic energy must be independent of c and obey the standard equation:
E(k) = mv2 / 2 = [Z e2] / (8 pi epsilon(0) a] = invariant with changes in c.
The term e2 / e(0) is also c independent as are atomic and dynamical orbit radii. Thus, the atomic orbit radius, a, is invariant with changes in c.
However for atomic particles, the particles velocities, v, are proportional to c.
Now from Bohr's first postulate (the Bohr Model is used for simplicity throughout as it gives correct results to a first approximation) comes the relation,
mva = nh / 2 pi
where h is Planck's constant. Thus h varies as 1/c..."
"The expression for the energy of a given electron orbit, n, is,
E(n) = 2 pi2 e4 m / [h2 n2]
which is independent of c. With orbit energies unaffected by c decay, electron sharing between two atomic orbits results in the 'resonance energy' that forms the covalent bond being c independent. A similar argument also applies to the dative bond between coordinate covalent compounds. Since the electronic charge is taken as constant, the ionic or electrovalent bond strengths are not dependent on c.
Related to orbit energy is the Rydberg constant R.
R = 2 pi2 e4 m / [(c h3]
which is invariant with changes in c, as the mutually variable quantities cancel...
The Fine Structure constant, alpha, appears in combination with the Rydberg constant in defining some other quantities...
the fine structure constant,
alpha = 2 p2 / (hc),
which is invariant with c." (End of excerpt from 1987 Setterfield and Norman report)
In their 1987 essay, Setterfield and Norman suggested that radioactive decay processes were proportional to c. (There are various mechanisms for radioactive emission processes, the equations for each model all involve c or h in the same general fashion).
The following notes are also taken from the Setterfield and Norman 1987 report: "...the velocity, v, at which nucleons move in their orbitals seems to be proportional to c. As atomic radii are c independent, and if the radius of the nucleus is r, then the alpha particle escape frequency lambda* (the decay constant) as defined by Gladstone and Von Buttlar is given as,
lambda* = P v / r
where P is the probability of escape by the tunneling process. Since P is a function of energy, which, from the above approach is c independent, then lambda* varies in proportion to c.
For beta decay processes, Von Buttlar defines the decay constant as,
lambda* = G f = m c2 g2 |M|2 f / [p2 h]
where f is a function of the maximum energy of emission and atomic number Z, both c independent. M, the nuclear matrix element dependent upon energy, is unchanged by c, as is the constant g. Planck's constant is h, so for beta decay, lambda* varies in proportion to c. An alternative formulation by Burcham leads to the same result.
For electron capture, the relevant equation from Burcham is lambda* = K2 |M|5 f / [2 p2]
where f is here a function of the fine structure constant, the atomic number Z, and total energy, all c independent. M is as above. K2 is defined by Burcham as,
K2 = g2 m2 c4 / [h / 2 p]
With g independent of c, this results in K2 proportional to c, so that for electron capture lambda* varies in proportion to c. This approach thus gives lambda* proportional to c for all radioactive decay [processes]...
The beta decay coupling constant, g, used above, also called the Fermi interaction constant, bears a value of 1.4 x 10-49 [erg-cm] [^ 3]. Conservation laws therefore require it to be invariant with changes in c. The weak coupling constant, g , is a dimensionless number that includes g. Wesson defines g(w) = {[g m2 c / (h / 2 p)3]}2, where m is the pion mass...this equation also leaves g(w) as invariant with changes in c. This is demonstrable in practice since any variation in gw would result in a discrepancy between the radiometric ages for alpha and beta decay processes. That is not usually observed. The fact that g(w) is also dimensionless hinted that it should be independent of c for reasons that become apparent shortly. Similar theoretical and experimental evidence also shows that the strong coupling constant, g has been invariant over cosmic time. Indeed, the experimental limits that preclude variation in all three coupling constants also place comparable limits on any variation in e or vice versa. The indication is, therefore, that they have remained constant on a universal timescale. The nuclear g-factor for the proton, g(p) , also proves invariant from astrophysical observation. Generally, therefore, the dimensionless coupling constants may be taken as invariant with changing c." (End of excerpt)
Radioactive decay rates have been experimentally measured only in this century. The available data has been statistically examined by Trevor Norman and also by Alan Montgomery (both very competent statisticians) but without conclusive results because of the paucity of data.
Was the energy released by radioactive decay processes faster in the past when c was higher? Setterfield says, "...there is an elegant answer to this question. Light is an electromagnetic phenomenon whereby energy is transported. In this scenario, the fundamental entity is not the energy as such, but rather the rate of flow of that energy at its point of emission. What is proposed here for variable 'c' is that the amount of energy being emitted per unit time from each atom, and from all atomic processes, is invariant. In other words the energy flux is conserved in all circumstances with c variation. This solves our difficulty.
"Under these new conditions the radio-active decay rate is indeed proportional to 'c'. However, the amount of energy that flows per orbital second from the process is invariant with changes in 'c'. In other words, despite higher 'c' causing higher decay rates in the past, this was no more dangerous then than today's rates are, since the energy flux is the same. This occurs because each emitted photon has lower energy. As the reactions powering the sun and stars have a similar process, a potential problem there disappears as well.
"What is being proposed is essentially the same as the water in a pipe analogy. Assume that the pipe has a highly variable cross-section over its length. As a result, the stream of water moves with varying velocity down the pipe. But no matter how fast or slow the stream is moving, the same quantity of water flows per unit time through all cross-sections of the pipe. Similarly, the emitted energy flux from atomic processes is conserved for varying c values. Under these conditions, when the equations are reworked all of the previously mentioned terrestrial and astronomical observations are still upheld. Indeed, the synchronous variations of the same constants still occur." (From Ref. 1)
What is noticeably different in a universe where c is decreasing? Macroscopically not very much, Setterfield and Norman have claimed. Gravity is not affected, nor Newton's Laws of motion, nor most processes of chemistry or physics. The stability of the universe in the usual cosmological equations is unaffected, although one or more very different cosmological scenarios for the history of the universe can be developed as shown in the accompanying abstracts by Troitskii, Sumner, and Hsu and Hsu. Of course these new models differ from the currently prevailing Big Bang scenario in many significant ways.
Because wavelength of light (not frequency) is measured, we would not detect changing c by measurements of absolute wavelengths of light from distant stars over time, or by changes in spectral line splitting and so on.
The main effect of changing c concerns time scales measured inside the atom---on the atomic scale---as opposed to macroscopic events as measured outside the atom. Put another way, the run rate of the atomic clock would slow with respect to dynamical time (as measured by the motion of sun, moon, and stars.)
Prof. of Biology Dean Kenyon of San Francisco State University has suggested (private communication) that if c were higher in the past some biological processes could have been faster or more efficient in the past. Nerve impulses are of course not completely electrical in nature because of the ion-transfer processes at neuron synapses for instance.
Notes from Setterfield:
SEVEN RELEVANT BASIC FEATURES OF THE NEW THEORY:
1. Photon energies are proportional to [l / c2)].
2. Photon fluxes from emitters are directly proportional to c.
3. Photons travel at the speed of c.
4. From 1 to 3 this means that the total energy flux from any emitter is invariant with decreasing c, that is, [ 1 / c2 x c x c ]. This includes stars and the radioactive decay of elements etc.
5. Atomic particles will travel at a rate proportional to c.
6. There is an additional quantization of atomic phenomena brought about by a full quantum (+/-) of energy available to the atom. This occurs every time there is a change in light-speed by (+/-) 331 times its present value.
7. A harmonization of the situation with regards to both atomic and macroscopic masses results from the new theory, and a quantization factor is involved.
RESULTS FROM THOSE SEVEN FEATURES:
A). From 2, as photosynthesis depends upon the number of photons received, it inevitably means that photosynthetic processes were more efficient with higher c values. This leads to the conclusions stated originally.
B). As radiation rates are proportional to c from 2, it inevitably follows that magma pools, e.g., on the moon, will cool more quickly. Note that A and B are built-in features of the theory that need no other maths or physics.
C). From 6 and 7, the coefficient of diffusion will vary up to 331 times its current value within a full quantum interval. In other words there is an upper maximum to diffusion efficiencies. Otherwise the original conclusions still stand.
D). In a similar way to C, and following on from 6 and 7, the coefficient of viscosity will vary down to 1/331 times it current value within the full quantum interval. This implies a lower minimum value for viscosities. Within that constraint, the original conclusions hold.
E). In a way similar to C and D, and again resulting from 6 and 7, critical velocities for laminar flow will vary up to 331 times that pertaining now, within the full quantum interval. The original conclusions then hold within that constraint.
F). As the cyclic time for each quantum interval was extremely short initially, it follows that it is appropriate to use an average value in C, D, and E, instead of the maximum: that is, about 166. As c tapered down to its present value, a long time has been spent on the lower portion of a quantum change with near-minimum values for C, and E, and near maximum values for D. These facts result in the effects originally elucidated.
(Additional notes in this paragraph supplied by Barry Setterfield, 6th November, 1995).
In their most recent publication Setterfield and Norman provide a curve with their proposed rate of decrease in c with both dynamical and atomic time scales shown. A scanned copy of their curve is available at the end of this paper under Reference 1. Their most recent published formula for the rate of decrease in c is,
Conversion from atomic time to dynamic time for
atomic dates
greater than 63 million years (1005 B.C. in dynamical time):
D - (63 million) = 1905 t2
where D is Dynamical time and t is atomic time.
when t is obtained from this equation, add 3005 years to get actual
year B.C.
Time after creation, in orbital years is approximately,
D = 1499 t2 (Setterfield Ref. 1)
The initial value of c is believed to have been greater than the present value by a factor of 11 million times. In the past 4000 years or so, Setterfield believes the velocity of light has decreased exponentially to nearly zero at the present time. In order to get a grasp on how c may have changed in the time period from 2550 B.C. to the present, Setterfield spent 9 months collecting some 1228 published radiometric dates which could be correlated with known actual historical dates from ancient history or archaeology. For instance, cedar from the great pyramid of Giza has been radio-carbon dated and the pyramid was believed to have been built in 2650 B.C. The two dates do not coincidence even when a corrected radio-carbon dating curve is used. A plotted curve of these 1228 data points by Setterfield showing how c may have varied since 2550 B.C. is accessible below under Reference 1. Setterfield has superposed an damped (oscillatory) exponential tail as a best-fit curve to the plot of the data.
Setterfield says, "Unlike our first presentation [i.e., the 1987 report] which has been shown to have no red-shift, z, with CDK, [CDK = "c decay"] this revised approach indicates that the red-shift of light from distant galaxies is certainly a CDK effect. Indeed, the derivation gives red-shifts that are quantized in jumps of 2.732 km/s. This figure and its 3rd and 5th multiples give inferred velocities that have been observed by Tifft, et al (Astrophys. J., Vol. 382, pp.396-415, Dec. 1, 1991).
"Furthermore, there is no red-shift from CDK for astronomical objects closer than 126,000 Light Years. On this basis, then, these z values provide CDK data out to the limits of the cosmos. The form of CDK is clearly discernible...These data reveal a clear decay pattern. A steep square-law drop bottomed out near 2800 BC. Because of the overshoot, c then underwent an oscillation about its final value with the last maximum about 1200 AD. The measured value of c has dropped since then...Conversion from atomic eras to fairly exact dates in actual orbital time is thus a simple process...The reason for CDK, and aberrant atomic clock Behaviour, seems to lie in the reaction of the 'fabric' of space to the massive energy input at the time of creation. The initial value of c was about 11 million times its current speed. Troitskii's less formal analysis placed it at roughly 10 billion times c now." (Ref. 1)
If the age of the universe is 15 billion years in atomic time, then this number is equivalent to a historical (dynamical time) date of about 6000 B.C.
It should be obvious that there are major problems remaining to be addressed if such alleged rates of change and the underlying causes are to be explained, defended, and analyzed properly in peer-reviewed journals. The above remarks are both abbreviated and tentative to say the least.
In his last published paper A Determination and Analysis of Appropriate Values of the Speed Of Light ... Alan Montgomery gives a curve to fit the available data as follows:
c ( t ) = 299,792 + .031 x [ ( 1967.5 - t )2].
Montgomery says this "is a suitable regression model for the velocity of light values in the last 250 years."
Notes on a Static Universe:Incredibly, an expanding universe does imply an expanding earth on most cosmological models that follow Einstein and or Friedmann. As space expands, so does everything in it. This is why, if the redshift signified cosmological expansion even the very atoms making up the matter in the universe would also have to expand. There would be no sign of this in rock crystal lattices etc since everything was expanding uniformly as was the space between them. This expansion occurred at the Creation of the Cosmos as the verses you listed have shown.
It is commonly thought that the progressive redshift of light from distant galaxies is evidence that this universal expansion is still continuing. However, W. Q. Sumner in Astrophysical Journal 429:491-498, 10 July 1994, pointed out a problem. The maths indeed show that atoms partake in such expansion, and so does the wavelength of light in transit through space. This "stretching" of the wavelengths of light in transit will cause it to become redder. It is commonly assumed that this is the origin of the redshift of light from distant galaxies. But the effect on the atoms changes the wavelength of emitted light in the opposite direction. The overall result of the two effects is that an expanding cosmos will have light that is blue-shifted, not red-shifted as we see at present. The interim conclusion is that the cosmos cannot be expanding at the moment (it may be contracting).
Furthermore, as Arizona astronomer William Tifft and others have shown, the redshift of light from distant galaxies is quantized, or goes in "jumps". Now it is uniformly agreed that any universal expansion or contraction does not go in "jumps" but is smooth. Therefore expansion or contraction of the cosmos is not responsible for the quantization effect: it may come from light-emitting atoms. If this is so, cosmological expansion or contraction will smear-out any redshift quantization effects, as the emitted wavelengths get progressively "stretched" or "shrunk" in transit. The final conclusion is that the quantized redshift implies that the present cosmos must be static after initial expansion. [Narliker and Arp proved that a static matter-filled cosmos is stable against collapse in Astrophysical Journal 405:51-56 (1993)].
Therefore, as the heavens were expanded out to their maximum size, so were the earth, and the planets, and the stars. I assume that this happened before the close of Day 4, but I am guessing here. Following this expansion event, the cosmos remained static. (Barry Setterfield, September 25, 1998)
Question: What about the new evidence that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating as reported in recent science articles?
Comment from Barry Setterfield:The evidence that an accelerating expansion is occurring comes because distant objects are in fact further away than anticipated given a non-linear and steeply climbing red-shift/distance curve.
Originally, the redshift/distance relation was accepted as linear until objects were discovered with a redshift greater than 1. On the linear relation, this meant that the objects were receding with speeds greater than light, a no-no in relativity. So a relativistic correction was applied that makes the relationship start curving up steeply at great distances. This has the effect of making large redshift changes over short distances. Now it is found that these objects are indeed farther away than this curve predicts, so they have to drag in accelerating expansion to overcome the hassle.
The basic error is to accept the redshift as due to an expansion velocity. If the redshift is NOT a velocity of expansion, then these very distant objects are NOT traveling faster than light, so the relativistic correction is not needed. Given that point, it becomes apparent that if a linear redshift relation is maintained throughout the cosmos, then we get distances for these objects that do not need to be corrected. That is just what my current redshift paper does. (January 12, 1999)
Question: Regarding the recent research acknowledging the possibility that the speed of light has not always been constant, someone wrote to me: "By the way, there's a pretty easy way to demonstrate that the speed of light has been constant for about 160,000 years using Supernova 1987A."
Comment from Barry Setterfield: It has been stated on a number of occasions that Supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) has effectively demonstrated that the speed of light, c, is a constant. There are two phenomena associated with SN1987A that lead some to this erroneous conclusion. The first of these features was the exponential decay in the relevant part of the light-intensity curve. This gave sufficient evidence that it was powered by the release of energy from the radioactive decay of cobalt 56 whose half-life is well-known. The second feature was the enlarging rings of light from the explosion that illuminated the sheets of gas and dust some distance from the supernova. We know the approximate distance to the LMC (about 165,000 to 170,000 light years), and we know the angular distance of the ring from the supernova. It is a simple calculation to find how far the gas and dust sheets are from the supernova.
Consequently, we can calculate how long it should take light to get from the supernova to the sheets, and how long the peak intensity should take to pass.
The problem with the radioactive decay rate is that this would have been faster if the speed of light was higher. This would lead to a shorter half-life than the light-intensity curve revealed. For example, if c were 10 times its current value (c now), the half-life would be only 1/10th of what it is today, so the light-intensity curve should decay in 1/10th of the time it takes today. In a similar fashion, it might be expected that if c was 10c now at the supernova, the light should have illuminated the sheets and formed the rings in only 1/10th of the time at today's speed. Unfortunately, or so it seems, both the light intensity curve and the timing of the appearance of the rings (and their disappearance) are in accord with a value for c equal to c now. Therefore it is assumed that this is the proof needed that c has not changed since light was emitted from the LMC, some 170,000 light years away.
However, there is one factor that negates this conclusion for both these features of SN1987A. Let us accept, for the sake of illustration, that c WAS equal to 10c now at the LMC at the time of the explosion. Furthermore, according to the c decay (cDK) hypothesis, light-speed is the same at any instant right throughout the cosmos due to the properties of the physical vacuum. Therefore, light will always arrive at earth with the current value of c now. This means that in transit, light from the supernova has been slowing down. By the time it reaches the earth, it is only traveling at 1/10th of its speed at emission by SN1987A. As a consequence the rate at which we are receiving information from that light beam is now 1/10th of the rate at which it was emitted. In other words we are seeing this entire event in slow-motion. The light-intensity curve may have indeed decayed 10 times faster, and the light may indeed have reached the sheets 10 times sooner than expected on constant c. Our dilemma is that we cannot prove it for sure because of the slow-motion effect. At the same time this cannot be used to disprove the cDK hypothesis. As a consequence other physical evidence is needed to resolve the dilemma. This is done in the forthcoming paper where it is shown that the redshift of light from distant galaxies gives a value for c at the moment of emission.
By way of clarification, at NO time have I ever claimed the apparent superluminal expansion of quasar jets verify higher values of c in the past. The slow-motion effect discussed earlier rules that out absolutely. The standard solution to that problem is accepted here. The accepted distance of the sheets of matter from the supernova is also not in question. That is fixed by angular measurement. What IS affected by the slow motion effect is the apparent time it took for light to get to those sheets from the supernova, and the rate at which the light-rings on those sheets grew.
Additional Note, 1/18/99: 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 c 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 traveling 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 traveled 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 cDK model as on conventional theory. The standard explanation therefore is accepted here. (Thanks to Helen Fryman, January 14, 18, 1999)
Question: I've been following the dialog regarding the issue of the value of c at the location of supernova 1987A. I'm curious, how does one account for the constant gamma ray energies from known transitions (i.e. the same as in the earth's frame) and the neutrino fluxes (with the right kind of neutrinos at the expected energy) if c is significantly larger? Wasn't one of the first signals of this event a neutrino burst?
For example, if positron annihilation gammas were observed in the event and the value of the speed of light at 1987A was 10c, wouldn't you expect a hundredfold increase in the gamma energy from .511MeV to 51.1MeV?
Answer: Thanks for the question, its an old one. You have assumed in your question that other atomic constants have in fact remained constant as c has dropped with time. This is not the case. In our 1987 Report, Trevor Norman and I pointed out that a significant number of other atomic constants have been measured as changing lock-step with c during the 20th century. This change is in such a way that energy is conserved during the cDK process. All told, our Report lists 475 measurements of 11 other atomic quantities by 25 methods in dynamical time.
This has the consequence that in the standard equation [E = mc2] the energy E from any reaction is unchanged (within a quantum interval - which is the case in the example under discussion here). This happens because the measured values of the rest-mass, m, of atomic particles reveal that they are proportional to 1/(c2). The reason why this is so, is fully explored in the forthcoming redshift paper. Therefore in reactions from known transitions, such as occurred in SN1987A with the emission of gamma rays and neutrinos, the emission energy will be unchanged for a given reaction. I trust this reply is adequate. (Barry Setterfield, 1/21/99)
Question: Please bear with me once more as I attempt to come up to speed here. If the values of fundamental "constants" vary with location in the universe it implies that there are preferred reference frames. That is, a physicist could determine some absolute position relative to some origin because the "constants" vary as a function of position. If the "universal constants" are different at the position of supernova 1987A, for example, then the physics is different and an observer in that frame should be able to determine that he is in a unique position relative to any other frame of reference and vice-versa.
Are there observables to show this effect or are transformations proposed that make the physics invariant even with changing "constants?"
Answer: It is incorrect to say that the values of the fundamental constants vary with LOCATION in the cosmos. The cDK proposition maintains that at any INSTANT OF TIME, right throughout the whole cosmos, the value of any given atomic constant including light-speed, c, will be the same. There is thus no variation in the atomic constants with LOCATION in the universe. As a consequence there can be no preferred frame of reference. What we DO have is a variation of the atomic constants over TIME throughout the cosmos, but not LOCATION.
Because we look back in TIME as we probe deeper into space, we are seeing light emitted at progressively earlier epochs. The progressively increasing redshift of that light, as we look back in TIME, bears information on the value of some atomic constants and c in a way discussed in the forthcoming redshift paper. So Yes! there is a whole suite of data that can be used to back up this contention. I trust that clarifies the issue for you somewhat. (Barry Setterfield 1/23/99).
Notes on a Discussion with Prof. Frederick N. Skiff, Associate Professor of Physics, University of Maryland. *
When Barry Setterfield and Trevor Norman published their work on the speed of light decay in 1987, entitled "The Atomic Constants, Light and Time", it eventually sparked a great deal of controversy over not only the idea of the decay of the speed of light (cDK), but over the way the data had been handled by Setterfield and Norman. Accusations were made regarding mishandling data and pre-selecting data to fit their theories. The fact that data from such a limited time (since it had been possible to directly measure the speed of light) was, of necessity, used and then extrapolated backwards was also brought up. Because the earlier in time the light speed measurements had been taken, the more subject to error they were, there were a number of physicists who felt that no reliable curve could be fit to the data at all. Statistician Alan Montgomery looked at the data and, after working with it, came to the conclusion that the Setterfield-Norman paper was correct in its use of the data. [Much of the material concerning and explaining this can be found at Lambert Dolphin's website (http://ldolphin.org/constc.shtml)].
In the meantime, Douglas Kelly, in his book __ Creation and Change: Genesis 1.1 - 2.4 in the light of changing scientific paradigms__ (1997, Christian Focus Publications, Great Britain) discusses this issue in terms of Genesis. Endeavoring to present both sides of the cDK argument, he asked for a comment from Professor Frederick N. Skiff. Professor Skiff responded with a private letter which Kelly published on pp. 153 and 154 of his book. The letter is quoted below and, after that, Barry Setterfield responds.
* Current address: Prof. Frederick N. Skiff, Associate Professor of Physics, Department of Physics and Astronomy, 412 Van Allen Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242.
Helen Fryman
January 25, 1999
* * * *
From Professor Frederick N. Skiff:
I see that Setterfield does indeed propose that Planck's constant is also changing. Therefore, the fine structure constant 'a' could remain truly constant and the electron velocity in the atom could then change in a fashion proportional to the speed of light. His hypothesis is plausible.
My concern was that if you say 1) The speed of light is changing. And 2) The electron velocity in the atom is proportional to the speed of light, then you will generate an immediate objection from a physicist unless you add 3) Planck's constant is also changing in such a way as to keep the fine structure 'constant' constant.
The last statement is not a small addition. It indicates that his proposal involves a certain relations between the quantum theory (in the atom) and relativity theory (concerning the speed of light). The relation between these theories, in describing gravity, space and time, is recognized as one of the most important outstanding problems in physics. At present these theories cannot be fully reconciled, despite their many successes in describing a wide rang of phenomena. Thus, in a way, his proposal enters new territory rather than challenging current theory. Actually, the idea has been around for more than a decade, but it has not been pursued for lack of proof. My concerns are the following:
The measurements exist over a relatively short period of time. Over this period of time the speed changes by only a small amount. No matter how good the fit to the data is over the last few decades, it is very speculative to extrapolate such a curve over thousands of years unless there are other (stronger) arguments that suggest that he really has the right curve. The fact is that there are an infinite number of mathematical curves which fit the data perfectly (he does not seem to realize this in his article). On the other hand, we should doubt any theory which fits the data perfectly because we know that the data contain various kinds of errors (which have been estimated). Therefore the range of potential curves is even larger, because the data contain errors. There is clearly some kind of systematic effect, but not one that can be extrapolated with much confidence. The fact that his model is consistent with a biblical chronology is very interesting, but not conclusive (there are an infinite number of curves that would also agree with this chronology). The fact that he does propose a relative well known, and simply trigonometric function is also curious, but not conclusive.
The theoretical derivation that he gives for the variation of the speed of light contains a number of fundamental errors. He speaks of Planck's constant as the quantum unit of energy, but it is the quantum unit of angular motion. In his use of the conversion constant b he seems to implicitly infer that the 'basic' photon has a frequency of 1Hz, but there is no warrant for doing this. His use of the power density in an electromagnetic wave as a way of calculating the rate of change of the speed of light will not normally come out of a dynamical equation which assumes that the speed of light is a constant (Maxwell's Equations). If there is validity in his model, I don't believe that it will come from the theory that he gives. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complicated, because the creation is very rich in phenomena and delicate in structure.
Nevertheless, such an idea begs for an experimental test. The problem is that the predicted changes seem to be always smaller than what can be resolved. I share some of the concerns of the second respondent in the Pascal Notebook article.* One would not expect to have the rate of change of the speed of light related to the current state-of-the-art measurement (the graph of page 4 of Pascal's Notebook**) unless the effect is due to bias. Effects that are 'only there when you are not looking' can happen in certain contexts in quantum theory, but you would not expect them in such a measurement as the speed of light.
There are my concerns. I think that it is very important to explore alternative ideas. The community which is interested in looking at theories outside of the ideological mainstream is small and has a difficult life. No one scientist is likely to work out a new theory from scratch. It needs to be a community effort, I think.
Notes:
* A reference to "Decrease in the Velocity of Light: Its Meaning For Physics" in The Pascal Centre Notebook, Vol One, Number one, July, 1990. The second respondent to Setterfield's theory was Dr. Wytse Van Dijk, Professor of Physics and Mathematics, Redeemer College, who asked (concerning Professor Troistskii's model of the slowing down of the speed of light): 'Can we test the validity of Troitskii's model? If his model is correct, then atomic clocks should be slowing compared to dynamic clocks. The model could be tested by comparing atomic and gravitational time over several years to see whether they diverge. I think such a test would be worthwhile. The results might help us to resolve some of the issues relation to faith and science." ( p.5.)
** This graph consists of a correlation of accuracy of measurements of speed of light c with the rate of change in c between 1740 and 1980.
Barry Setterfield's response, January 25, 1999
During the early 1980's it was my privilege to collect data on the speed of light, c. In that time, several preliminary publications on the issue were presented. In them the data list increased with time as further experiments determining c were unearthed. Furthermore, the preferred curve to fit the data changed as the data list became more complete. In several notable cases, this process produced trails on the theoretical front and elsewhere which have long since been abandoned as further information came in. In August of 1987, our definitive Report on the data was issued as "The Atomic Constants, Light and Time" in a joint arrangement with SRI International and Flinders University. Trevor Norman and I spent some time making sure that we had all the facts and data available, and had treated it correctly statistically. In fact the Maths Department at Flinders Uni was anxious for us to present a seminar on the topic. That report presented all 163 measurements of c by 16 methods over the 300 years since 1675. We also examined all 475 measurements of 11 other c-related atomic quantities by 25 methods. These experimental data determined the theoretical approach to the topic. From them it became obvious that, with any variation of c, energy is going to be conserved in all atomic processes. A best fit curve to the data was presented.
In response to criticism, it was obvious the data list was beyond contention - we had included everything in our Report. Furthermore, the theoretical approach withstood scrutiny, except on the two issues of the redshift and gravitation. The main point of contention with the Report has been the statistical treatment of the data, and whether or not these data show a statistically significant decay in c over the last 300 years. Interestingly, all professional statistical comment agreed that a decay in c had occurred, while many less qualified statisticians claimed it had not! At that point, a Canadian statistician, Alan Montgomery, liaised with Lambert Dolphin and me, and argued the case well against all comers. He presented a series of papers which have withstood the criticism of both the Creationist community and others. From his treatment of the data it can be stated that c decay (cDK) has at least formal statistical significance.
However, my forthcoming redshift paper (which also resolves the gravitational problem) takes the available data right back beyond the last 300 years. In so doing, a complete theory of how cDK occurred (and why) has been developed in a way that is consistent with the observational data from astronomy and atomic physics. In simple terms, the light from distant galaxies is redshifted by progressively greater amounts the further out into space we look. This is also equivalent to looking back in time. As it turns out, the redshift of light includes a signature as to what the value of c was at the moment of emission. Using this signature, we then know precisely how c (and other c-related atomic constants) has behaved with time. In essence, we now have a data set that goes right back to the origin of the cosmos. This has allowed a definitive cDK curve to be constructed from the data and ultimate causes to be uncovered. It also allows all radiometric and other atomic dates to be corrected to read actual orbital time, since theory shows that cDK affects the run-rate of these clocks.
A very recent development on the cDK front has been the London Press announcement on November 15th, 1998, of the possibility of a significantly higher light-speed at the origin of the cosmos. I have been privileged to receive a 13 page pre-print of the Albrecht-Magueijo paper (A-M paper) which is entitled "A time varying speed of light as a solution to cosmological puzzles". From this fascinating paper, one can see that a very high initial c value really does answer a number of problems with Big Bang cosmology. My main reservation is that it is entirely theoretically based. It may be difficult to obtain observational support. As I read it, the A-M paper requires c to be at least 1060 times its current speed from the start of the Big Bang process until "a phase transition in c occurs, producing matter, and leaving the Universe very fine-tuned ...". At that transition, the A-M paper proposes that c dropped to its current value. By contrast, the redshift data suggests that cDK may have occurred over a longer time. Some specific questions relating to the cDK work have been raised. Penny wrote to me that someone had suggested "that the early measurements of c had such large probable errors attached, that (t)his inference of a changing light speed was unwarranted by the data." This statement may not be quite accurate, as Montgomery's analysis does not support this conclusion. However, the new data set from the redshift resolves all such understandable reservations.
There have been claims that I 'cooked' or mishandled the data by selecting figures that fit the theory. This can hardly apply to the 1987 Report as all the data is included. Even the Skeptics admitted that "it is much harder to accuse Setterfield of data selection in this Report". The accusation may have had some validity for the early incomplete data sets of the preliminary work, but I was reporting what I had at the time. The rigorous data analyses of Montgomery's papers subsequent to the 1987 Report have withstood all scrutiny on this point and positively support cDK. However, the redshift data in the forthcoming paper overcomes all such objections, as the trend is quite specific and follows a natural decay form unequivocally.
Finally, Douglas Kelly's book "Creation and Change" contained a very fair critique on cDK by Professor Fred Skiff. However, a few comments may be in order here to clarify the issue somewhat. Douglas Kelly appears to derive most of his information from my 1983 publication "The Velocity of Light and the Age of the Universe". He does not appear to reference the 1987 Report which updated all previous publications on the cDK issue. As a result, some of the information in this book is outdated. In the "Technical And Bibliographical Notes For Chapter Seven" on pp.153-155 several corrections are needed as a result. In the paragraph headed by "1. Barry Setterfield" the form of the decay curve presented there was updated in the 1987 Report, and has been further refined by the redshift work which has data back essentially to the curve's origin. As a result, a different date for creation emerges, one in accord with the text that Christ, the Apostles and Church Fathers used. Furthermore this new work gives a much better idea of the likely value for c at any given date. The redshift data indicate that the initial value of c was (2.54 x 1010) times the speed of light now. This appears conservative when compared with the initial value of c from the A-M paper of 1060 times c now.
Professor Skiff then makes several comments. He suggests that cDK may be acceptable if "Planck's constant is also changing in such a way as to keep the fine structure 'constant' constant." This is in fact the case as the 1987 Report makes clear.
Professor Skiff then addresses the problem of the accuracy of the measurements of c over the last 300 years. He rightly points out that there are a number of curves which fit the data. Even though the same comments still apply to the 1987 Report, I would point out that the curves and data that he is discussing are those offered in 1983, rather than those of 1987. It is unfortunate that the outcome of the more recent analyses by Montgomery are not even mentioned in Douglas Kelly's book.
Professor Skiff is also correct in pointing out that the extrapolation from the 300 years data is "very speculative". Nevertheless, geochronologists extrapolate by factors of up to 50 million to obtain dates of 5 billion years on the basis of less than a century's observations of half-lives. However, the Professor's legitimate concern here should be largely dissipated by the redshift results which take us back essentially to the origin of the curve and define the form of that curve unambiguously. The other issue that the Professor spends some time on is the theoretical derivation for cDK, and a basic photon idea which was used to support the preferred equation in the 1983 publication. Both that equation and the theoretical derivation were short-lived. The 1987 Report presented the revised scenario. The upcoming redshift paper has a completely defined curve, that has a solid observational basis throughout. The theory of why c decayed along with the associated changes in the related atomic constants, is rooted firmly in modern physics with only one very reasonable basic assumption needed. I trust that this forthcoming paper will be accepted as contributing something to our knowledge of the cosmos.
Professor Skiff also refers to the comments by Dr. Wytse Van Dijk who said that "If (t)his model is correct, then atomic clocks should be slowing compared to dynamical clocks." This has indeed been observed. In fact it is mentioned in our 1987 Report. There we point out that the lunar and planetary orbital periods, which comprise the dynamical clock, had been compared with atomic clocks from 1955 to 1981 by Van Flandern and others. Assessing the evidence in 1984, Dr. T. C. Van Flandern came to a conclusion. He stated that "the number of atomic seconds in a dynamical interval is becoming fewer. Presumably, if the result has any generality to it, this means that atomic phenomena are slowing with respect to dynamical phenomena ..." This is the observational evidence that Dr. Wytse Van Dijk and Professor Skiff required. Further details of this assessment by Van Flandern can be found in "Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II", pp.625-627, National Bureau of Standards (US) Special Publication 617 (1984), B. N. Taylor and W. D. Phillips editors.
In conclusion, I would like to thank Fred Skiff for his very gracious handling of the cDK situation as presented in Douglas Kelly's book. Even though the information on which it is based is outdated, Professor Skiff's critique is very gentlemanly and is deeply appreciated. If this example were to be followed by others, it would be everyone's advantage. (BARRY SETTERFIELD)
Question: Is the universe mature or does it just appear mature? Are there any ways to observationally differentiate between a mature universe and an apparently mature universe? If a globular cluster looks like it is 13 GY old and has a population of stars that give that appearance, it is 13 GY old for all intents and purposes. There is no difference. In this vein, why would God create a nearly dead star, a White dwarf, a core of a star that has had its atmosphere discharged in a planetary nebula episode after it has extinguished its nuclear fuel? Does God create all things new or would he create "old" dead objects. Was the soil in the garden of Eden filled with decaying vegetable and animal matter? Were there bones and fossils in the sediments below the soil? A dead star equates well with a fossil, I believe. Would God create either?
Response: Inherent within the redshift data for cDK is an implied age for the cosmos both on the atomic clock and on the dynamical or orbital clock. These ages are different because the two clocks are running at different rates. The atomic clock runs at a rate that is proportional to light speed, and can be assessed by the redshift. Originally this clock was ticking very rapidly, but has slowed over the history of the universe. By contrast, the dynamical or orbital clock runs at a uniform rate. The atomic clock, from the redshift data, has ticked off at least 15 billion atomic years. By contrast, the orbital clock, since the origin of the cosmos, has ticked off a number of years consistent with the patriarchal record in the Scriptures. (Barry Setterfield, 1/29/99)
Question: The ZPE levels quoted in Barry's paper, "Atomic Behavior, Light, and the Redshift" seem extraordinarily large. Secondly, Barry is predicting a large refraction of EM energy as it travels through space. But the cosmic background radiation shows no such refraction.
Response: The energy levels for the ZPE are standard figures. One quote in New Scientist some months back put it at 1098 ergs/cc, right in the middle of the range given here. Hal Puthoff has figures within that range.
There will be no refraction of electro-magnetic waves traveling through space because space is a non-dispersive medium. The key point that maintains this fact is the intrinsic impedance of space, Z*. This quantity Z* = 376.7 ohms. It has ALWAYS been 376.7 ohms. If there were a change in Z* with time, refraction would occur as it does when light enters another medium. Because the electric and magnetic vectors of a light wave are BOTH uniformly changing synchronously, Z* does not change. That results since both the permittivity and permeability of space (the two terms that make up Z*) are equally affected by ZPE changes. If only one was affected, as we had in our 1987 Report, there would be consequences that are not in accord with observation, and dispersion and/or refraction would occur." (added March 8, 1999)
Question: Has anyone done the calculations, based on your theory of changing speed of light, to see if the radiometric dating of fossils and rocks goes from the current value of billions of years down to thousands of years? Is it available on the Internet? Can you please give me a summary? Thank you.
ResponseThank you for your request for information. Yes, the calculations have been done to convert radiometric and other atomic dates to actual orbital years. This is done on the basis outlined in our Report of 1987 and the new paper just undergoing peer review. Basically, when light-speed is 10 times its current value, all atomic clocks ticked 10 times faster. As a consequence they registered an age of 10 atomic years when only one orbital year had passed. For all practical purposes there is no change in the rate of the orbital clocks with changing light speed. The earth still took a year to go around the sun.
Now the redshift of light from distant galaxies carries a signature in it that tells us what the value of c was at the time of emission. The redshift data then give us c values right back to the earliest days of the cosmos. Knowing the distances of these astronomical objects to a good approximation, then allows us to determine the behavior of light speed with time. It is then a simple matter to correct the atomic clock to read actual orbital time. Light speed was exceedingly fast in the early days of the cosmos, but dropped dramatically. At a distance of 20 billion light years, for example, the value of c was about 87 million times its current value. At that point in time the atomic clocks were ticking off 87 million years in just one ordinary year. When the process is integrated over the redshift/cDK curve the following approximate figures apply.
1 million years before present (BP) atomically is actually 2826 BC with c about 70,000 times c now.
63 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3005 BC with c about 615,000 times c now.
230 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3301 BC with c about 1.1 million times c now.
600 million atomic years BP is an actual date of 3536 BC with c about 2.6 million times c now.
2.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4136 BC with c about 10.8 million times c now.
4.5 billion atomic years BP is an actual date of 4505 BC with c about 19.6 million times c now.
15 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5650 BC with c about 65.3 million times c now.
20 billion atomic years BP is an actual date near 5800
BC with c about 87 million times c now.
Question from Ron Samec: I might be repeating my self. But, the Decreasing Speed of Light Model (DSLM) has to not only to take into account photons, i.e., radiation, but they have to deal with matter also. It was the neutrinos, now believed to have mass, that first gave us the signal that Super Novae 1987a. The Star had collapsed and crushed protons and electrons into neutrons at a distance of 170,000 or so Light Years. The folks that espouse the Mature Creation Model (MCM) have to have the history of the explosion be "written into" the radiation and now the matter stream that came to us form the direction of the Large Magellanic Cloud. Of course, in the MCM, this never really "happened". It just appears that it happened. To the DSLM people, the neutrinos would give them an increasing rest mass (or rest energy if you like) as we go back into history. (Of course this effects all matter. If we believe in the conservation of energy, where has all this energy gone?) The Neutrinos would have been decreasing in rest mass as they traveled through space. Thus they would be radiating. Since Neutrinos permeate the universe in fantastic numbers, this radiation should be detectable. But, what we wold detect would be a continuum of frequencies, not a single temperature, 3 degree, cosmic background radiation. If the speed of light enabled light waves to travel 10 billion light years in a day or so, this means light would be traveling 100,000 times faster. The rest mass would be 10 billion times larger! How do they deal with this? One other problem is that the radiation carries momentum varying with the speed of light.
Response from Barry: It really does appear as if Ron Samec has not done his homework properly on the cDK (or DSLM) issue that he discussed in relation to Super Nova 1987 A. He pointed out that neutrinos gave the first signal that the star was exploding, and that neutrinos are now known to have mass. He then goes on to state (incorrectly) that neutrinos would have an increasing rest mass (or rest energy) as we go BACK into history. He then asks "if we believe in the conservation of energy, where has all this energy gone?" He concluded that this energy must have been radiated away and so should be detectable. Incredibly, Ron has got the whole thing round the wrong way. If he had read our 1987 Report, he would have realized that the observational data forced us to conclude that with cDK there is also conservation of energy. As the speed of light DECREASES with time, the rest mass will INCREASE with time. This can be seen from the Einstein relation [E = mc2]. For Energy E to remain constant, the rest mass m will INCREASE with time in proportion to [1/ (c2)] as c is dropping. This INCREASE in rest-mass with time has been experimentally supported by the data as listed in Table 14 of our 1987 Report. There is thus no surplus energy to radiate away at all, contrary to Ron's suggestion, and the rest-mass problem that he poses will also disappear.
In a similar way, light photons would not radiate energy in transit as their speed drops. According to experimental evidence from the early 20th century when c was measured as varying, it was shown that wavelengths, [w], of light in transit are unaffected by changes in c. Now the speed of light is given by [c = fw] where [f] is light frequency. It is thus apparent that as [c] drops, so does the frequency [f], as [w] is unchanged. The energy of a light photon is then given by [E = hf] where [h] is Planck's constant. Experimental evidence listed in Tables 15A and 15B in the 1987 Report as well as the theoretical development shows that [h] is proportional to [1/c] so that [hc] is an absolute constant. This latter is supported by evidence from light from distant galaxies. As a result, since [h] is proportional to [1/c] and [f] is proportional to [c], then [E = hf] must be a constant for photons in transit. Thus there is no extra radiation to be emitted by photons in transit as light-speed slows down, contrary to Ron's suggestion, as there is no extra energy for the photon to get rid of.
I hope that this clarifies the matter for Ron and others. I do suggest that the 1987 Report be looked at in order to see what physical quantities were changing, and in what way, so that any misunderstanding of the real situation as given by observational evidence can be avoided. This Report is now available for viewing at 1987 Report, (http://ldolphin.org/setterfield/report.html). Note that there are several sections that have been updated in the new Redshift Paper and have accordingly been omitted in order to avoid confusion. Thank you for your time and interest. (May 13, 1999)
Question:
E=energy, v = speed, m = ordinary mass, c = speed of light, p = momentum, sqrt=square root
Setterfield states that the E is conserved so the mass of a particle has to increase as c2 decreases. So mc2 is a constant. But, for a moving mass particle, E = gamma X mc2, where gamma is the stretch factor, 1/sqrt(1-v2/c2). The stretch factor would decrease greatly since the ratio of v/c would decrease since c would increase. I suppose Barry will counter that by saying that if the neutrino is traveling at 0.99 c before it will be traveling at 0.99 c afterward. Only the quantity, c, changes. At this point we are talking about something different, mechanical energy. We are talking about speeding the particle up. How do we do that? We have to introduce a new constant, it is pc, the particle momentum times the speed of light. How does that come about? If c decreases, p has to increase in a nice direct inverse proportionality. So we have mc2 and pc are constants. I am certain there are other interesting things. Off the top of my head (I don't have time, as you mention, to do much home work, after all, I am a busy physics professor that only gives homework!), The wavelength of matter particles is h/p, the DeBroglie wavelength. The wavelength of matter waves like an electron or neutrino will change. Did old electron microscopes have a different magnification (resolution power)? What about waves in the microscopic world, ordinary light waves? The momentum imparted by a light wave must increase greatly, p = I/c (I is the intensity).The rate for energy flux of a wave (the Poynting vector) as proportional to the Field energy times the wave speed. If the wave speed was much larger, the energy delivered by the wave would be much greater. This would greatly effect the solar constant, for instance, increasing the energy impinging on the Earth by a large degree... There must be many more of these, but I have to get back to work. Can we assume Barry has looked into all the Electromagnetic ramifications and solved them all? I have a copy of his 1987 paper and I will look into it!
(In my old suggested problem of a Neutrino traveling from a neutron formation in Super Novae 1987a, If the speed of light enabled light waves to travel 10 billion light years in a day or so, this means light would be traveling 100,000 times faster. According to Barry's theory, the mass of a traveling neutrino would decrease by a factor of 10 billion times! This really makes a missing mass problem!)
RESPONSE: I appreciate the problem that you have with your "homework"! Forgive me for being so hard on you! However, if nothing else, it might have given you some appreciation as to how your students fell about the matter! Since particle momentum [p = mc] where [m] is particle mass and [c] is light-speed, and as [mc2] is a constant so that [m] is proportional to [1/(c2)], then it follows that [p] is indeed proportional to [1/c]. In other words, your conclusion that [pc] is conserved is correct.
However, you have not followed through so well on the DeBroglie wavelengths [W] of matter. The relationship is indeed [W = h/(mc) = h/p]. Now it has just been shown above that [p = mc] is proportional to [1/c]. Furthermore, it was also pointed out in my previous posting that Planck's constant [h] is also proportional to [1/c] so that hc is an absolute constant throughout the cosmos. This is something that has been observationally verified. Therefore with both [h] and [p] being proportional to [1/c], it follows that [h/p = W] will be a constant. Your additional comment about light waves and other waves being affected as a consequence is also out of order. You might recall my earlier comment that experiments done while light was measured as dropping revealed that wavelengths were NOT affected by the process, which is why the frequency must vary with c, and not wavelengths.
In your concluding section that was in brackets, you suggest there was a huge missing mass problem as every neutrino or atomic particle was so much less massive back in the early days of our Cosmos. This turns out not to be the case, however, as the gravitational constant [G] is changing in such a way that [Gm = constant]. This also means that gravitational acceleration [g] and hence weight will be unaffected by the process. Note too that in all orbit equations the second mass (that of the orbiting body) appears on both sides of the equation and so cancels out leaving only the [Gm] term.
Therefore, planetary orbits will not be affected by the cDK process. Then there was a final cluster of questions relating to momenta of light waves, the Poynting vector, the solar constant and energy impinging on earth from the sun etc. First, as you pointed out the momentum [p] of a light wave is equal to [J/c] where [J] is the intensity. (Note that I have changed your [I] to [J] to avoid confusion of similar letters.) For light in transit where [c] is dropping, this means that the momentum of a photon at reception will be greater than that at emission. But as that effect is happening for every other light wave of given intensity [J], including those in our laboratories, nothing out of the ordinary will be noticed.
This leads on to the second matter relating to the Poynting vector. The Poynting vector [S] is equal to the energy density [U] of the electromagnetic wave multiplied by [c]. Thus we write [S = Uc]. However, the value of [U] is determined by the magnetic permeability and electric permittivity of free space. Now since both the permeability and permittivity of free space are proportional to [1/c], it can be shown that [U] is also proportional to [1/c]. Therefore, for light in transit, [Uc = constant = S]. I would ask you to note here that the most recent work has confirmed that BOTH the permittivity AND the permeability of space must be changing, unlike the approach in the 1987 Report which had only the permeability varying. Finally, there is the matter of the output of energy by the sun and stars, and radioactive sources. The Redshift paper undergoing review at the moment points out that when c was higher, the emitted radiation energy densities were lower as shown by the behavior of [U] above. In addition, the radiation was comprised of photons whose energy was also intrinsically lower (that is redshifted compared with today's laboratory standard). When these effects are taken into account, radiation from radioactive sources, and the output of energy from the sun and stars is more prolific now than it was then. The mathematical details are in the redshift paper. I trust that this answers your queries satisfactorily. (May 14, 1999)
Question If mass is changing via E = m c2 with E constant for a given object or particle, and c changing, the m varies inversely with c squared. So larger c values in the past mean smaller masses. Now, for binary stars or any two orbiting bodies, the sum of the masses in solar mass units of the component stars equals the semimajor axis cubed divided by the orbital period squared (Kepler's Harmonic Law). If the mass decreases the orbital periods lengthen. Back into time, orbital periods were longer. In fact, orbital periods go as c squared. That means that the Earth's year was longer (by about a billion times in the beginning). Changing masses would also effect the Cepheid Variable star periods and therefor the cosmic distance scale. There are a myriad of effects if we think about gravity. Planets, stars etc. would not hold together in the beginning. Maybe Barry has G increasing into the past also, to take care of these problems. Perhaps the quantity Gm is also a constant along with mc2 and pc. I will read his 1987 writeup.
Response from Barry: It appears as if I did not make a key point as plain as I would have liked in my previous posting. If I had, I could have saved you most of the heartache of your latest posting. Let me reiterate what it was that I said. "...the gravitational constant [G] is changing in such a way that [Gm = constant]. This means that the gravitational acceleration [g] and hence weight will be unaffected by the process. Note too that in all orbit equations the secondary mass (that of the orbiting body) appears on both sides of the equation and so cancels out leaving only the [Gm] term. Therefore planetary orbits will not be affected by the cDK process. ..." This is not only the case for planetary orbits, but stellar orbits as well. Therefore Ron has correctly deduced, after his initial bout of problems, that [Gm] is in fact a constant. A full treatment of this is given in the Redshift paper rather than the 1987 Report, although the [G] data set appears there. Note that as [Gm] occurs in our equations as a single entity, no variation in [G] and [m] separately can be found by gravitational dependent methods. The other matters that Ron raised were all on the basis of a constant [G]. Since this is not the scenario being presented, those problems essentially disappear with [Gm = constant]. (May 14, 1999)
Questions on the Minimum Value of c. (May 15, 1999).
Two Comments and Responses: Ron Samec has suggested in one of his postings that what may have been discovered is not a change in the value of c over the past 100 years, but rather "a secular change in the index of refraction of the atmosphere" due to the industrial revolution.
Bless him for the thought! But it is not original! This issue was discussed in the literature when c was actually measured as varying. In Nature, page 892 for June 13, 1931, V. S. Vrkljan answered this question in some detail. The kernel of what he had to say is this: "...a simple calculation shows that within the last fifty years the index of refraction [of the atmosphere] should have increased by some [6.7 x10-4] in order to produce the observed decrease [in c] of 200 km/sec. According to Landolt-Bornstein (Physikalisch-chemische Tabellen, vol.ii, 1923, p.959, I Erganzungsband, Tracking or intellectual phase locking and cDK In another one of his [newsgroup] postings on this topic, Ron Samec has suggested that the decay in c might be due merely to "tracking" or intellectual phase locking. This process is described as one in which the values of a physical constant become locked around a canonical value obtained by some expert in the field. Because of the high regard for the expert, other lesser experimenters will tailor their results to be in agreement with the value obtained by the expert. As a result, other experiments to determine the value of the constant will only slowly converge to the correct value.
Although this charge may be leveled at some high school and first year university students, it is an accusation of intellectual dishonesty when brought into the arena of the cDK measurements. First, there was a continuing discussion in the scientific literature as to why the measured values of c were decreasing with time. It was a recognized phenomena. In October of 1944, N. E. Dorsey summarized the situation. He admitted that the idea of c decay had "called forth many papers." He went on to state that "As is well-known to those acquainted with the several determinations of the velocity of light, the definitive values successively reported ... have, in general, decreased monotonously from Cornu's 300.4 megametres per second in 1874 to Anderson's 299.776 in 1940 ..." Dorsey strenuously searched for an explanation from the journals that the various experimenters had kept of their determinations. All he could do was to extend the error limits and hope that this covered the problem. In Nature for April 4, 1931, Gheury de Bray commented: "If the velocity of light is constant, how is it that, INVARIABLY, new determinations give values which are lower than the last one obtained. ... There are twenty-two coincidences in favour of a decrease of the velocity of light, while there is not a single one against it." (his emphasis).
In order to show the true situation, one only has to look at the three different experiments that were running concurrently in 1882. There was no collusion between the experimenters either during the experiments or prior to publication of their results. What happened? In 1882.7 Newcomb produced a value of 299,860 km/s. In 1882.8 Michelson produced a value of 299,853 km/s. Finally in 1883, Nyren obtained a value of 299,850 km/s. These three independent authorities produced results that were consistent to within 10 km/sec. This is not intellectual phase locking or tracking; these are consistent yet independent results from three different recognized authorities. Nor is this a unique phenomenon. Newcomb himself noted that those working independently around 1740 obtained results that were broadly in agreement, but reluctantly concluded that they indicated c was about 1% higher than in his own time. In 1941 history repeated itself when Birge made a parallel statement while writing about the c values obtained by Newcomb, Michelson and others around 1880. Birge was forced to concede that "...these older results are entirely consistent among themselves, but their average is nearly 100 km/s greater than that given by the eight more recent results."
In view of the fact that these experimenters were not lesser scientists, but were themselves the big names in the field, they had no canonical value to uphold. They were themselves the authorities trying to determine what was happening to a capricious "constant". The figures from Michelson tell the story here. His first determination in 1879 gave a value of 299,910 km/s. His second in 1883 gave a result of 299,853 km/s. In 1924 he obtained a value of 299,802 km/s while in 1927 it was 299,798 km/s. This is not intellectual phase locking. Nor is it typical of a normal distribution about a fixed value. What usually happens when a fixed constant is measured is that the variety of experiments give results that are scattered about a fixed point. Instead, when all the c results are in, there is indeed a scatter; yet that scatter is not about a fixed point, but about a declining curve. It is a phenomenon that intellectual phase locking cannot adequately explain. If Dorsey, Birge or Newcomb could have explained it that way, we would certainly have heard about it in the scientific literature of the time. (May 20, 1999)
Question: Since about 1960 the speed of light has been measured with tremendous precision with no observed change. Proponents of cDK usually reply that we have redefined units of measurement in such a way that when the modern methods of measurement are used the change in c disappears because of cancellation. Has anyone attempted to remeasure c by "old fashioned" methods? It would seem to me that redoing the classic measurements could settle this issue, at least to my satisfaction. This would provide a new baseline of at least four decades, and probably much more.
Response: The problem with current methods of light-speed measurements (mainly laser) is that both wavelengths [W] and frequency [F] are measured to give c as the equation reads [c = FW]. If you have followed the discussion well, you will be aware that, within a quantum interval, wavelengths are invariant with any change in c. This means that it is the frequency of light that varies lock-step with c. Unfortunately, atomic frequencies also vary lock-step with c, so that when laser frequencies are measured with atomic clocks no difference will be found.
The way out of this is to use some experimental method where this problem is avoided. Ron Samec has suggested that the Roemer method may be used. This method uses eclipse times of Jupiter's inner satellite Io. Indeed it has been investigated by Eugene Chaffin. Although many things can be said about his investigation (and they may be appropriate at a later date), there are a couple of outstanding problems which confronts all investigators using that method. Chaffin pointed out that perturbations by Saturn, and resonance between Io, Europa, and Ganymede are definitely affecting the result, and a large number of parameters therefore need investigation. Even after that has been done, there remains inherent within the observations themselves a standard deviation ranging from about 30 to 40 seconds. This means the results will have an intrinsic error of up to 24,000 km/s. Upon reflection, all that can be said is that this method is too inaccurate to give anything more than a ball-park figure for c, which Roemer to his credit did, despite the opposition. It therefore seems unwise to dismiss the cDK proposition on the basis of one of the least precise methods of c measurement as the notice proposes that was brought to our attention by Ron. This leaves a variety of other methods to investigate.
However, that is not the only way of determining what is happening to c. There are a number of other physical constants which are c-dependent that overcome the problem with the use of atomic clocks. One of these is quantized Hall Resistance now called the von Klitzing constant. Another might be the gyromagnetic ratio. A further method is to compare dynamical intervals (for example, using Lunar radar or laser ranging) with atomic intervals. These and other similar quantities give an indication that c may have bottomed out around 1980 and is slowly increasing again. Indeed, atomic clock comparisons with historical data can be used to determine the behavior of c way back beyond 1675 AD when Roemer made the first determination. These data seem to indicate that c reached a maximum around 700 AD (very approximately). The data from the redshift paper implies that this oscillation is superimposed on an exponential decline in the value of c from the early days of the cosmos. A more complete discussion appears in the redshift paper. In other words, whole new sets of data are becoming available from additional sources that allow the original proposition to be refined. I trust that you find this helpful.(May 20, 1999).
Measurement Methods: I was thinking more in terms of a Fizzeau device, which is what I assumed was used by Newcomb and the others mentioned in your earlier comments.
Response: Your suggestion is a good one. Either the toothed wheel or the rotating mirror experiments should give a value for c that is free from the problems associated with the atomic clock/frequency blockage of modern methods, and the shortcomings of the Roemer method. The toothed wheel requires a rather long base-line to get accurate results as shown by the experiments themselves. However, given that limitation, an interesting feature may be commented upon. Cornu in 1874.8 and Perrotin in 1901.4 essentially used the same equipment. The Cornu mean is 299,945 km/s while the Perrotin mean is 299,887 km/s. This is a drop of 58 km/s in 26.6 years measured by the same equipment.
The rotating mirror experiments also required a long base-line, but the light path could be folded in various ways. Michelson in 1924 chose a method that combined the best features of both the rotating mirror and toothed wheel: it was the polygonal mirror. In the 1924 series, Michelson used an octagonal mirror. Just over two years later, in 1926.5 he decided to use a variety of polygons in a second series of experiments. The glass octagon gave 299,799 km/s; the steel octagon 299,797 km/s; a 12 faced prism had 299,798 km/s; a 12 faced steel prism gave 299,798 km/s; and a 16 faced glass prism resulted in a value of 299,798 km/s. In other words all the polygons were in agreement to within +/-- 1 km/s and about 1,600 individual experiments had been performed. That is a rather impressive result. However, despite the internal accuracy to within 1 km/s, these results are still nearly 6.5 km/s above the currently accepted value.
To my way of thinking, this polygonal mirror method would probably be the best option for a new determination of c. On the other hand, perhaps Newcomb's or Michelson's apparatus from earlier determinations may still be held in a museum display somewhere. Modern results from such apparatus would certainly arouse interest. Thanks for the helpful suggestion.
On the Measurement of Time, and the Velocity of Light:Several questions have been raised by John Hill which deserve a reply.
First, the matter of timing and clocks. In 1820 a committee of French scientists recommended that day-lengths throughout the year be averaged, to what is called the mean solar day. The second was then defined as 1/86,400 of this mean solar day. This definition was accepted by most countries and supplied science with an internationally accepted standard of time. This definition was used right up until 1956. In that year it was decided that the dynamical definition of a second be changed to become 1/31,556,925.97474 of the earth's orbital period that began at noon on the 1st January 1900. Note that this definition of the second ensured that the second remained the same length of time as it had always been right from its earlier definition in 1820. This definition continued until 1967 when atomic time became standard. The point to note is that in 1967 one second on the atomic clock was DEFINED as being equal to the length of the dynamical second, even though the atomic clock is based on electron transitions. Interestingly, the vast majority of c measurements were made in the period 1820 to 1967 when the actual length of the second had not changed. Therefore, the decline in c during that period cannot be attributed to changes in the definition of a second.
However, changes in atomic clock rates affecting the measured value for c will certainly occur post 1967. In actual fact, the phasing-in period for this new system was not complete until January 1, 1972. It is important to note that dynamical or orbital time is still used by astronomers. However, the atomic clock which astronomers now use to measure this has leap-seconds added periodically to synchronize the two clocks. The International Earth Rotation Service (IERS) regulates this procedure. Since January 1st, 1972, until January 1st, 1999 exactly 32 leap seconds have been added to keep the two clocks synchronized. There are a number of explanations as to why this one-sided procedure has been necessary. Most have to do with changes in the earth's rotational period. However, a contributory cause MAY be the change in light-speed, and the consequent change in run-rate of the atomic clock. If it is accepted that it is the run-rate of the atomic clock which has changed by these 32 seconds in 27 years, then this corresponds to a change in light-speed of exactly [32/(8.52032 x 108) c = (3.7557 x 10-8 c ] or close to 11.26 meters/second.
The question then becomes, "Is this a likely possibility?" Many scientists would probably say no. However, Lunar and planetary orbital periods which comprise the dynamical clock, have been compared with atomic clocks from 1955 to 1981 by Van Flandern and others. Assessing the evidence in 1981 Van Flandern noted that "the number of atomic seconds in a dynamical interval is becoming fewer. Presumably, if the result has any generality to it, this means that atomic phenomena are slowing down with respect to dynamical phenomena." (Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II, pp. 625-627, National Bureau of Standards (US) Special Publication 617, 1984. Even if these results are controversial, Van Flandern's research at least establishes the principle on which the former comments were made.
Note here that, given the relationship between c and the atomic clock, it can be said that the atomic clock is extraordinarily PRECISE as it can measure down to less than one part in 10 billion. However, even if it is precise, it may not be ACCURATE as its run-rate will vary with c. Thus a distinction has to be made between precision and accuracy when talking about atomic clocks.
Finally, John had some concerns about timing devices used on any future experiments to determine c by the older methods. Basically, all that is needed is an accurate counter that can measure the number of revolutions of a toothed wheel or a polygonal prism precisely enough in a one second period while light travels over a measured distance. Obviously the higher the number of teeth or mirror faces the more accurate the result. Fizeau in 1849 had a wheel with 720 teeth that rotated at 25.2 turns per second. In 1924, Michelson rotated an octagonal mirror at 528 turns per second. We should be able to do better than both of those now and minimize any errors. The measurement of the second could be done with accurate clocks from the mid-50's or early 60's. This procedure would probably overcome most of the problems that John foresees in such an experiment. If John has continuing problems, please let us know.
Further Comments on Time Measurements and c: In 1820 a committee of French scientists recommended that day lengths throughout the year be averaged, to what is called the Mean Solar Day. The second was then defined as 1/86,400 of this mean solar day. This supplied science with an internationally accepted standard of time. This definition was used right up to 1956. In that year it was decided that the definition of the second be changed to become 1/31,556,925.97474 of the earth's orbital period that began at noon on 1st January 1900. This definition continued until 1967 when atomic time became standard. In 1883 clocks in each town and city were set to their local mean solar noon, so every individual city had its own local time. It was the vast American railroad system that caused a change in that. On 11th October 1883, a General Time Convention of the railways divided the United States into four time zones, each of which would observe uniform time, with a difference of precisely one hour from one zone to another. Later in 1883, an international conference in Washington extended this system to cover the whole earth.
The key point to note here is that the vast majority of c measurements were made during the period 1820 to 1956. During that period there was a measured change in the value of c from about 299,990 km/s down to 299,792 km/s, a drop of the order of 200 km/s in 136 years. The question is what component of that may be attributable to changes in the length of the second since the rate of rotation of the earth is involved in the existing definition. It is here that the International Earth Rotation Service (IERS) comes into the picture. Since 1st January 1972 until 1st January 1999, exactly 32 leap seconds have been added to keep Co-ordinated Universal Time (UTC) synchronized with International Atomic Time (TAI) as a result of changes in the earth's rotation rate. Let us assume that these 32 leap seconds in 27 years represent a good average rate for the changes over the whole period of 136 years from 1820 to 1956. This rate corresponds to an average change in measured light-speed of [32/(8.52023 x 108) c = (3.7557 x 10-8) c] or close to 11.26 meters per second in one year. As 136 years are involved at this rate we find that [11.26 x 136 = 1531] meters per second or 1.53 km/s over the full 136 years. This is less than 1/100th of the observed change in that period. As a result it can be stated (as I think Froome and Essen did in their book "The Velocity of Light and Radio Waves") that limitations on the definition of the second did not impair the measurement of c during that period ending in 1956.
Therefore, if measurements of c were done with modern equivalents of rotating mirrors, toothed wheels or polygonal prisms, and the measurements of seconds were done with accurate equipment from the 1950's, a good comparison of c values should be obtained. Note, however, that the distance that the light beam travels over should be measured by equipment made prior to October 1983. At that time c was declared a universal constant (299,792.458 km/s) and, as such, was used to re-define the meter in those terms.
As a result of the new definitions from 1983, a change in c would also mean a change in the length of the new meter compared with the old. However, this process will only give the variation in c from the change-over date of 1983. By contrast, use of some of the old experimental techniques measuring c will allow direct comparisons back to at least the early 1900's and perhaps earlier. In a similar way, comparisons between orbital and atomic clocks should pick up variations in c. As pointed out before, this latter technique has in fact been demonstrated to register changes in the run-rate of the atomic clock compared with the orbital clock by Van Flandern in the period 1955 to 1981.
By way of further information, the meter was originally introduced into France on the 22nd of June, 1799, and enforced by law on the 22nd of December 1799. This "Meter of the Archives" was the distance between the end faces of a platinum bar. In September 1889 up till 1960 the meter was defined as the distance between two engraved lines on a platinum-iridium bar held at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in Sevres, France. This more recent platinum-iridium standard of 1889 is specifically stated to have reproduced the old meter within the accuracy then possible, namely about one part in a million. Then in 1960, the meter was re-defined in terms of the wavelength of a krypton 86 transition. The accuracy of lasers had rendered a new definition necessary in 1983. It can therefore be stated that from about 1800 up to 1960 there was no essential change in the length of the meter. It was during that time that c was measured as varying. As a consequence, the observed variation in c can have nothing to do with variations in the standard meter.(Barry Setterfield, May 29, 1999)
Question: If light velocity has not always been a constant "c", why can it be mathematically shown to be constant even from distant star light? (ie. wavelength (m) x frequency (1/s)= 2.99792 x 108m/s) this equation is consistent even when the variables are changed! Light speed (velocity is constant)
Answer from Barry: It has been proved recently by aberration experiments that distant starlight from remote galaxies arrives at earth with the same velocity as light does from local sources. This occurs because the speed of light depends on the properties of the vacuum. If we assume that the vacuum is homogeneous and isotropic (that is has the same properties uniformly everywhere at any given instant), then light-speed will have the same value right throughout the vacuum at any given instant. The following proposition will also hold. If the properties of the vacuum are smoothly changing with time, then light speed will also smoothly change with time right throughout the cosmos.
On the basis of experimental evidence from the 1920's when light speed was measured as varying, this proposition maintains that the wavelengths of emitted light do not change in transit when light-speed varies, but the frequency (the number of wave-crests passing per second) will. The frequency of light in a changing c scenario is proportional to c itself. Imagine light of a given earth laboratory wavelength emitted from a distant galaxy where c was 10 times the value it has now. The wavelength would be unchanged, but the emitted frequency would be 10 times greater as the wave-crests are passing 10 times faster. As light slowed in transit, the frequency also slowed, until when it reaches earth at c now, the frequency would be the same as our laboratory standard as well as the wavelength. Trust that this reply answers your question. (June 15, 1999)
Question: Photons possess many different energy levels. From radio waves to gamma rays. Are these "categories" dependent on wavelength or energy? If it is dependent on wave length (as all radio-technology would insist on)then sometime in the future there will be much less light and lower wavelength photons, and much more radio waves. Will we all someday be blind?
Response: The energy of a photon E is given by [hf] or [hc/w] where h is Planck's constant, f is frequency, w is wavelength, and c is light-speed. Two situations exist. First, for LIGHT IN TRANSIT through space. As light-speed drops with time, h increases so that [hc] is a constant. It should be emphasized that frequency, [f], is simply the number of wave-crests that pass a given point per second. Now wavelengths [w] in transit do not change. Therefore, as light-speed c is dropping, it necessarily follows that the frequency [f] will drop in proportion to c as the number of wave-crests passing a given point will be less, since [c = fw]. Since [f] is therefore proportional to c, and [h] is proportional to [1/c], it follows that [hf] is a constant for light in transit. Since both [hc] and [w] are also constants for light in transit, this means that [hc/w] and [hf] do not alter. In other words, for light in transit, E the energy of a photon is constant, other factors being equal.
The second situation is that pertaining at the TIME OF EMISSION. When c is higher, atomic orbit energies are lower. This happens in a series of quantum steps for the atom. Light-speed is not quantized, but atomic orbits are. As light-speed goes progressively higher the further we look back into space, so atomic orbit energies become progressively lower in quantum steps. This lower energy means that the emitted photon has less energy, and therefore the wavelength [w] is longer (redder). This lower photon energy is offset by proportionally more photons being emitted per unit time. So the total energy output remains essentially unchanged.
As a result of these processes at emission, light from distant galaxies will appear redder (the observed redshift), but there will be more photons so distant sources will appear to be more active than nearby ones. Both of these effects are observed astronomically. (Barry Setterfield, August 1, 1999)
Question: One of the most interesting things I read in your article is that the wavelength of light partakes in expansion in transit through space. I believe you referenced the Astrophysical Journal 429:491-498, 10 July, 1994.
I don't have immediate access to this journal. It was mentioned almost as a side issue, I want to know if you agree with it and how it serves your theory if you do. I'm also interested in the physical reasoning, observation, and mathematics of the journal article itself. Thank you.
Response Yes! According to the Friedmann model of the universe, which is basically Einsteinian, as space expands, the wavelengths of light in transit become stretched also. This is how the redshift of light from distant galaxies is accounted for by standard Big Bang cosmology. The reference is correct, but any serious text on the redshift will give the same story. This does not serve our theory except for one point. The redshift has been shown by Tifft to be quantized. It goes in jumps of about 2.7 km/s. It is very difficult to account for this by a smooth expansion of space. Alternatively, if the quantization is accepted as an intrinsic feature of emitted wavelengths (rather than wavelengths in transit), it means that the cosmos cannot be expanding (or contracting) as the exact quantizations would be "smeared out" as the wavelengths stretched or contracted in transit.
Question: Can you estimate how many total quantum jumps in c have occurred since creation? Could this give us a kind of "cosmic clock" ticking out some kind of absolute time scale?
Response I doubt if you could call such a clock "The Clock of the LORD" as it does not tick off regular intervals. The decay in c is essentially exponential, and each quantum change occurs once c has dropped by about 600 times its present value. Under these conditions, it becomes apparent that the initial intervals on that proposed clock are passing much more quickly than now if assessed by our usual gravitational or dynamical or orbital clock. As for the number of quantum jumps that have occurred, the most distant objects seen by Hubble Space telescope are around z = 14. This gives a light speed around [9.21 x 108] c now. This means about 1,536,317 quantum changes. (Note that z and the quantum change relationship is absolutely fixed. The exact change in light-speed per quantum change is somewhat more indefinite, being dependent upon what value is placed on the Hubble constant.) Note also that light-speed does not itself jump down a quantum number as it is a smooth function. Once light-speed has changed by about 600 times its present value, a quantum jump in atomic phenomena will occur. As for the total number of quantum changes, that depends on the initial value of c and the exact relationship between the drop in c and the quantum change. From Van Flandern's gravitational data that will be about [2 x 1010) c now. Our redshift data curve suggests a value around [2.5 x 1010] c now. If these data are being handled correctly, that will give a total number of quantum changes of about 41.5 million. The problem is we do not have an exact redshift value for the origin of the cosmos, so a precise number of quantum changes cannot yet be given. However, these figures suggest an original redshift value close to [z = 375], but as yet we cannot be absolutely sure.
Question for Statistician Alan Montgomery: I have yet to read a refutation of Aardsma's weighted uncertainties analysis in a peer reviewed Creation journal. He came to the conclusion that the speed of light has been a constant. --A Bible college science Professor.
Reply from Alan Montgomery: The correspondent has commented that nobody has refuted Dr. Aardsma work in the ICR Impact article.
In Aardsma's work he took 163 data from Barry Setterfield's monograph of 1987 and put a weighted regression line through the data. He found that the rate of decrease was negative but the deviation from zero was only about one standard deviation. This would normally not be regarded as significant enough to draw a statistical conclusion.
In my 1994 ICC paper I demonstrated among other things the foolishness of using all the data--those methods with and without sensitivity to the data to the question. You cannot use a ruler to measure the size of a bacteria. Second, I demonstrated that 92 of the data he used were not corrected to in vacuo and therefore his data was a bad mixture. One cannot draw firm conclusions from such a statistical test.
I must point out to the uninitiated in statistical studies that there is a difference between a regression line and a regression model. A regression model attempts to provide a viable statistical estimate of the function which the data exhibits. The requirements of a model are that it must be:
(1) a minimum variance (condition met by a regression line);
(2) homoskedastic - data are of the same variance (condition met by a weighted linear regression) and
(3) it must not be autocorrelated - the residuals must not leave a non-random pattern .
My paper thus went a step further in identifying a proper statistical representation of the data. If I did not point it out in my paper, I will point it out here. Aardsma's weighted regression line was autocorrelated and thus shows that the first two conditions and the data imposed a result which is undesirable if one is trying to mimic the data with a function. The data is not evenly distributed and the weights are not evenly distributed. These biases are such that the final 11 data determine the line almost completely. This being so caution must be exercised in interpreting the results. Considering the bias in the weights and their small size, data with any significant deviation from them should not be used. It adds a great deal of variance to the line yet never adds any contribution to its trend. In other words, the highly precise data determines the direction and size of the slope and the very low imprecision data makes any result statistically insignificant. Aardsma's results are not so much wrong as unreliable for interpretation.
The Professor may draw whatever conclusions he likes about Aardsma's work but those who disagree with the hypothesis of decreasing c have rarely mentioned his work since. I believe for good reason.
Alan Montgomery (amontgo@osfi-bsif.gc.ca), October 14, 1999.
Note added by Brad Sparks: I happened to be visiting ICR and Gerry Aardsma just before his first Acts & Facts article came out attacking Setterfield. I didn't know what he was going to write but I did notice a graph pinned on his wall. I immediately saw that the graph was heavily biased to hide above-c values because the scale of the graph made the points overlap and appear to be only a few points instead of dozens. I objected to this representation and Aardsma responded by saying it was too late to fix, it was already in press. It was never corrected in any other forum later on either, to my knowledge.
What is reasonable evidence for a decrease in c that would be convincing to you? Do you require that every single data point would have to be above the current value of c? Or perhaps you require validation by mainstream science, rather than any particular type or quality of evidence. We have corresponded in the past on Hugh Ross and we seemed to be in agreement. Ross' position is essentially that there could not possibly ever be any linguistic evidence in the Bible to overturn his view that "yom" in the Creation Account meant long periods; his position is not falsifiable. This is the equivalent of saying that there is no Hebrew word that could have been used for 24-hour day in Genesis 1 ("yom" is the only Hebrew word for 24-hour day and Ross is saying it could not possibly mean that in Gen. 1). Likewise, you seem to be saying there is no conceivable evidence even possible hypothetically for a decrease in c, a position that is not falsifiable. If I'm misunderstanding you here please set me straight. Brad Sparks, October 14, 1999
Malcolm Bowden Comments: Robert Hill says he has not seen a criticism of Chaffins ICC paper. In my CENTJ article of v12 n 1 1998 pp 48-54 I pointed out Chaffins two errors. I also have given this in my "True Science Agrees with the Bible." p304.
Chaffin clearly did not want to accept CDK because he completely turned logic on its head on two occasions.
ICC 1990 p 47-52 : Lieske's work indicated that CDK HAD taken place. He then said without the slightest justification - "But suppose that Lieske was too conservative...Then it would be possible to conclude that the speed of light 300 years ago was the same as today." My comment was that if we can ignore any contrary evidence, ANYTHING can be concluded.
ICC 1994 pp143-150: Bradley's results. Chaffin varied his computer and found that a best fit was when c was 2.4% higher than today. He dismissed this by saying they were not accurate enough to determine whether c was higher. If the results were that poor he should not have even tried to measure c by this method. Yet the method DID show c was faster in the past with fair accuracy. He was hoping that the figures would not show an increase but in fact they did and he therefore had to dismiss them in some way. If they had shown a constant one would guess that he would have reported t