A physicist has asked the above questions after reading my paper, Atomic Quantum States, Light and the Redshift. I shall deal with these one at a time.
- The permeability of free space is an arbitrary number equal to 4π/107. If the permeability of free space is meant to be varying, proportional to the energy density of the ZPE, which of these numbers is varying? It is possible that you are confusing systems of units with fundamental changes since the permeability of free space is a constant in any system of units?
Setterfield: The reviewer states that permeability has been defined as a constant. For the other readers, permeability is the term describing the magnetic properties of space. Interestingly, in the latter part of the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century permeability was defined in a different way, which linked in with the speed of light. [S.G. Starling and A. J. Woodall, Physics, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1958, p. 1262] Any change in the speed of light, therefore, also meant a change in the permeability of free space. I believe we have made a retrograde step in accepting the current definition of permeability being a constant.
If the strength of the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) is changing, it inevitably means that permittivity (the term used to describe the electrical properties of space) and permeability have both changed as well. The following is a quote from my paper "Exploring the Vacuum", page 13 (the entire section dealing with this starts on page 12)
Barnett picks up on this point and explains further: “Scharnhorst and Barton suggest that a modification of the vacuum can produce a change in its permittivity [and permeability] with a resulting change in the speed of light. … The role of virtual particles in determining the permittivity of the vacuum is analogous to that of atoms or molecules in determining the relative permittivity of a dielectric material. The light propagating in the material can be absorbed … [but] the atoms remain in their excited states for only a very short time before re-emitting the light. This absorption and re-emission is responsible for the refractive index of the material and results in the well-known reduction of the speed of light” (63). Barnett concludes: “The vacuum is certainly a most mysterious and elusive object…The suggestion that [the] value of the speed of light is determined by its structure is worthy of serious investigation by theoretical physicists.”
[reference 63: S. Barnett, Nature 344 (1990), p.289]
As to the comment about confusing changes in permeability with other systems of units several points should be noted. First, the constancy of the permeability and its current numerical value is an artifact of the rationalized MKSA system that gave rise to the SI system now in use. For example, in SI Units by B. Chiswell and E.C.M. Grigg [John Wiley and Sons, Australasia, 1971], in Appendix 1, pages 108-110 the changes that occurred in the systems of units over the last century are discussed. Interestingly, and just as Starling and Woodall noted, they point out that originally the permeability was defined as lightspeed dependent. Any change the speed of light will result from a change in the permeability of free space. As the development of the present system was occurring, the lightspeed dependence was dropped and the numerical value of the permeability underwent several changes which then finalized by the inclusion of a factor of 4π.
The second point that emerges here is that, as one looks at these developments, it becomes apparent that other alternatives may exist to an invariant permeability. It seems desirable to consider these options in a situation where lightspeed is changing cosmologically. One reason for this is that space is a non-dispersive medium. In other words, space does not split a light beam into colours as glass or water might do. In order to maintain this property, it is usually considered that the ratio between the permittivity and permeability must remain fixed. This means that the intrinsic impedance of free space, determined by this ratio, should remain unaltered. This means that it might be necessary to devise a system of units where both permittivity and permeability are lightspeed dependent.
However, the reviewer has pointed out that another way of utilizing current developments might be to consider using equations for refractive index instead. This may be an option. However, the behaviour of light waves in an inhomogeneous medium may be intrinsically different to that of light in a cosmologically changing Zero Point Energy (ZPE). Consideration of this leads on to the second item.
- Light emitted from atoms is frequency-driven, not wave-length –driven. As light enters a denser medium, it is the frequency which remains constant and the wave length which varies. By contrast, this paper has the wave length constant and the frequency varying. and claims a redshift on a different basis to that which is conventionally followed.
Setterfield: This question raises an important issue. Consider the behaviour of an infinitely long beam of light from an object at the frontiers of the cosmos, or a wavetrain associated with a single photon of light, entering a medium such as air or water from a less dense medium when compared with a cosmologically changing ZPE. In the first instance, imagine the beam or wavetrain going from air into glass in such a way that the light ray is moving perpendicularly to the glass. In this case, “every point on a given wavefront enters the glass slab simultaneously and, hence, experiences a simultaneous retardation, since the velocity of light is less in glass than in air. The wave fronts in the glass are therefore parallel to those in the air but closer together…” [Martin & Connor, Basic Physics, Vol.3, p.1193-194]. Thus the wave fronts bunch up in the glass as the waves behind approach the glass with higher speed, and so crowd together in the denser medium. The same effect can be seen on a highway with cars when an obstacle in the path slows the traffic stream, and cars bunch up near the obstacle. What is causing the effect is that this example has two concurrent values for lightspeed; one in air, the other in glass.
This situation does not apply to emitted light traveling through a cosmos where the ZPE is changing. In this case, an infinitely long beam or a photon wavetrain is traveling through the vacuum. The energy density of the vacuum is smoothly increasing simultaneously throughout the universe. This means that the infinitely long beam and the wavetrain have all parts slowing SIMULTANEOUSLY. In other words there is no bunching up effect because all parts of the beam or wavetrain are traveling with the same velocity. A similar situation would exist with cars on a highway if all cars were simultaneously slowing at the same rate. The distance between the cars would remain constant, but the number of cars passing any given point per unit of time would be lessening proportional to the speed of the traffic stream. For that reason, in the lightspeed case, wavelengths remain fixed in transit and the frequency, the number of waves passing a given point per unit time, drops in a manner proportional to the rate of travel. Therefore in a situation with cosmologically changing ZPE, the frequency of light is lightspeed dependent, while the wavelength remains fixed. It was the experimental proof of this very fact that was being seriously discussed by Raymond T. Birge in Nature in the 1930’s.
Another consideration applies here also. The equation for the energy E of a photon of light is given as E = hf where h is Planck’s constant, and f is frequency. In the situation which applies here, the energy density of the ZPE is uniformly increasing, and h is a measure of the energy density of the ZPE. Thus, as the ZPE strength increases, so does h. But it has been suggested that frequency f should remain constant for light in transit with these changes. If that is so, it means that every photon in transit through the universe must be gaining energy as it travels. In other words, energy is not conserved. However, with the formulation that has been adopted in the paper under review, energy is conserved as would be expected, and so it is wavelength that varies, not frequency.
- Because the paper considers the frequency to be varying instead of the wavelength, a redshift of spectral lines is obtained. However, Maxwell’s equations show it is the frequency of light that is constant in any situation with changing light speed, while wave length is the variable factor. Under these circumstances, there will be no redshift of spectral lines.
Setterfield: The approach that the reviewer has given in item 2 dictates the response that he sees as appropriate to item 3. He seems to have mistakenly applied the results obtained from light traveling in an inhomogeneous medium to those in which there are simultaneous cosmos wide changes in the medium. This is inappropriate as noted above and does not agree with experiment. If the approach is adopted that deals with a situation with simultaneous cosmological changes, then the redshift originates in the way my paper outlines, and the reviewer's basic objection has already been answered.
However, the applicability of Maxwell’s equations is also called into question here. It is occasionally mentioned that these equations imply a constant speed of light in the vacuum, and any variation elsewhere is treated on the basis of a changing refractive index of the medium concerned. As noted above, this approach is inappropriate for the situation considered in this paper. Since Maxwell’s equations seem to imply a constant value for c in a vacuum, this condition can only apply to a changing c scenario when seen from the atomic point of view. Let us explore this a little.
Since all atomic processes are linked to the behaviour of the ZPE as is lightspeed, then as c declines with increasing ZPE, so too does the rate of atomic processes, including atomic clocks and atomic frequencies. Therefore, as seen from the atom, lightspeed is constant and frequencies are constant. Thus Maxwell’s equations apply to an atomic frame of reference when c is varying cosmologically. This means that for Maxwell’s equation to apply in our dynamical or orbital time frame, we have to correct the atomic time that is used inherently in those equations to read dynamical time instead. When that is done, it is the frequency which varies, not the wavelength. In order to see this in a simple way, we note that the basic equation for lightspeed is c = f w where f is frequency and w is wavelength. The units of c are, for example, metres per second while the frequency is events per second. Thus it is the “per second” part of this equation that needs to be altered. Since wavelengths, w, will be in metres, and these have no time dependence, then all the “per second” changes can only occur in c and f. Thus it is the frequency that will vary under these conditions with varying c, not wavelength.
- If the luminosity of stars is constant, then the sun’s radiation would peak in the ultraviolet. Since electrons were bound to the nucleus with a weaker force at the beginning, then neither plants, nor animals, nor people could have existed at the beginning if they were composed of such weak atoms.
Setterfield: In the first place, it should be noted that all forces and energies scale proportionally, so a net balance is maintained at all times with higher c values. Therefore, atoms were not inherently more unstable. It should also be remembered that the maximum factor by which these quantities changed was about 1.7. Furthermore, the light from the sun was redshifted in proportion as well, in the same way that all other emitted light was. This was dealt with in the paper under review. The higher the value of c, the greater was the redshift of light from the sun and stars and all other emitters. As a consequence, the sun’s radiation did not peak in the ultraviolet, and the problems outlined by the reviewer did not occur.
- This one has to do with the redshift curve. Setterfield has arbitrarily used the redshift curve to derive results, whereas the derivation of the fully relativistic redshift Doppler curve assumes that the speed of light was constant.
Setterfield: In this item, the reviewer implies that the redshift formula which has been used was derived by Einstein on the basis of two postulates, one of which is the constancy of the speed of light. The reviewer therefore claims that this formula is inappropriate to use in a situation where a change in the speed of light is being considered. Interestingly, the redshift formula does not derive from Einstein, but rather from Lorentz. Einstein adopted Lorentz’ formula and applied it to his situation.
But let us come right down to something basic here. The Lorentzian curve that is used to describe the behaviour of the redshift is a good approximation to reality out to a redshift of z = 1.5 to 1.7. Any other curve which fits the data equally well would have sufficed for use in the calculations. Indeed, up until the early 1960’s the redshift formula was z = v/c. I remember when the changeover to the Lorentzian formula occurred. It was made to avoid the embarrassment that occurred when it was discovered that there were redshifts greater than z = 1. But the point I make here is this: Any curve that fits the data with this degree of accuracy can be used to describe the behaviour of the redshift, lightspeed and the rate of ticking of atomic clocks. All these quantities behave exactly the same way because they are children of the same parent, namely the ZPE. As a consequence, any curve that gives a good approximation to the redshift data is good enough for the purposes of calculation and prediction. Therefore I can provisionally accept the Lorentzian curve for the redshift for the purposes of the paper under review as it is close to reality.
It should be noted, however, that the reasons for the behaviour of the ZPE are being examined, and some mechanisms provide equations which are similar to the standard Lorentzian curve. This is a matter still under discussion.
6. Regarding the behavior of the fine structure constant with time: If there was any fractional variation in the fine structure constant this should be very obvious from the observations of spectral lines in distant galaxies.
Setterfield: The behaviour of the fine structure constant has recently been re-assessed in this model. In a major paper undergoing review at the moment, it is deduced that the fine structure constant will be marginally greater in a gravitational field. This results from an approach to the ZPE and gravitation that is consistent with SED thinking and may allow a test to be made to determine which theory of gravitation is more correct.
CONCLUSION:
There is a problem which needs to be mentioned in closing; a problem which is underlying much of the problem some are having with the work presented on these pages. Physics has currently seemed to reverse a sequence which should not have been reversed, and in doing so has made several wrong choices in the latter part of the twentieth century. Those that are underlying the reviewer's criticisms have to do with the permeability of space, a mistaken idea about frequency in terms of the behavior of light, and the equations of Lorentz and Maxwell. As mentioned in point 1, permeability was related to the speed of light early in the twentieth century, but divorced from it later and declared invariant. It was invariant by declaration, not by data, and this is the first backwards move which has influenced the reviewer's thinking here. Secondly, it has become accepted that the frequency of light is the basic quantity and that it is the wavelength which is subsidiary. Until about 1960 it was the wavelength that was considered the basic quantity for measurement. However since it had become easier to measure frequency with a greater degree of accuracy, the focus shifted from choosing wavelength as the basic quantity to using frequency in its stead, thus relegating wavelength to a subsidiary role. The data dictates something else, however. It is wavelength which remains constant and the frequency which varies when the speed of light changes. This latter point was made plain by experimental data from the 1930’s, and was commented on by Birge himself.
In a similar way, although both Lorentz and Maxwell formulated their equations before Einstein adopted and worked with them, it has become almost required to derive the formulas of both Lorentz and Maxwell in terms on Einstein’s work. Properly done, it should be the other way around, and the work of both earlier men should be allowed to stand alone without Einstein’s imposed conditions.
One final note: In the long run, it is the data which must determine the theory, and not the other way around. There are five anomalies cosmology cannot currently deal with in terms of the reigning paradigm. These are easily dealt with, however, when one lets the data go where it will. The original data are in the Report. As given in my lectures, the anomalies concern measured changes in Planck’s constant, the speed of light, changes in atomic masses, the slowing of atomic clocks, and the quantized redshift. Modern physics seems to be showing a preference for ignoring much of this in favor of current theories. That is not the way I wish to approach the subject.
The common factor for solving all five anomalies is increase through time of the zero point energy, for reasons outlined in “Exploring the Vacuum.”
* * * * *
The following is an excerpt from an email sent to a supporter of Barry’s by a fellow we will call Mark. Mark seems to have made it a point to try to hound Barry on the internet but has refused to write to him in person to discuss what he sees as errors in Barry’s material. Thus, part of one email to another person is shown here with Barry’s response, for those who may be similarly confused about what is happening:
I am wondering how review could have failed to pick up on such obvious items as his Equations (108), (109), and (110).
Equation (108) relates distance from us (as a fraction of the distance corresponding to infinite red shift as
z = [(1 + x) /Ö(1 – x2)] – 1 (108)
Although Equation (108) follows from a special relativistic cosmology where red shift is entirely due to recessional velocity and recessional velocity is directly proportional to distance from us, and is therefore ill-motivated in Setterfield’s cosmology, I accept Equation (108) for argument’s sake. Setterfield then goes on to say?
c = [Dc/(8.9114 ´ 10–6)]z = kz (109).
Although that can be but a crude approximation (c is not equal to zero here on earth where z = 0), again I accept Setterfield’s Equation (109) for argument’s sake.
Setterfield then, blatantly mistakenly concludes that:
c = k{[(1 + T)/Ö(1 – T2)] – 1} (110).
Of course combining his equations (108) and (109) one obtains:
C+k{[1+x]/ Ö(1-x2)}-1
That is, Setterfield has mistakenly substituted T for x in his Equation (110). Obviously everything else in Setterfield’s paper that follows from his Equation (110) is nonsense.
Setterfield: Thank you for forwarding “Mark’s” assessment of equations (108) to (110) of Atomic Quantum States, Light, and the Redshift.. As usual, Mark is making his assessment on the basis of what he thinks I am saying instead of the actual facts. Allow me to give a little history here. Some weeks ago, he had criticized my equations on the basis of the substitution for the term T that he had dreamt up and then shown to be false. Now he attacks this equation, because “Setterfield has mistakenly substituted T for x in his Equation (110).”
Indeed! Well the paper up to that point had been demonstrating that both the redshift and lightspeed were children of the same parent, namely the Zero-Point Energy. I had demonstrated that redshift and lightspeed were related via a constant of proportionality, which is k in Equation (110). What you have in equation (108) is the standard redshift equation. There, redshift z is given in terms of distance, x. But distance x is treated in such a way that at the origin of the cosmos x = 1, whereas at our galaxy x = 0. This way, distances became simply a number, without any units or dimensions attached. Since lightspeed and redshift are related via a constant of proportionality, and since we look back in time when we look out to astronomical distances, then the standard graph of redshift/distance is the same as lightspeed/time. It is the same curve, with the required constant of proportionality, k, included. This is what we have in Equation (110) where lightspeed replaces redshift and astronomical distance x is replaced by dynamical time T.
But from his previous comments Mark is concerned about the use of T as time in (110). What I have done is to treat time, T, in the same way that astronomers treat distance, x, so that T runs from T = 1 at the origin of the cosmos, and T = 0 at our galaxy. The procedure is exactly the same and can be found in The Cambridge Atlas of Astronomy, p 356. When this is done, the equation is perfectly valid.
I trust that this clears up his, and similar, confusion.