Zero Point Energy
ZPE, the redshift, and an expanding universe
ZPE means Zero Point Energy. It is briefly explained by Setterfield in The Vacuum, Lightspeed, and the Redshift and more extensively in Exploring the Vacuum.
Questions: Is the ZPE real? Is it a real energy that pervades the cosmos, and gives rise to a force, as opposed to a purely mathematical concept that appears in some of the equations of the uncertainty principle? Do physics students learn about ZPE in their classes? I had never heard of ZPE or ZPF before encountering the terms in Barry's papers, and I want to know if I am learning about something important.
Here is a bit on the ZPE (please notify us if one of these links is no longer operational.)
http://users.erols.com/iri/ZPENERGY.html
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/9901011
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/zpe.html
http://www.padrak.com/ine/ZPESCIAM2.html
http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2000-07/msg0026650.html
The following explanation from the QED perspective is from a professor of physics who was aware of the initial question:
I will do my best to explain. You are asking a good question (in fact, the right question). I think that all physicists believe that there is some reality behind the equations they use. The question is how far the correspondence goes. The ZPE is probably the best case of such a quandary. On the one hand, the QED theory is one of the best attested theories in physics. You can calculate certain predictions with the theory to over ten digits of precision and then measure in the laboratory with similarly high precision and the results agree. The success of the theory is impressive. However, the theory has some strange mathematical problems. To get some of these predictions you need to carefully subtract off infinities from your equations. Infinities like the ZPE. When you get infinities in your equations, it usually is a very bad thing- it usually means that your whole theory has broken down. The idea of subtracting infinity from your equation so as to get an answer suggests strongly that something about your equation DOES NOT CORRESPOND to reality.
Almost everything is physics is analogous to a "simple harmonic oscillator", something like a vibrating tuning fork. In the quantum theory even the lowest energy state of the tuning fork has some vibration and thus some energy. It will never be totally at rest. In QED all the different colors of light are like vibrating tuning forks - but they are everywhere and for the whole spectrum of light. If you add up the energies of these oscillators, even if they are in the lowest energy state, the result is infinite. So then, one asks, how can the analogy hold? Good question. But if you subtract off this infinity (the energy of the lowest state- the zero point energy) and just worry about what happens if you bang a few of these tuning forks (adding a finite amount of extra energy) you get very good agreement with experiment about what happens.
QED is a graduate level course, so I don't think that the average undergraduate physics major will know in mathematical detail about the problem of the ZPE. Some may have heard of it.
Comment: The ZPE levels quoted in Barry's papers 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.
Setterfield: 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.
new June 7, 2003 Question: I have been reading your article about Zero Point Energy, and I am fascinated by it. I was hoping you could elaborate on how in one cubic centimeter it contains more energy than all stars and space, that really baffles me.
Setterfield: Thank you for the question. It lets me know there have been some misunderstandings, and I am happy for a chance to clear them up.
The Zero Point Energy (ZPE) is indeed pervasive throughout the whole volume of space. Each cubic centimeter of space has the same amount of ZPE. It is an extremely large amount, but not quite as large as you seem to have been led to believe. Certainly, each cc contains more energy than expended by all the stars in OUR GALAXY in a million years, but this is a 'few degrees' less than all the stars in space! How is this possible?
Think about a rubber band. Stretch it. Stretch it more. Until it is almost ready to break. You have just invested it with quite a bit of energy -- all contained in that little bit of rubber.
In the Bible, we read twelve times that God says He stretched the heavens. If this verb is correct, and I believe it is, then the entire fabric of space has been invested with energy past our ability to even imagine it. This is why each cc of space has such an enormous amount of energy in it. We cannot feel it because it is all around us and in us equally -- and, besides, we're used to it! But it is there. The pressure of our atmosphere gives a good picture. You cannot feel fourteen pounds per square inch of pressure on your skin, but it is there. On the other hand, if that pressure were suddenly (or even slowly) released, you would literally explode. The same with the ZPE.
I hope this helps. The energy itself is from God -- from His action in stretching out the heavens.
Comment and Reference: As you know, one of the main problems with QED is that the ZPF is not renormalizable in a Riemannian space, even if the ultra-violet is truncated.
I ran across this paper on a google search. Thought I'd pass it on.
"Quantum and classical statistics of the electromagnetic zero-point field", originally published in Phys. Rev. A,54, 2737 (1996) is available at: http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0106/0106097.pdf [note: as of Sept. 7, 2007, this link does not appear to be working]
Authors: M. Ibison, B. Haisch
Comments: 18 pages
Journal-ref: Phys. Rev. A, vol. 54, pp. 2737-2744 (1996)
A classical electromagnetic zero-point field (ZPF) analogue of the vacuum of quantum field theory has formed the basis for theoretical investigations in the discipline known as random or stochastic electrodynamics (SED) wherein quantum measurements are imitated by the introduction of a stochastic classical background EM field. Random EM fluctuations are assumed to provide perturbations which can mimic some quantum phenomena while retaining a purely classical basis, e.g. the Casimir force, the Van-der-Waals force, the Lamb shift, spontaneous emission, the RMS radius of the harmonic oscillator, and the radius of the Bohr atom. This classical ZPF is represented as a homogeneous, isotropic ensemble of plane waves with fixed amplitudes and random phases. Averaging over the random phases is assumed to be equivalent to taking the ground-state expectation values of the corresponding quantum operator. We demonstrate that this is not precisely correct by examining the statistics of the classical ZPF in contrast to that of the EM quantum vacuum. We derive the distribution for the individual mode amplitudes in the ground-state as predicted by quantum field theory (QFT) and then carry out the same calculation for the classical ZPF analogue, showing that the distributions are only in approximate agreement, diverging as the density of k states decreases. We introduce an alternative classical ZPF with a different stochastic character, and demonstrate that it can exactly reproduce the statistics of the EM vacuum of QED. Incorporated into SED, this new field is shown to give the correct (QM) distribution for the amplitude of the ground-state of a harmonic oscillator, suggesting the possibility of developing further successful correspondences between SED and QED.“The ZPE increase violates conservation of energy or universe is contracting"
Setterfield: The quantised redshift shows that the universe is probably static. Recent work has shown that a static cosmos is stable against collapse. The increase in the ZPE with time can be looked at in the same way that potential energy changes into kinetic energy - for example a child on a swing. The process takes a finite time. Thus the potential energy of the expansion of the cosmos by God changes into the kinetic energy of the ZPE over time - fast at first, then tapering down. This is the sort of graph we have from the redshift.
The existence of the ZPE/ZPF was first indicated in a Paper by Max Planck in 1911. It occurred as an extra (temperature independent) term in equations describing the radiation of a black body. In 1913, Einstein and Stern published a paper with a similar term which further suggested the existence of the ZPE/ZPF. Then Nernst in 1916 also published a key article on the ZPE/ZPF. Importantly, in each case, the additional term describing the ZPE/ZPF had an f3 dependence. In fact the term was hf3/(2π).
Comment: In other words the f3 dependence appeared as a necessary consequence of radiation theory. It is therefore not an assumption.
Setterfield: You ask if this f3distribution has been confirmed by experiment. In a way, yes. If it was not an f3dependence, two craft out in space traveling at different velocities but the same direction would see the properties of the vacuum differently. This has not been observed. In other words, this f3 result is in accord with observation. Note that, while the properties of the ZPE/ZPF are invariant to velocity differences, they are not invariant to acceleration. This property emerged as a result of examination of the behaviour of the ZPE/ZPF by Paul Davies and independently by Unruh. It is now known as the "Davies/Unruh Effect".
What is the significance of the ZPE?
Setterfield: Last year, a New Scientist cover article of May 11, 2002, was about the excitement and consternation of physicists as they contemplated the likely acceptance of John Webb's observation that requires a varying alpha, and hence a varying c. There were various interesting speculations about how physics might cope with the crisis. This quote particularly caught my attention.
“But simply tweaking the electron charge or light speed is unsatisfactory,” counters Xavier Calmet, a theorist at Ludwig-Maximilians University in Munich. "The problem is, if you have variation of the speed of light, you need some special kind of physics," he says. "What would cause such a variation?"
We all know that the Webb observation is still under review, although well-informed observers like Barrow and Davies are confident that it will pass the tests. If they are right, Calmet's analysis seems worth serious consideration. Physics will need a new theory that explains how c variation can occur. Where might theorists begin in looking for such a theory? If the ZPE is real energy, pervasive throughout the cosmos, isn't it the obvious candidate? Is there another?
Questions: How much energy are we talking about here? Wouldn't the energy being radiated by the stars themselves add to it?
Setterfield: The energy density of the ZPE is so large that one cubic centimetre contains the amount of energy expended by a whole galaxy of stars burning for 1 million years. On this basis, the energy input to the ZPE from the stars and other sources since Creation has been negligible compared with the total ZPE existing in the cosmos. Instead the increase in the strength of the ZPE may be attributed to a different cause.
Please see "Behavior of the Zero Point Energy and Atomic Constants " and "Exploring the Vacuum" for a more detailed and referenced lay explanation. [this response updated Sept. 7, 2007]
Questions: How does the ZPE affect light speed? Does it affect anything else?
Setterfield: The behaviour of the ZPE is the crucial point. That is the basic cause of all else. The observational evidence indicates that the ZPE has increased with time. According to Stochastic Electro-Dynamics or the SED approach to quantum physics, Planck's constant, 'h', is a measure of the strength of the ZPE. Planck's constant has been measured as showing a statistically significant increase over time. Furthermore, electron rest-mass, 'm', is also ZPE dependent such that if the ZPE increases, m must also increase. This occurs because the "jiggling" of the electron by the waves of the ZPE will increase when there are more waves; that is when the ZPE is stronger. The more the energy of the "jiggling", the more mass electrons appear to have. The values of 'm' over the last century have also shown a statistically significant increase. Finally light-speed, 'c', is inversely related to the ZPE. An increase in the ZPE means that there are more virtual particles in the path of a light photon over a given distance. The virtual particles absorb the light photon, then, as the particle annihilates, the photon is re-emitted. The process, while fast, takes up a finite amount of time. Thus the photon of light is like a runner on a track with hurdles. The runner can go at their maximum achievable speed with no hurdles. As the number of hurdles increases, the time taken for the runner to complete the course takes progressively longer. Thus an increase in the ZPE means an increase in the number of virtual particles (hurdles) per linear distance, which in turn means it takes longer for light to travel a given distance. We measure that as a decrease in light-speed 'c'. Importantly, light-speed has been measured as declining with time over the last 350 years (see the 1987 Report). This means that the ZPE must be increasing over that length of time.
As far as the atomic side of things is concerned, Puthoff in 1987 demonstrated in Physical Review D, Vol. 35:10, p. 3266, that the ZPE is supporting all atomic structures across the cosmos. He pointed out mathematically that an electron in orbit around a proton or nucleus must be radiating energy according to classical concepts. However, according to SED concepts, the same electron must also be absorbing energy from the ZPE. As Puthoff showed mathematically, the power radiated by the electron is equal to the power absorbed from the ZPE. In other words, the whole orbit structure of every atom is sustained by the ZPE. The proposal that the varying light-speed (Vc) model makes is this: as the ZPE energy density increases with time throughout the cosmos, so must the energy of every orbit in every atom. However, one must not expect this increase to be a smooth function. Rather, since many atomic processes are quantised, or go in jumps, so also will the increase in the energy levels in the atom. It is rather like a full bottle of soda sitting on a table. If you push it gently with your finger, it will not move. You keep increasing the pressure on the bottle with your finger until a threshold is reached at which time the bottle jerks forward. Thus it is with the atoms, the increase in energy for the whole orbit structure can only occur once a certain threshold is reached, then each atom in the cosmos goes to a higher energy level. Thus, light emitted by these atoms will be more energetic, or bluer, with the passing of time, but the change will go in jumps. Astronomers view this in reverse. As we look back in time to more distant objects, the light emitted from these objects becomes redder (less energetic) in jumps. We call this the quantised redshift, something that astronomer William Tifft from Arizona has been pointing out for the last 25 years.
Comment: If the atomic rate in the past was much higher, you would need more ZPE to "save" the electrons.
Setterfield: Your problem is that electrons were moving faster in their orbits when the ZPE was lower and light-speed was higher. As a consequence of this faster motion, the atomic clock ticked faster. Why? Because the rest-mass, 'm', of electrons was lower. In the equations for an electron in motion in an atomic orbit, one of the important quantities is the kinetic energy of the electron. This is 1/2 mv^2 where m is electron rest-mass and 'v' is its velocity in orbit. Consider for a moment what happens within a quantum interval for an atom; that is in the time between quantum jumps in energy. Since no extra energy is accessible to the atom until a full quantum threshold is reached, all atomic processes work on the basis of energy conservation. But here is an electron whose mass is smoothly changing as the ZPE steadily increases because the jiggling from the ZPE is increasing. Because the kinetic energy of the electron remains fixed within the quantum interval, and the quantity 'm' is increasing with time, then the other part of the equation, the electron velocity 'v' must drop with time. Thus, as we look back into the past, electron velocities in their orbits increase with time.
Questions: You have stated that there are two different clocks in operation, the orbital clock and the atomic clock. Why would the "atomic clock" have "ticked" faster in the past? What does this have to do with the ZPE?
Setterfield: The energy imparted to the fabric of space by initial cosmological expansion is like the energy imparted to a rubber band when it is stretched. That energy is potential energy. In the case of the rubber band, if it remains stretched, that potential energy gradually changes to kinetic energy and is dissipated into the atmosphere as heat radiation. We do not notice it because the quantities involved are so tiny. The same thing is happening to the fabric of space. The potential energy of the stretching gradually changes into the electromagnetic radiation of the ZPE. Thus, when the energy level of the ZPE (the kinetic energy) is low, the potential energy of the cosmos is high. In a similar way when a spring-wound clock has been wound up to its maximum, the clock's rate of ticking is fast, but as the spring unwinds, the rate of ticking slows down. The atomic clock is ticking according to the same principles. When universal potential energy is high (low ZPE), the atomic clocks tick faster. As the ZPE increases and the cosmological potential energy decreases, the rate at which atomic clocks tick also slows down.
Questions: .. can you clear up which reaction rates are c-dependent? The reference to "stellar reaction rates" implies that it is the fusion rates within stars which are c-dependent - these are essentially nuclear reactions. However, the later statement that "every photon emitted had a lower energy" looks like a reference to photon emission by electronic transitions between energy levels in atoms, rather than nuclear reactions. Which of these processes are you referring to ?
Can I ask a supplementary question too ? If Planck's constant, h, varies inversely with c, what are the effects of cDK on the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle ?
Setterfield: Thank you for seeking a clarification. Allow me to make a few background comments before coming to your questions.
The basic concept is that the Zero-Point Energy (ZPE) of the vacuum is increasing with time. There is a specific reason for this related to initial cosmological expansion after the inception of the cosmos. This increase in the energy density of the Zero-Point Fields (ZPF) does two things. It slows the speed of light and affects atomic processes. Hal Puthoff in 1987 demonstrated that the ZPE maintains all atomic structures throughout the cosmos[Phys. Rev. D, 35:10, pp.3266-3269, 15 May 1987, also New Scientist 28 July, 1990, pp. 36-39]. It can be shown that the intrinsic energy of atomic particles as well as atomic orbit energies is ZPE dependent. Now a smoothly changing ZPE results in a smoothly changing speed of light. However, atomic processes are quantised and unable to access additional energy from the ZPE until a quantum threshold is reached. Therefore, as the ZPE increases with time and light-speed drops, atomic orbit energies remain fixed and atomic processes proceed on the basis of energy conservation, until the quantum threshold is exceeded. At that point, an additional quantum of energy becomes available to atoms, and the energy of any given orbit undergoes a quantum increase. There are a number of other quantities that undergo a quantum change simultaneously, including atomic masses, velocities, frequencies and wavelengths. The net result is a quantum change in all atomic phenomena that leads to a consistent redshifting of all atomic processes as we look back in time. The details are enumerated in Behavior of the Zero Point Energy and Atomic Constants.
Now it can be shown that radioactive decay processes and nuclear fusion are both c-dependent reactions (related via a beta decay process). Therefore the number of reactions per unit time is proportional to c. The energy emitted in the stellar reactions is a gamma photon due to mass loss in the conversion of hydrogen to helium. Now within the quantum interval, because energy is conserved as c decays, atomic masses are inversely proportional to c2, so the energy of the emitted gamma photon remains unchanged. However, at the quantum jump, there is a quantum change in all relevant atomic quantities including masses, velocities, frequencies and wavelengths. Since the change in the ZPE and hence light-speed is infinitesimally small at the precise moment of the jump, the quantum change resets all these atomic parameters in comparison with light-speed. Thus, at the moment of the jump, atomic masses change, but light-speed does not, so there is a change in the energy of the emitted photon. Therefore, the energy of the emitted gamma photon was lower in the past, being consistently redshifted like other atomic phenomena.
There is another way of coming at this. The emitted gamma photon has to escape from the sun or star. To do so, it battles past the screen of atomic particles in the central and outer regions of a star. This scattering process delays the energy getting to the surface, trapping the photons inside a star, and effectively pumps a star full of light like a balloon being blown up. The relevant parameter governing this process is the opacity of a star. In the outer regions of the sun or star, this energy is no longer emitted as a gamma ray, but as visible light with spectral lines of the elements in that outer region, because atoms exist in the outer regions. In other words, atoms in the photosphere absorb and re-emit the energy that is coming from the interior. Because those atoms and their orbits change their energies at the quantum jump, the emitted photons will also have their energies changed. Consequently, light from distant objects will be progressively redshifted in quantum jumps as Tifft and others have observed.
Insofar as the Uncertainty Principle is dependent upon Planck's constant "h", and h is proportional to 1/c, it might then be stated that things were less "uncertain" when light-speed was higher. Remember that SED formalism is conceptually different to the traditional QED approach, even though they give the same results mathematically. Thus in 1975 Boyer established that the fluctuations caused by the Zero-Point Energy on the positions of particles were in exact agreement with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle [ Phys. Rev. D. 11:4, p.790]. Using this formalism, h thereby becomes a measure of the strength of the ZPF, since the ZPF fluctuations provide an irreducible random noise at the atomic level which is then interpreted as innate uncertainty [Puthoff, New Scientist, 28 July, 1990, p.36. Also, Haisch, Rueda & Puthoff, Spec. Sci. & Tech. Vol. 20, 1997, p.99.]. In effect the zero-point fields "jiggle" the sub-atomic particles around as in the electron's "zitterbewegung". Therefore, in SED formalism, if h is increasing with time, this means that the strength of the ZPF must also be increasing. [response updated Sept. 7, 2007]
Question: Just to give me some "feel" for how cDK has progressed, what was the value of c in 1000 A.D., at the time of Christ, and in 1000 B.C.?
Setterfield: As far as the second question is concerned, the values for c on the requested dates reveal the oscillation which is superimposed upon the general decline in c. For 1000 AD, c was of the order of 310,000 km/s; at the time of Christ it was around 290,000 km/s; at 1000 BC it was around 270,000 km/s.
Question: Which element causes the change in ZPE. It would seem that the ZPE of the vacuum depends on three things: Planck's Constant h, the density of states, and the cutoff frequency? Which of these things' changing is responsible for the changing ZPE?"
Setterfield: In reply it must first be stated that your question is coming from the "traditional" QED point of view of the ZPE. The SED approach, initiated by Einstein, Stern, Nernst and even Planck himself, has only been explored in more recent times. This approach is conceptually different, although it gives the same answers mathematically. As a result of the work of these great names in physics, plus more recent successes, it has been pointed out that "The most optimistic outcome of the SED approach would be to demonstrate that classical physics plus a classical ZPE could successfully replicate all quantum phenomena." While SED formalism has been successful up to this point, many more man-years of work may be needed to fully achieve this goal [Haisch, Rueda & Puthoff, Spec. in Sci. & Tech., Vol. 20 (1997), p. 99ff.].
On the SED approach, then, Planck's constant h is an effect that has been caused by the ZPE and is not in and of itself responsible for the ZPE. Instead, h becomes a measure of the strength of the ZPF, since the ZPF fluctuations provide an irreducible random noise at the atomic level which is then interpreted as innate uncertainty [Haisch, Rueda & Puthoff, op. cit. and Puthoff, New Scientist, 28 July 1990, p.36]. Furthermore, a short wavelength cutoff for the ZPE emerges naturally since the ZPE originates as an intrinsic electromagnetic property of the vacuum. Because "the Planck length is the length at which the smoothness of space breaks down and space assumes a granular structure" [Pipkin & Ritter, Science, Vol. 219 (1983) p.4587], it becomes impossible for the "fabric of space" to transmit electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths shorter than this.
The question that you are really asking is "how does the ZPE originate on the SED approach?" Puthoff pointed out that there were two possibilities [Physical Review A, Vol. 40:9, pp.4857-4862, Nov. 1, 1989]. He has explored one option in that article, while Behavior of the Zero Point Energy and Atomic Constants and Exploring the Vacuum explore the alternative, namely that initial inflation determined some of these physical properties of the vacuum. [response updated Sept. 7, 2007]
Question: When I read Puthoff he showed only how ZPE absorption balanced by emission could account only for the ground state of the Hydrogen atom in the Bohr theory. That is a far cry from showing that it maintains all atomic structure throughout the cosmos. What am I missing?
Setterfield: The point that you are missing comes from two quotes, the first in the final paragraph of that same paper by Puthoff. It reads "Finally, it is seen that a well-defined, precise quantitative argument can be made that the ground state of the hydrogen atom is defined by a dynamic equilibrium in which collapse of the state is prevented by the presence of zero-point fluctuations of the electromagnetic field. This carries with it the attendant implication that the stability of matter itself is largely mediated by ZPF phenomena in the manner described here, a concept that transcends the usual [QED] interpretation of the role and significance of the zero-point fluctuations of the vacuum electromagnetic field." [Phys. Rev. D. 35:10, pp.3266-3268].
Puthoff emphasises the point in New Scientist, 28 July, 1990, p.36-39 when he states "I have discovered that you can consider the electron [in an atomic orbit] as continually radiating away its energy as predicted by classical theory, but simultaneously absorbing a compensating amount of energy from the ever-present sea of zero-point energy in which the atom is immersed. An equilibrium between these two processes leads to the correct values for the parameters that define the lowest energy, or ground-state orbit (see "Why atoms don't collapse", New Scientist, July 1987). Thus there is a dynamic equilibrium in which the zero-point energy stabilises the electron in a set ground-state orbit. It seems that the very stability of matter itself appears to depend on an underlying sea of electromagnetic zero-point energy." In other words, the ZPE maintains atomic orbits throughout the cosmos as stated.
Question: OK, since the energies of atomic transitions were lower in the past, then so too must have been the corresponding atomic energy levels, right? But for a hydrogen atom in a Bohr orbit (circular orbit) the kinetic energy is equal to minus half of the potential energy. That result depends in no way upon c right?
Setterfield: Actually it would be more correct to say that the atomic energy levels are dependent upon the strength of the ZPE. Since the speed of light is also dependent upon the ZPE it can be shown that there is indeed a relationship between the two. In a Bohr hydrogen atom, both the kinetic and potential energies of the orbit can be shown to be c-dependent. This arises because, for example, kinetic energy is (mv2)/2, and both m and v for the electron change with c. Furthermore, the intrinsic energy of the proton and electron depend upon the permittivity of space which is itself dependent upon the ZPE. This does indeed mean that orbital kinetic and potential energies are time-dependent.
For these reasons, it is incorrect when to state that these energies must change as a result of changing atomic radii. The change in orbit energies is not linked in any way with orbit radii (at least not on this variable light speed hypothesis), but only with changing mass, velocity and vacuum permittivity. The cDK hypothesis holds to invariant atomic orbit radii, invariant atomic sizes, and invariant planetary radii.
Questions: Your paper did clearly show why the overall implication from "c" data (your 1987 study) and ZPE vs. "c" observations indicate decrease in ZPE energy through time. Thanks.
Puthoff indicated in earlier writings that the Lamb shift indicated a "rescuing" of the electron...or actually a rescuing of matter from electrons falling into nucleus. From my understanding of his papers I got the idea that the ZPE adds energy to the electron when it is falling into the nucleus...and possibly adds another type of energy to keep the electron from flying out of orbit. That the ZPE determines both the lower and upper threshold of electron energy. Do I have this almost right?
I've been wondering if we live with a macroscopic display of this everyday. Faraday's/Maxwell's work showed that a magnetic field changing through time induce voltages in conductive material. Electrons then move in response to this induced E field. Does the atomic electron that is losing energy produce a magnetic field changing through time (from change in spin rate and orbital velocity)? If so, could the ZPE at the sub-atomic scale be creating and applying an E-field to the electron to add energy to it? If the spin rate/orbital velocity of electron was increasing it too would produce a magnetic field changing through time, but of the opposite direction. Could the ZPE again create an E-field of opposite sign to apply to the electron to keep it from flying out of the atoms orbit?
… From your paper I know that I'm stuck in a rut. Energy is mass...and I cannot seem to break free of seeing electrons as tiny little charged masses...rather than a ZPE energy. I also have a hard time with getting my head out of the macroscopic world to the fundamental foundational world of ZPE!
Is it possible that, forgetting Faraday/Maxwell, we observe ZPE effects daily at our scale and having attributed them to well known and understood physics sans ZPE...have possibly missed the boat on some truly wonderful discoveries?
Setterfield: Here is a quote that I found helpful with problems of visualising what is happening with the electron, and how the ZPE and the electron together do all that is needed to keep it in orbit.
"The statement was made [47]: 'With somewhat more quantitative estimations, Boyer [70] and Claverie and Diner [71] have shown that if one considers circular orbits only, then one obtains an equilibrium radius of the expected size [the Bohr radius]: for smaller distances, the electron absorbs too much energy from the [ZPE] field…and tends to escape, whereas for larger distances it radiates too much and tends to fall towards the nucleus.”
If you need to follow through on the quote and references, you can find the quote on our Journal of Theoretics article "Exploring the Vacuum" under the subtitle 'The ZPE and Atoms'.
The upshot of this information is that if more energy is received from the ZPE than is needed at a given distance from the nucleus, the electron moves out to a position of balance, which is the next stable orbit out. If it is not receiving enough energy from the ZPE then it spirals in to the next stable position which is the orbit closer to the nucleus. Thus there is no jiggery-pokery involved with other effects, only the electronic charge on the electron and proton, the motion of the electron, and the energy received from the ZPE. I hope that helps.
You also ask in effect if an atomic electron produces a magnetic field as it spirals out of its orbit and before the ZPE re-supplies it. I was asked a similar question by someone who asked why we cannot detect the radiation from an electron as it deviates from its orbit before it is re-supplied by the ZPE. The point is that any loss of energy by the electron is so miniscule before the re-supply by the ZPE that any wavelength of emitted radiation would be so long as to be virtually unobservable.
This led to the question as to whether the ZPE applied an electric or magnetic field that booted the electron back. According to Puthoff's article, he considered the electro-magnetic power supplied by the ZPE compared with the power lost by the electron. In his response to my questioning he likened it to a child on a swing being given resonant pushes by an adult. He looked at it in terms of wavelengths of the electron in its stable orbit compared with the wavelength of the ZPE which acted as a resonant or re-enforcing mechanism.
Question: I understand that according to your model, energy being released from the fabric of space is causing the introduction of virtual particles into the system. It’s these particles that have affected the speed of light. I also understand that this extra energy has affected light emission in atoms the universe over, causing light to become “blue-shifted” (the red shift is the ancient light from far away heavenly bodies). If I’ve got this right, then so far so good.
What I just can’t seem to wrap my mind around is the idea that a slowing light speed will also mean a slower rate of isotopic decay. I spoke with Walt Brown on Feb. 16th about this and he affirmed that (if I’m understanding him right) the rate of vibration in an atom’s nucleus will determine it’s decay rate. This makes sense, the faster the vibration, the quicker the nucleus falls apart. Right?
I’m having a hard time reconciling this with the idea that an increase in energy flow to an atom (like your model states) will actually increase the half-life of a particular isotope. Everywhere I look, undirected energy causes things to fall apart (i.e. the sun does a lot of damage to things, unless there is a mechanism in place which can utilize this energy, like the “machinery” in plants). According to the information on your site, atoms today have more “jiggle” than they used to. Shouldn’t this serve to decrease an atom’s half-life? I guess my question is: How can an increase in energy to an atom actually translate to a longer half-life?
I know I’m misunderstanding something here, and I would like a better handle on this.
Setterfield: Your initial paragraph is absolutely correct. Walt Brown’s statement is also correct.
The question that you have then is “how can an increase in energy to an atom actually translate into a longer half-life?”
The answer emerges from the fact that not only is the speed of light affected by the strength of the ZPE, but atomic particles also increase in mass as the energy from the vacuum becomes available. The greater mass of atomic particles means that the particles in the nucleus and the electrons in their orbits travel more slowly as the kinetic energy of the particles is constant. Thus atomic masses are proportional to 1/c2, so that atomic velocities are proportional to c. Consequently, the rate of ticking of the atomic clock is also proportional to c. This includes the rate of movement of particles in the nucleus and hence the rate of radioactive decay. Therefore, decay rates are proportional to c and decline as the ZPE increases as because atomic masses increase as the ZPE increases.
I trust that this is sufficient information for you. Get back to me if you have further problems.
Question: When light was faster in the past, as I understand the atomic clock was faster.
That would mean that the electrons would be going faster.
(The electron speed around the nucleus is the measure of atomic time.) If an electron is not to fly away under higher orbit speeds due to increased centripetal forces, would the electron need to be closer to the atom, that is assuming the atom nucleus has an increased attractive force closer to the nucleus?? Does that mean that the electron cloud may have increased in diameter hence caused an overall increase in the atom diameter?
Setterfield: You are correct in stating that when light was faster, the atomic clock was also ticking faster, which in turn meant that electrons were traveling faster around the nucleus. In all this the electronic charge was constant.
However, the electron does not fly away due to increased centripetal forces because the mass of the electron is proportional to 1/c2. Thus the kinetic energy of the electron remains constant and all forces are balanced since the potential energy of the electronic charges are constant.
The required increase in the mass of the electron with the decrease in lightspeed has been documented during the last century. For a quick summary of the findings, you can check the graphs.
ZPE, the redshift, and an expanding universe
Question: In the Vacuum and the redshift, and the speed of light paper he wrote, he claims that the light is slowing down because of matter that is being added to the universe. That would hold true, but someone else has pointed out that the universe is expanding, and thus that certainly would minimize the matter's effect.
Is it valid to say that because there was less ZPE that had been released before than now, and “since distances were closer than now if the universe is expanding, wouldn't it have taken far less time for light to travel than now”? ( with more ZPE and distance)?
Setterfield: Let me make a couple of introductory points here.
First, the speed of light is slowing because the strength of the ZPE is increasing with time. The ZPE is increasing with time because of the recombination and hence annihilation of the Planck Particle Pairs (PPP). When these PPP (which are positively and negatively charged) recombine/annihilate, they emit electromagnetic radiation which comprises the ZPE. The mathematical form of this recombination process is well-known. The PPP were formed as a result of the energy which was imparted to the fabric of space by its initial stretching. The turbulence accompanying the stretching spawned more PPP until the turbulence died out in a manner explained by Gibson. The formula for the decay in turbulence is also well-known, and hence the build-up rate of the PPP from turbulence can be established. When both of these mathematical relationships governing the behaviour of the PPP with time are added together, the result is found to have the same form as the redshift/distance relationship.
But it has been shown that the ZPE supports atomic structures across the cosmos. As a consequence, a lower ZPE means a lower energy for all atomic orbits. Therefore, the light emitted from those atoms will also be of lower energy, and hence redder. Thus as we look back in time by looking into the distant regions of the universe, we see that light emitted by astronomical objects becomes increasingly redder with distance. The redshift of light from distant objects is thereby the result of a lower strength for the ZPE in the past.
The proof that the redshift is an atomic thing related to the ZPE and not related to any universal expansion or the motion of galaxies is the quantization of the redshift. It is primarily atomic phenomena which show quantization effects. The quantization of motion or universal expansion is something that is clearly unacceptable to current scientific thinking. The conclusion is that the quantization of the redshift shows that the redshift itself originates with atomic orbit energies and hence the ZPE which governs those energies. Thus the redshift and lightspeed both are children of the same parent, the strength of the ZPE. Since the strength of the ZPE/time can be shown to behave in a way that is in accord with the redshift/distance (or redshift/time) relationship, it follows that the behaviour of the lightspeed/time relationship is also in accord with this.
In all this, the amount of matter in the universe is of no account as it does not affect lightspeed which is inversely dependent upon the strength of the ZPE. The only necessity for the amount of mass to increase is in the Narliker model in which a static universe is stable against collapse if mass was slowly increasing. This has nothing to do with lightspeed; it is an entirely separate phenomenon, although related to the strength of the ZPE. This answers your initial question.
Your second question is: “since distances were closer than now if the universe is expanding, wouldn't it have taken far less time for light to travel than now”? This whole question hinges on the assumption that the universe is still expanding. In actual fact, the prime evidence for that expansion is the redshift. If the redshift is explicable in terms of the ZPE, then the expansion interpretation is in serious doubt. That doubt is increased by the fact of the redshift quantization. This reveals that the redshift cannot be due to motion of any kind, whether the flying apart of galaxies, or the expansion of space-time. Any such motion would smear-out the quiantization so that it no longer exists. This is what happens in the centre of the Virgo cluster of galaxies. These galaxies are orbiting under the action of a strong gravitational field. That motion is sufficient to wipe out the quantization. As a consequence, the redshift cannot be due to motion or cosmological expansion.
The model presented on my website implicitly accepts that the universe underwent a very brief period of initial expansion out to its present size, at which it stabilized. This means that there is no current expansion. Hence, the vast majority of astronomical objects should show no redshift due to expansion. The only possible exception would be objects at the very frontiers of the cosmos. Given the brief initial expansion conditions, your second question becomes relevant then, and only then.
Under these restricted conditions, the answer to the second question follows a line of reasoning which goes something like this. It is certainly true that the ZPE was lower, and that the speed of light must have been much higher at the time of the initial expansion. It is also true that the universe was smaller than now during that initial expansion phase. However, if the fabric of space was expanded out initially, a couple of points need be made. The first is that no atomic structures existed before the primordial ZPE had formed. In other words, atoms and matter did not exist prior to the existence of the ZPE. This in turn required some considerable initial expansion of the fabric of space. We can go further. The existence of atomic structures is essential to the origin of light from celestial objects. Therefore a primordial ZPE must have existed sometime before the first stars were shining.
From an entirely Scriptural point of view, there are 12 references to the stretching out of the heavens. Two points emerge from these verses. First, the action is always in the past tense, so the heavens are not being expanded out now. Second, it is always in the context of Creation Week, so by the end of the 6th Day, expansion must have ceased. Indeed, since the astronomical heavens were completed by the close of the 4th Day, then expansion must have ceased by then. It is also entirely possible that the expansion had ceased by the time that light was visible from the earth half way through the 1st Day. We find a reference in Job 38 which helps us here. In Job 38:7 to the fact that the first stars already shining when the foundation of the earth was laid. From Genesis 1, these events occurred very early on the 1st Day. Now both these events imply the existence of matter, which in turn requires the existence of the primordial ZPE, which itself requires the initial expansion to be largely complete before the middle of the 1st Day.
There is another aspect to this. If the very fabric of space is being stretched out, every structure embedded in that fabric will also be undergoing expansion. This means that all atoms existing at the time, and hence all matter, will be undergoing expansion, too. This fact introduces some unusual effects that Sumner has outlined, as well as changes to the strength of the electronic charge in order to maintain the stability of matter. Since these effects are not observed, even at the frontiers of the cosmos, it seems likely that the formation of atomic structures and hence matter, stars and planets, occurred after the expansion was substantially complete. If this reasoning is correct, this limits the expansion to the earliest moments of the 1st Day of Creation Week.
Therefore, the answer that emerges for your second question is that atomic structures did not exist during the expansion phase of the cosmos, and since light is emitted from these structures, the emergence of light must post-date the expansion of the universe. Therefore, from the time that light emerged on the 1st Day, distances in the cosmos were basically the same as we have now. And, Yes, the time it took light to travel those distances was far less than what we have now. But there is probably no effect on light travel time due to a smaller cosmos that was implied in the question.
Return to Discussion Index
Return to GSR Home page