Setterfield: A question has been asked about the behaviour of the energy E of emitted photons of wavelength W and frequency f during their transit across space. The key formulae involved are E = hf = hc/W. The following discussion concentrates on the behaviour of individual terms in these equations.
If c does indeed vary, inevitably some atomic constants must change, but which? Our theories should be governed by the observational evidence. This evidence has been supplied by 20th century physics and astronomy. One key observation that directs the discussion was noted by R. T. Birge in Nature 134:771, 1934. At that time c was measured as declining, but there were no changes noted in the wavelengths of light in apparatus that should detect it. Birge commented: "If the value of c is actually changing with time, but the value of [wavelength] in terms of the standard metre shows no corresponding change, then it necessarily follows that the value of every atomic frequencyÉmust be changing." This follows since light speed, c, equals frequency, f, multiplied by wavelength W. That is to say c = fW. If wavelengths W are unchanged in this process, then frequencies f must be proportional to c.
Since atomic frequencies govern the rate at which atomic clocks tick, this result effectively means that atomic clocks tick in time with c. By contrast, orbital clocks tick at a constant rate. J. Kovalevsky noted the logical consequence of this situation in Metrologia Vol. 1, No. 4, 1965. He stated that if the two clock rates were different "then Planck's constant as well as atomic frequencies would drift." The observational evidence suggests that these two clocks do indeed run at different rates, and that Planck's constant is also changing. The evidence concerning clock rates comes from the work of T. C. Van Flandern, then of the US Naval Observatory in Washington. He had examined lunar and planetary orbital periods and compared them with atomic clocks data for the period 1955-1981. Assessing the data in 1984, he noted the enigma in Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II, NBS Special Publication 617, pp. 625-627. In that National Bureau of Standards publication, Van Flandern stated "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."
To back up this proposition, Planck's constant, h, has been measured as increasing throughout 20th century. In all, there are 45 determinations by 8 methods. When the data were presented to a scientific journal, one Reviewer who favoured constant quantities noted, "Instrumental resolution may in part explain the trend in the figures, but I admit that such an explanation does not appear to be quantitatively adequate." Additional data came from experiments by Bahcall and Salpeter, Baum and Florentin-Nielsen, as well as Solheim et al. They have each proved that the quantity 'hc' or Planck's constant multiplied by light-speed is in fact a constant astronomically. There is only one conclusion that can be drawn that is in accord with all these data. Since c has been measured as decreasing, and h has been measured as increasing during the same period, and hc is in fact constant, then h must vary precisely as 1/c at all times. This result also agrees with the conclusions reached by Birge and Kovalevsky.
From this observational evidence, it follows in the original equation E = hf = hc/W, that since f is proportional to c, and h is proportional to 1/c, then photon energies in transit are unchanged from the moment of emission. This also follows in the second half of the equation since hc is invariant, and W is also unchanged according to observation. Thus, if each photon is considered to be made up of a wave-train, the number of waves in that wave-train remains unchanged during transit, as does the wavelength. However, since the wave-train is travelling more slowly as c drops, the number of wave-crests passing a given point per unit time is fewer, proportional to c. Since the frequency of a wave is also defined as the number of crests passing a given point, this means that frequency is also proportional to c with no changes in the wave structure of the photon at all. Furthermore, the photon energy is unchanged in transit.
Setterfield: 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.
Setterfield: Thank you for your note. Yes, your suggestion of a change in gravitational constant does potentially answer some of the data that we are getting from outer space and earth as well. However, all told, there are five anomalies which require explanation:
As far as I am aware, there is only one parameter which links all five anomalies, and that is an increase in the strength of the Zero Point Energy with time. The increase in the ZPE with time accounts for observed anomalies with mass and gravitation in a way which varying gravitation itself does not – at least not that I have seen formulated in any theory. Milgrom has proposed a mechanism to account for the flat rotation curves of galaxies by changing gravitational acceleration in a certain way. This overcomes the problem of missing mass in a very helpful manner. However, the discrepant phenomena which induced Milgrom’s solution has a different solution in ZPE theory, and one which is just as viable. As this point I have not written a paper on this aspect of the subject, but hope to in the near future.
In summary, then, while variation in G may explain some phenomena, such as the mass (#3) and time (#4), this leaves the others unexplained still. Thank you for pointing out the behavior of G as a dimensionless ratio of volumetric accelerations. I find this a helpful suggestion which I will be keeping in mind.
Setterfield: The question relating to the fine tuning of the universe is not really relevent as far as the Zero Point Energy and the speed of light is concerned. What we have is a set of mutually cancelling constants whose product or ratio remains fixed no matter what the ZPE does in the universe, and no matter how the speed of light behaves. Thus the product of Planck's constant, h, and the speed of light, c, remain a fixed quantity no matter how the ZPE behaves. That is, hc is invariant. In a similar way, since atomic masses, m, are proportional to 1/c^2, the product mc^2 will always be a constant, and so energy will be conserved.
In the specific case of E = hc/lamda = hf, then we have planck's constant, h, proportional to ZPE strength, c inversely proportional to ZPE strength, and frequencies, f, inversely proportional to ZPE strength. Therefore, hf is a constant; hc is a constant, and wavelengths, lamda, remain unchanged as the ZPE varies. One additional point needs mentioning here. Wavelengths in transit through space will remaion constant, but emitted wavelengths from atomic transitions were longer when the ZPE was lower because the ZPE strength determines the energy of atomic orbits. It is for this reason that we get the redshift of light from distant galaxies. Therefore, the idea of the "fine tuning of the constants" turns out to be something of a misunderstanding of what is happening.