Barry Setterfield's Plasma Cosmology with Zero Point Energy

[AdB]

The simple answer is a vacuum is not a medium.
The more complicated answer is ZPE is a property of space-time itself as explained in this post.
Because of this virtual particles span the entire universe yet the speed of light remains at c in the vacuum of outer space.
The other point is if virtual particles constituted a medium which slowed down the speed of light, its wavelength would also decrease as frequency remains constant.
This is completely contradictory to observation as distant objects would be blue shifted instead of red shifted.

Wouldn't the virtual particles render the vacuum a "virtual medium"? The wavelength decreases when photons enter into a (genuine) medium, but doesn't it remain the same as long as it is inside the same medium?

 

[sjastro]

I'm not the one that started this thread as crank spam and didn't even discuss the "theory". Nope. That'd be you. I'm unconvinced you *could* explain setterfield's crankery.

Brings back memories of the electric universe discussed here.
It resulted in the formation non mainstream and controversial science forum to separate crankery from mainstream science.

 

[AdB]

I'm not the one that started this thread as crank spam and didn't even discuss the "theory". Nope. That'd be you. I'm unconvinced you *could* explain setterfield's crankery.

You really excel in scoffing, not too much in arguments

 

[sjastro]

Wouldn't the virtual particles render the vacuum a "virtual medium"? The wavelength decreases when photons enter into a (genuine) medium, but doesn't it remain the same as long as it is inside the same medium?

Another consequence of light being slowed down by a medium is the polarization of light by the medium.
The universe is clearly not a polarizing medium as astronomers only observe polarized light under specific and local conditions such as the last surface of scattering from the cosmic radiation background or from reflection nebulae.

 

[Yttrium]

Setterfield actually came on this path by not ignoring anomalies, which in fact are scientific evidence.

Anomalies in what? Like the "declining speed of light"? The one where he conveniently ignored the fact that our measurement methods have been improving? If we were using the exact same measurement methods in all those years, then he might have a case. If that's typical for his anomalies, then he's not paying attention to what others are ignoring, he's making them up.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You really excel in scoffing, not too much in arguments

I haven't figured out what sort of nonsense Setterfield is propagating, then I will fully understand why he is wrong.

 

[Yttrium]

You mean measuring speed of light with atomic clock rates? What if indeed both these values are influenced equally by the strength of the zpe?

I mean such methods as a rotating mirror, cavity resonator, interferometer, etc, with ever-improving designs.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I mean such methods as a rotating mirror, cavity resonator, interferometer, etc, with ever-improving designs.

My favorite method is to drive my car parallel to a light beam until it stops moving relative to me and then checking my speedometer.

(This is the non-standard science section, right?)

 

[AdB]

I mean such methods as a rotating mirror, cavity resonator, interferometer, etc, with ever-improving designs.

And by which means are rotation speed, cavity waves and interferences measured?

 

[AdB]

Anomalies in what? Like the "declining speed of light"? The one where he conveniently ignored the fact that our measurement methods have been improving? If we were using the exact same measurement methods in all those years, then he might have a case. If that's typical for his anomalies, then he's not paying attention to what others are ignoring, he's making them up.

Declining speed of light was not the only anomaly that Setterfield wanted to get debunked, also redshift quantization and some others also I believe. You read it correctly, he actually intended to debunk these things but found out they were real and from there came to his alternative cosmology.
His main point of deviation with main stream science is adopting Planck's second paper as basis for his thesis. That is why SED plays an importaint role in his ideas, with Planck's constant being the representation of the ZPE strength.

It was actually a suprise to him that it lined up seemless with the Biblical creation narrative.

 

[AdB]

My favorite method is to drive my car parallel to a light beam until it stops moving relative to me and then checking my speedometer.

(This is the non-standard science section, right?)

That explains it all, back in the day with the introduction of the railways people already warned that high speeds would be harmfull to the human body and brain...

 

[AdB]

I haven't figured out what sort of nonsense Setterfield is propagating, then I will fully understand why he is wrong.

Then perhaps it might be wise to hold back the scoffing and only respond once you have some actual arguments? Or are you too eager to set the tone in this discussion? Please stop acting according to the woke culture...

 

[AdB]

Another consequence of light being slowed down by a medium is the polarization of light by the medium.
The universe is clearly not a polarizing medium as astronomers only observe polarized light under specific and local conditions such as the last surface of scattering from the cosmic radiation background or from reflection nebulae.

I'm not educated (yet ) on this polarization of light, but to start I have this question: Is it a proven fact that photons will be polarized by interaction with virtual particals (acting as a "virtual medium") as it would by interaction with actual particles? And if so, by which evidence is this established?

 

[AdB]

Brings back memories of the electric universe discussed here.
It resulted in the formation non mainstream and controversial science forum to separate crankery from mainstream science.

To be clear on this, Setterfield is not an "EU proponent", in his cosmology gravity is the dominant force for everything where it has been proven to be the dominant force. But plasma and elecro magnetism play a more principal role in many features where the "purely gravitational" models have more difficulty to explain, especially in the initial stages of the universe.

 

[AdB]

Wouldn't the virtual particles render the vacuum a "virtual medium"? The wavelength decreases when photons enter into a (genuine) medium, but doesn't it remain the same as long as it is inside the same medium?

Can you answer this still? I think these are fair questions from my end to get to know if Setterfield's thesis have any merit or not...

 

[AdB]

I'm not the one that started this thread as crank spam and didn't even discuss the "theory". Nope. That'd be you. I'm unconvinced you *could* explain setterfield's crankery.

And you started responding (displaying quit obvious bias with it I must say) so if you want to discuss a subject it might be wise to educate yourself about the matter so you can actually contribute with relevant remarks... There is no problem having a personal conviction, but I do think an honest discussion can only happen when the different points of view are given a fair chance.

By the way, what makes you think I have to "convince" you of Setterfield's theories or explain them to you? I'm just looking for inputs outside of Setterfield himself, what he explained to me so far sounds quite reasonable but I'm not an expert on these matters so in this way I'm putting his ideas to the test.
Simply mocking his ideas will certainly not convince me though...

 

[AdB]

The more complicated answer is ZPE is a property of space-time itself as explained in this post.

Setterfield also considers the ZPE as an intrinsic "property" of space, but not in some magical way of it being something of the "fabric of space" but more an intrinsicly present energy imparted into space and expressing as waves.

It is not the ZPE itself that is causing the lightspeed delay, but rather the virtual particle pairs that pop into and out of existence from the turbulence of the ZPE.

These virtual particles will likely act like regular particles in some ways, but not necessarily the same in other ways.

I know the existence of ZPE and thr virtual particles has been proven experimentally, showing some properties to be a fact like causing a pressure, but I'm not aware of experiments that show other properties like for example polarization as you pointed out in the other post.

 

[AdB]

@AV1611VET I see your profile doesn't have the option to start a conversation, did you disabke that? I would like to pm with you if possible...

 

[AdB]

Because of this virtual particles span the entire universe yet the speed of light remains at c in the vacuum of outer space.

Indeed that is what Setterfield claims.
- The virtual particle pairs that are caused by the ZPE cause photons to be delayed in their movement (so the intrinsic speed of the photon itself is not influenced)
- With the assumed lower ZPE in the past the density of the virtual particles was much lower, thus photons would encounter a much lower number of interactions, thus would be delayed much less resulting in a higher effective speed of light.
- As photons travel through the universe they would be affected by the interactions with the virtual particles at the exact same measure everywhere in the universe.
- The increase of ZPE would happen at the same rate everywhere in the universe. So as photons are traveling through the universe they will all be equally affected by the interactions with the virtual particles everywhere in the universe.

 

[sjastro]

I'm not educated (yet ) on this polarization of light, but to start I have this question: Is it a proven fact that photons will be polarized by interaction with virtual particals (acting as a "virtual medium") as it would by interaction with actual particles? And if so, by which evidence is this established?

Light cannot be polarized by virtual particles.
Polarization can be explained by treating light as a wave which has oscillating electric and magnetic fields in perpendicular planes.
When an electromagnetic wave interacts with a charged particle such as a free electron or molecular dipoles in a medium, the electric field of the wave causes the electron and dipoles to oscillate which in turns produces an electromagnetic wave as the charges are accelerated.
The resultant wave is going to be 100% polarized, 0% polarized or somewhere in between depending on the orientation of the observer with the resultant wave.

In the case of a free electron the mechanism is Thomson scattering where the speed of the resultant wave remains as c;

For a molecule in a medium such as air or water where the speed of the resultant wave is less than c in the medium;

Since virtual particles exist as virtual particle/antiparticle pairs the net charge is zero and therefore there is no charge accelerated by the incident electromagnetic wave and no resultant wave created.
The scattering can be treated as particle collisions as described in post #19 where light is not slowed down and not polarized.

Can you answer this still? I think these are fair questions from my end to get to know if Setterfield's thesis have any merit or not...

As I am unfamiliar with Setterfield’s model I am going by your description which makes predictions that are clearly contradicted by observation such as the slowing down of light in a medium should result in distant objects being blue shifted instead of red shifted and the lack of polarized and partially polarized photons in the observer’s frame of reference emitted from distant objects.

In the plasma cosmology theories I am familiar with, redshift is explained by mechanisms such as Compton scattering which at least attempts to explain the observed redshift, the slowing down of light in a medium is completely contradictory to observation.
On that basis alone Setterfield’s model is even more wrong than the other plasma cosmology variants.