Barry Setterfield's Plasma Cosmology with Zero Point Energy

[sjastro]

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.

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.

Your first quote is contradicted by the second.
Intuitively one would expect the ZPE density to be higher in the early universe since the early universe was smaller and the density of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs would also be higher.

This idea however is wrong as well since the vacuum energy or ZPE is believed to be associated with dark energy which causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate.
The dark energy density like the ZPE density remains constant as the universe expands since the energy being an intrinsic property of space-time is created along with the expansion.
Radiation and matter density on the other hand decrease as the universe expands.

​

The creation of dark energy or ZPE does not violate the conservation of energy as the law does not apply to expanding space-times.

The production of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs are based on vacuum fluctuations of the ZPE which is statistical in nature and for a constant ZPE density the mean path length for an individual photon colliding with particle/antiparticle pairs should be statistically constant over the history of the universe for the photon’s world-line.

 

[AdB]

Your first quote is contradicted by the second.

Why?

Intuitively one would expect the ZPE density to be higher in the early universe since the early universe was smaller and the density of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs would also be higher.

This idea however is wrong as well since the vacuum energy or ZPE is believed to be associated with dark energy which causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate.
The dark energy density like the ZPE density remains constant as the universe expands since the energy being an intrinsic property of space-time is created along with the expansion.
Radiation and matter density on the other hand decrease as the universe expands.

A lot of assumptions are made here, and also based on dark matter even though that still has not been found anywhere. I find it facinating how all kinds of attributes are assigned to dark matter even though it has never been detected... Science fiction? So it is only a wild assumption that ZPE would behave like dark matter and that its density would remain constant throughout the history of the universe.

The production of virtual particle/antiparticle pairs are based on vacuum fluctuations of the ZPE which is statistical in nature and for a constant ZPE density the mean path length for an individual photon colliding with particle/antiparticle pairs should be statistically constant over the history of the universe for the photon’s world-line.

Again, it's only an assumption that ZPE density, and with it the virtual particle density would be statical throughout the history of the universe.

Light cannot be polarized by virtual particles.

Another consequence of light being slowed down by a medium is the polarization of light by the medium.

So you say virtual particles will not polarize light and you say when light is slowed down it will be polarized... So you conclude that because light is not polarized by coliding with virtual particles that therefore it can't be slowed down by the same. Yet, because we don't have experimental evidence proving otherwise, it would still be possible that virtual particles do slow down light without polarizing it.

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.

As I alway understood the change of wavelength of light passing through a medium, this is happening at the interface of the different media? So because the light is emmited in the same medium (the equally distributed virtual particles throughout the universe) as where it will travel in, so there is no interface between different media anywhere. The only thing that changes over time is the density of the virtual particles causing an ever increasing delay of the photons.

Also as I've always understood the slowing down of light is definitely by absorbing (of the photon energy) by the particle and then reemitting of a photon after a short delay, even with a quick search I found this as a common explanation. So you might nitpick about the exact technical manner how this is happening with regular matter, but I believe there is no definite evidence that a possible delay by intercation with virtual particles would happen in a certain way...

 

[sjastro]

Why?

Here we go again.

What do you notice about the radiation, mass and dark energy densities?
Radiation and mass densities decrease as the universe gets larger, dark energy density remains constant.
Radiation and mass densities are properties pertaining to what happens in space-time, dark energy to the properties of space-time itself.

Like dark energy ZPE is a property of space-time and conforms to the same horizontal line relationship where its density remains constant.
When the universe of radius “r” at some cosmological time t expands, its volume increases as r³ as does the amount of ZPE without violating the conservation of energy for non static space-times, whereas the amount of radiation and matter remains constant and their densities decrease.
So therefore it is contradictory to state ZPE is a property of space-time and claim its density changes over time.

A lot of assumptions are made here, and also based on dark matter even though that still has not been found anywhere. I find it facinating how all kinds of attributes are assigned to dark matter even though it has never been detected... Science fiction? So it is only a wild assumption that ZPE would behave like dark matter and that its density would remain constant throughout the history of the universe.



Again, it's only an assumption that ZPE density, and with it the virtual particle density would be statical throughout the history of the universe.

They are only assumptions because of your limited comprehension of the science; it’s called the argument of personal incredulity fallacy.
For a start you are confusing dark matter with dark energy; secondly there are various theories on the nature of dark energy including it being associated with ZPE.

ZPE is not only a property of space-time but it is defined as the energy of the vacuum which has an expectation or average value E.
Variations from the expectation value or the statistical uncertainty ΔE lead to vacuum fluctuations and the formation of particle/antiparticle pairs of life span Δt according to Heisenberg uncertainty principle ΔEΔt ≥ h/4pi.
A basic understanding of quantum mechanics would also go a long way in curbing your use of the word assumption.

So you say virtual particles will not polarize light and you say when light is slowed down it will be polarized... So you conclude that because light is not polarized by coliding with virtual particles that therefore it can't be slowed down by the same. Yet, because we don't have experimental evidence proving otherwise, it would still be possible that virtual particles do slow down light without polarizing it.

You are ignoring the elephant in the room as the subject of polarization is a side show; show us the experimental or observational evidence virtual particles slow down light in the first place.
I pointed out to you in my first post photons are not slowed down when scattered by Coulomb or electric fields where virtual particles are created.

As I alway understood the change of wavelength of light passing through a medium, this is happening at the interface of the different media? So because the light is emmited in the same medium (the equally distributed virtual particles throughout the universe) as where it will travel in, so there is no interface between different media anywhere. The only thing that changes over time is the density of the virtual particles causing an ever increasing delay of the photons.

Also as I've always understood the slowing down of light is devinitely by absorbing (of the photon energy) by the particle and then reemitting of a photon after a short delay, even with a quick search I found this as a common explanation. So you might nitpick about the exact technical manner how this is happening with regular matter, but I believe there is no definite evidence that a possible delay by intercation with virtual particles would happen in a certain way...

Here is a video why your understanding of what happens when light passes through a physical medium is wrong.

 

[AdB]

Here is a video why your understanding of what happens when light passes through a physical medium is wrong.

I'm quite busy at the moment, but I took time to watch the video...

So the video only tries to address the possible CAUSE for the delay of photons in a medium, which, as far as I am aware of is far from a settled matter even though the video tries to make it seem as if it is.

But regardless of the actual cause of delay of photons in a medium, the fact is that it happens. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the virtual particles that are caused by the ZPE will behave like regular matter in many ways, including the delay of photons, whatever way that happens.

There is one thing very different though for photons traveling through the ZPE induced virtual particle "medium" and that is that is never enters nor exits this "medium" because this "medium" is encompassing the entire universe and completely homogeneous.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm quite busy at the moment, but I took time to watch the video...

So the video only tries to address the possible CAUSE for the delay of photons in a medium, which, as far as I am aware of is far from a settled matter even though the video tries to make it seem as if it is.

But it is settled. The cause of slowing of light speed in a medium is *well* known and not controversial. See video.

But regardless of the actual cause of delay of photons in a medium, the fact is that it happens. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the virtual particles that are caused by the ZPE will behave like regular matter in many ways, including the delay of photons, whatever way that happens.

There is one thing very different though for photons traveling through the ZPE induced virtual particle "medium" and that is that is never enters nor exits this "medium" because this "medium" is encompassing the entire universe and completely homogeneous.

I forget, how is a delay from interactions from the virtual pairs caused by the ZPE create a "useful" effect for an alternative cosmology?

 

[AdB]

But it is settled. The cause of slowing of light speed in a medium is *well* known and not controversial. See video.

I saw the video

I forget, how is a delay from interactions from the virtual pairs caused by the ZPE create a "useful" effect for an alternative cosmology?

See posts

 

[sjastro]

I'm quite busy at the moment, but I took time to watch the video...

So the video only tries to address the possible CAUSE for the delay of photons in a medium, which, as far as I am aware of is far from a settled matter even though the video tries to make it seem as if it is.

But regardless of the actual cause of delay of photons in a medium, the fact is that it happens. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the virtual particles that are caused by the ZPE will behave like regular matter in many ways, including the delay of photons, whatever way that happens.

There is one thing very different though for photons traveling through the ZPE induced virtual particle "medium" and that is that is never enters nor exits this "medium" because this "medium" is encompassing the entire universe and completely homogeneous.

As @Hans Blaster has pointed out the slowing down of light in a medium is well understood.
This not an issue about the cause but whether Setterfield’s hypothesis is consistent with the observed experimental effects.

In my very first post in this thread I referred to Delbruck scattering.

Delbrück scattering, the deflection of high-energy photons in the Coulomb field of nuclei as a consequence of vacuum polarization, was observed in 1975.

I’ve emphasized the word deflection because it is the effect on photons by virtual particles created by vacuum polarization.

The experiment clearly disproves Setterfield’s hypothesis in two ways.
(1) Only high energy photons are affected by virtual particles.
(2) Delbrück scattering is elastic and photons are deflected but not slowed down.

Let’s play the devil’s advocate however and assume all photons are affected and light does slow down.
There is still the issue with deflection and every time a photon interacts with a virtual particle it adds to the total deflection of the photon.
The further an object is away from the observer the greater the number of photon interactions with the intervening virtual particles.

This leads to the same struggles plasma cosmologists have trying to explain the redshift of galaxies via a scattering mechanism by real particles (plasma); there should be a predicted blurring effect which increases the more distant the galaxy is due to multiple photon deflections.

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field Image is an example where the distant background galaxies are not blurred when compared to the foreground stars of our galaxy.

Redshift caused by the expansion of space-time does not cause blurring as no deflection is involved.

 

[Hans Blaster]

In digging back to respond to your posts of today, I found this and thought I should respond to it first.

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.

I have seen so many of these and none of them hold up. Setterfield's cosmology is a claimed profound discovery/reinterpretation of physics and cosmology. The days of such things is over. Science is highly professionalized and the easy things have been discovered. What's left to find takes effort and knowledge of how things work and why these kind of things won't. As such I have no problem with an off-handed dismissal of such claims. I'm open to hearing details, but I have no expectations of consistency or plausibility. (There are plenty of things to be done by amateurs in science, but not the big and profound things.)

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...

Someone once said "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

I have looked at Setterfield's website and it is a mess. There is no clear entry point to see a simple summary and layers of backing material. (For as poor as the physics of the EU is, they at least know how to present the basics and organize their "evidence".)

 

[Hans Blaster]

To the question "I forget, how is a delay from interactions from the virtual pairs caused by the ZPE create a "useful" effect for an alternative cosmology?" you wrote:

I saw the video

See posts

So I looked...

In post #64 you wrote:

But regardless of the actual cause of delay of photons in a medium, the fact is that it happens. So it's perfectly reasonable to assume that the virtual particles that are caused by the ZPE will behave like regular matter in many ways, including the delay of photons, whatever way that happens.

There is one thing very different though for photons traveling through the ZPE induced virtual particle "medium" and that is that is never enters nor exits this "medium" because this "medium" is encompassing the entire universe and completely homogeneous.

This claims that virtual particles act like a medium and slow down photon, but it says nothing about how that creates cosmological effects like those detected in observations of deep space objects (like galaxies and quasars).

Since you equate Setterfield's ZPE effect to interaction of light with a medium you wrote in post #62

As I alway understood the change of wavelength of light passing through a medium, this is happening at the interface of the different media? So because the light is emmited in the same medium (the equally distributed virtual particles throughout the universe) as where it will travel in, so there is no interface between different media anywhere. The only thing that changes over time is the density of the virtual particles causing an ever increasing delay of the photons.

Also as I've always understood the slowing down of light is devinitely by absorbing (of the photon energy) by the particle and then reemitting of a photon after a short delay, even with a quick search I found this as a common explanation. So you might nitpick about the exact technical manner how this is happening with regular matter, but I believe there is no definite evidence that a possible delay by intercation with virtual particles would happen in a certain way...

Of course, in the next post @sjastro showed you that the medium effect in light is related to the interaction of the E field of the light with the E-field of the medium that is induced by the E-field of the light applying forces to the electrons in the medium and the interaction of the two waves. No absorptions and re-emissions causing delays. (Again I'm not sure how "delays" help at all with the cosmology.) As he as also noted, scattering is really bad for a mechanism to modify distant light emissions as a mimic of cosmological redshift.

In post #59 you wrote:

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.

Here you have Setterfield claiming that the effective speed of propagating photons is lowered by interaction with ZPE. Again, this doesn't do anything to alter our observations of distantly emitted light. (Well, except if these are scatterings things get really fuzzy, but you've grown tired of that explanation, right?)

Post #57 is quite a mess from Setterfield (or his scribe):

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.

So now (or rather earlier in the thread) ZPE *doesn't* cause "lightspeed delay" itself, but something something, I don't know what to make of this.

From post #50:

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.

The speed of light *isn't* declining. (Measurement techniques improved and measured values have since stabilized. Have you ever measured the speed of light? There are several basic undergrad-level experiments that are frequently done.)

Redshifts *aren't* quantized.

And so forth...

None of this demonstrates in the slightest redshifting of emitted light as observed or any other cosmological phenomena.

 

[sjastro]

In my posts in this thread I have been using Setterfield’s basic assumption that photons are being scattered (or absorbed) by pre-existing virtual particle/antiparticle pairs formed through vacuum fluctuations.
The mechanism for Delbruck scattering which is the only experiment known which can show scattering of photons in an electric field is far more complicated than this and needs an accurate description of what a virtual particle actually is in order to understand Delbruck scattering and show how Setterfield's model is unworkable.

In quantum field theory real particles such as electrons are excitations in the electron field which permeates through space-time.

Photons are also real particles which are excitations in the electromagnetic field.
Apart from the electron field, an electron is surrounded by an electromagnetic field and when two electrons interact with each other there is a repulsive force where there is excitation in both the electron and electromagnetic fields of each electron.

The excitation of the electron and electromagnetic fields produces an intermediate state where the electron exists as a short lived combination of a virtual electron and virtual photon which ultimately reverts back into a real electron.

A similar mechanism applies to a photon.
In Delbruck scattering the electromagnetic field of the photon interacts with electron and proton fields of a nucleus.
The photons can exist in a temporary state as a disturbance in the electron and proton fields in the form of short lived virtual positrons and virtual electrons.
The mathematics is complicated but can be visualized with the aid of Feynman diagrams.

The time axis is horizontal and shows a photon pair interacting with a nucleus.
The square region of the diagram is the short lived intermediate virtual particle/antiparticle pair which reverts back to the photon pair.
Note this mechanism is the very opposite to Setterfield’s model as the virtual particle/antiparticle pairs are formed in the scattering process and are not the cause of photon scattering in a pre-existing state.
The extremely brief lifespan of the particle/antiparticle pairs excludes the possibility of photons being scattered by pre-existing particle/antiparticle pairs as average times per collision are considerably longer when using the dark energy density of 10⁻²⁷ kg/m³ as a reference.

 

[AdB]

There's a lot of very complicated stuff thrown around here for which I would need either deep self study or someone to provide a response for me, both of which I don't have at hand at the moment...

Overall, I do get the impression that the responses from both Sjastro and Blaster are all based on QED, which is fine in itself, but will not be acceptable answers to refute the ideas of Setterfield because his ideas are based on SED...

Now you may argue that QED is settled science, but that is not a scientific argument, no matter how well developed a scientific theory may be, it can never be claimed that it is the absolute truth and is safe from any future rebuttal...

It's logical that SED has a huge lagging behind QED, simply because is has had much less time, recources and publications available due to many reasons, but I've understood from many publications that SED is doing a pretty good job in explaining a lot of phenomenon of which some are problematic for QED. So I'm not saying SED must be preferred above QED, but I do think that SED deserves more acknowledgement that it gets from the main stream science community.


As to the discussion points at hand, for now I'd like to concentrate on two aspects:

- The delay of light in a medium and if that would also apply to the virtual particles that are caused by the ZPF. I think an electricaly charged virtual particle (of the right kind of course) would behave like an electron and would thus also be able to cause delay of a light wave in the same way even with its short existence.

- The scattering of light in a medium and if this is something that would also apply to a light wave when interacting with virtual particles caused by the ZPF. This is something I need to further educate myself in, specifically what is actually causing the scattering.

So my quest is not to prove Setterfield’s ideas are right, I'm actually scrutinizing them, although I must say these ideas look very compelling to me, so yes I'm probably a bit bias. But if you guys really want to help me get a good understanding of the things you are ralking about than I ask you to do a better job talking "at the right level", I'm just a layman eager to be educated but my mode of learning is through a pragmatic approach.
And, as already said, I think if you guys want to be convincing for other minded, it might be a good idea to be willing to cross over to hear what the SED people have to say and not just discard it "because QED is setled science".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Overall, I do get the impression that the responses from both Sjastro and Blaster are all based on QED, which is fine in itself, but will not be acceptable answers to refute the ideas of Setterfield because his ideas are based on SED...

These responses are not based on the theory, but rather on experiment, such as the Delbrück scattering sjastro mentions.

This is an observed effect. It's real. It is explained by QED. And sjastro makes a convincing case that 'SED' as described cannot account for it. Delbrück scattering disproves SED.

The more general statements about the speed of light slowing in different media goes back centuries before QED to Fermat and others trying to explain refraction. They had very much the correct explanation well in advance of anyone's ability to measure the speed of light accurately in different media.

 

[AdB]

These responses are not based on the theory, but rather on experiment, such as the Delbrück scattering sjastro mentions.

This is an observed effect. It's real. It is explained by QED. And sjastro makes a convincing case that 'SED' as described cannot account for it. Delbrück scattering disproves SED.

It seemed to me sjastro only indicated that Delbrück scattering caused the formation of virtual particles and then claimed that Setterfield had it the wro g way around... I don't see how this disproves SED, and I don't see how virtual particles caused by Delbrück scattering prohibit virtual particles being caused by ZPE.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It seemed to me sjastro only indicated that Delbrück scattering caused the formation of virtual particles

I'll avoid the metaphysics of whether the photon 'creates' its own virtual particles, or the virtual particles were already out there (virtually) and a photon ran into a pair.

Crucially, the Delbrück scattering depends on the energy of the photon. (which makes sense now that I think about it. Energies below the pair production threshhold are not likely to interact at all)

So if virtual particles of any kind, 'normal' or ZPE-created, were responsible for affecting lightspeed in the way being suggested, we'd see some sort of wavelength dispersion, since photons of different energies are affected differently. But we don't see any such effect across even enormous distances, where the dispersion would be expected to have a large effect.

 

[AdB]

we'd see some sort of wavelength dispersion, since photons of different energies are affected differently

Can you explain why?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can you explain why?

the Delbrück scattering [the effect of virtual pairs on light] depends on the energy of the photon

 

[AdB]

the Delbrück scattering [the effect of virtual pairs on light] depends on the energy of the photon

That is what you already said, I mean with "explain" is that you try to clarify what is happening, possibly with some analogy, and why it is happening

 

[AdB]

That is what you already said, I mean with "explain" is that you try to clarify what is happening, possibly with some analogy, and why it is happening

To be more specific, please explain (so... clarify, illustrate, give concrete and understandable examples... you know, explain like help someone understand how something actually works...) below claim because I don't see how it does...

These responses are not based on the theory, but rather on experiment, such as the Delbrück scattering sjastro mentions.

This is an observed effect. It's real. It is explained by QED. And sjastro makes a convincing case that 'SED' as described cannot account for it. Delbrück scattering disproves SED.

 

[AdB]

- The delay of light in a medium and if that would also apply to the virtual particles that are caused by the ZPF. I think an electricaly charged virtual particle (of the right kind of course) would behave like an electron and would thus also be able to cause delay of a light wave in the same way even with its short existence.

So to tackle this one first...

For the sake of the argument, if the ZPF would indeed be an intrinsic energy throughout the universe as SED considers it to be. And if the ZPF indeed causes virtual particle pairs of all kind of different types, so also charged ones, to pop into existence to be annihilated after an instance. Then, if indeed such virtual particles do exist throughout the universe, when a light wave would interact with such a virtual partical, would such interaction be the same as an interaction with a regular particle such as an electron?
And if not, why?

 

[sjastro]

There's a lot of very complicated stuff thrown around here for which I would need either deep self study or someone to provide a response for me, both of which I don't have at hand at the moment...

Overall, I do get the impression that the responses from both Sjastro and Blaster are all based on QED, which is fine in itself, but will not be acceptable answers to refute the ideas of Setterfield because his ideas are based on SED...

Now you may argue that QED is settled science, but that is not a scientific argument, no matter how well developed a scientific theory may be, it can never be claimed that it is the absolute truth and is safe from any future rebuttal...

It's logical that SED has a huge lagging behind QED, simply because is has had much less time, recources and publications available due to many reasons, but I've understood from many publications that SED is doing a pretty good job in explaining a lot of phenomenon of which some are problematic for QED. So I'm not saying SED must be preferred above QED, but I do think that SED deserves more acknowledgement that it gets from the main stream science community.


As to the discussion points at hand, for now I'd like to concentrate on two aspects:

- The delay of light in a medium and if that would also apply to the virtual particles that are caused by the ZPF. I think an electricaly charged virtual particle (of the right kind of course) would behave like an electron and would thus also be able to cause delay of a light wave in the same way even with its short existence.

- The scattering of light in a medium and if this is something that would also apply to a light wave when interacting with virtual particles caused by the ZPF. This is something I need to further educate myself in, specifically what is actually causing the scattering.

So my quest is not to prove Setterfield’s ideas are right, I'm actually scrutinizing them, although I must say these ideas look very compelling to me, so yes I'm probably a bit bias. But if you guys really want to help me get a good understanding of the things you are ralking about than I ask you to do a better job talking "at the right level", I'm just a layman eager to be educated but my mode of learning is through a pragmatic approach.
And, as already said, I think if you guys want to be convincing for other minded, it might be a good idea to be willing to cross over to hear what the SED people have to say and not just discard it "because QED is setled science".

You keep on ignoring the most obvious failure of Setterfield's model, when photons are scattered or your own idea the mechanism is similar to light passing through a medium like glass, the direction of travel of the photons changes with each interaction.

This leads to the first JWST deep sky image which was released today which shows a case of two extremes.

First of all is the extreme sharpness of the background galaxies, second is the presence of gravitational arcs and highly distorted galaxies where light is gravitationally bent due to the concentration of matter distorting space-time between the galaxy and observer.

In Setterfield's model one would expect virtual particle/antiparticle pairs to be randomly distributed and photons to be scattered multiple times before reaching the observer.
Each time photons emitted from the galaxies are scattered their direction changes which should result in a blurring effect which increases each time an individual photon is scattered.
This is clearly not the case as shown in the JWST image.

Then there are the theoretical concerns behind the model such as the ZPE density changing as Setterfield claims but actually remains constant as the universe expands since ZPE is a property of space-time itself as explained in a previous post.