Barry Setterfield's Plasma Cosmology with Zero Point Energy

AdB · Jul 30, 2022

sjastro said:
The Don Lincoln video in post #63 gives a simplified layman approach on why light slows down in a medium and treats the electron as an isolated particle which when oscillated generated the electromagnetic radiation.
To be consistent with the video this description has been used throughout this thread.
The actual physics is much more complicated as one needs to consider the distribution of the electron charge in an atom.

Then obviousely his simplified layman approach isn’t clarifying much...

sjastro said:
Before describing this your description of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus doesn’t work for the very reasons given in this thread; when an electron travels in a curved trajectory such as an orbit it produces electromagnetic radiation through energy loss and will spiral into the nucleus.
The theory of atoms being miniature solar systems was replaced by quantum mechanics which could explain an atom’s stability.

In quantum mechanics the electron is not treated as a particle but as an electron cloud which is a probability distribution of where an electron occupies space.
The electron cloud can undergo polarization where the cloud distribution can become non uniform resulting in charge separation.

When charge separation occurs an electric dipole is formed.

The dipole acts like weights attached to springs which are set into oscillation when acted on by an external force, in this case electric field of the incident light wave.

The "rabbit ears" TV antenna operates on the same principle it is an electric dipole where the charges inside the antenna oscillate when exposed to external electromagnetic radiation.
It is the oscillating electric dipole which generates the electromagnetic radiation and interacts with the incident light to form the resultant wave.

I'm aware of the model for sub atomical particles from the QED perspective, as you know I'm also open to the SED perspective which gives other explanations for the sub atomic behavior.

But I'm not going to get into that because to begin with you seem to dismiss anything regarding SED and even if you would want to consider it I think you’ll have to talk to someone more knowledgeable than me to explain all the technical details at your level.

sjastro said:
Once again let me reiterate in your description you admit the wavelength is reduced which contradicts observation of cosmological redshift so why are you even pushing this idea?

As I already told you I'm just interested in how the light speed delay in a medium would be explained from the QED perspective and if that explanation would also be applicable to ZPE induced virtual particles. But I fear this discussion will go nowhere because we're obviousely talking two incompatible languages...

It was nice talking to you though, I learned a few more things about the QED perspective on sub atomical particle behaviour.

Maybe in time, when I managed to get a better understanding of the SED perspective on light speed delay I'll come back to continue the conversation.

sjastro · Jul 30, 2022

AdB said:
Then obviousely his simplified layman approach isn’t clarifying much...

I'm aware of the model for sub atomical particles from the QED perspective, as you know I'm also open to the SED perspective which gives other explanations for the sub atomic behavior.

But I'm not going to get into that because to begin with you seem to dismiss anything regarding SED and even if you would want to consider it I think you’ll have to talk to someone more knowledgeable than me to explain all the technical details at your level.

As I already told you I'm just interested in how the light speed delay in a medium would be explained from the QED perspective and if that explanation would also be applicable to ZPE induced virtual particles. But I fear this discussion will go nowhere because we're obviousely talking two incompatible languages...

It was nice talking to you though, I learned a few more things about the QED perspective on sub atomical particle behaviour.

Maybe in time, when I managed to get a better understanding of the SED perspective on light speed delay I'll come back to continue the conversation.

What has unfolded in this thread has not been a discussion of Setterfield’s model nor SED but your misinterpretation of Setterfield’s model by thinking it can be explained by light passing a through medium.
Setterfield explains how ZPE affects electrons in his model.

Setterfield said:
How does it work? The scenario which emerges was outlined by Spicka et al. in the Spring Conference, “Beyond the Quantum,” 2006, The Netherlands, which discussed the role of SED physics in explaining quantum phenomena. They pointed out that an electron moving in an orbit around a proton is under the influence of its electrostatic attraction. It is in terms of this electrostatic field of the nucleus that the electron’s potential and kinetic energy are measured. As it moves, the electron undergoes a series of elastic collisions with the impacting waves or photons of the ZPE which perturb this orbit around the nucleus. These impacting waves or photons force the electron to change direction. When this happens, the electron emits recoil radiation, just as classical physics explains. The electron’s whole ‘orbit’ then becomes composed of a series of essentially straight line segments whose direction is continually being changed by the momentum imparted to the electron by the impact of the ZPE waves or photons.
Elastic impacts of this sort impart momentum to the electron. As the waves undergo elastic collisions with the electron the result is that no energy is lost.

We need to get into some more advanced stuff to refute this.
Here is some basic quantum mechanics for the hydrogen atom.

There is an electrostatic force between the electron and proton in the hydrogen atom with a Coulomb potential V(r) = -e²/4πεₒr which defines the amount of energy required to move a charged particle such as an electron through an electromagnetic field.
The hydrogen atom has discrete energy levels Eₙ = -E₁/n² where E₁ = -13.6 eV, the energy in the ground state for n =1 and n =1, 2, 3…. is known as the principal quantum number.
For each quantum number n, the are l = 0, 1,2…. (n-1) possible values for the angular momentum l.
For each value of l there are m = -l+1,…..l-1, l possible orientations m in space.
Each electron has a spin s = ±½ and a total spin J = (l+s)

For the ground state n = 1, l = 0 and m = 1; this is known as the 1s orbital.
For n = 2, l = 0, m =1 is the 2s orbital which has one orientation in space.
For n =2, l = 1, m = -1, 0, 1 is the 2p orbital which has three orientations in space.
And so on.
The orbitals define the probability density of where an electron occupies space.

The Bohr or non relativistic quantum mechanics energy level diagram for the hydrogen level up to n = 4 is as follows.

Dirac came up a relativistic quantum mechanical version for the hydrogen atom which was a precursor to QED (quantum electrodynamics) and predicted more accurate energy values but there was a problem for the 2s and 2p orbitals.

Both Bohr and Dirac models predicted the 2s and 2p orbitals to have the same energy but experiment revealed this was only true for the case j = 1+1/2 = 3/2 and not for j = 1-1/2 = 1/2.
The energy difference is known as the Lamb shift.

The cause is zero point energy which resulted in the electron to undergo rapid oscillatory motions.
The electron is "smeared out" and its radius r from the proton nucleus is changed from r to r + δr (a small but finite perturbation).
This change caused a perturbation in the Coulomb potential -e²/4πεₒr → -(e²/4πεₒ)[1/(r + δr)] resulting in the Lamb shift.

Here is the point which refutes Setterfield; an electron which occupies the p orbital for j =1/2 has in fact lost energy as this orbital occupies a lower energy level than the 2s orbital.
Also the magnitude of the zero point energy effect is much greater when the electron is in an excited state in the n = 2 level than in the n = 1 ground state where the electron normally resides.
Why should this occur in Setterfield's mechanism where the electron is treated as a particle and not as an electron probability cloud?

In fact all energy levels do undergo a degree of hyperfine splitting into “F-levels” but this is caused by the interaction of the magnetic field of the nucleus with the magnetic field generated by the electron's motion.
Setterfield's model is proven wrong by both experiment and observation and is pseudoscience.

SelfSim · Jul 30, 2022

Just an aside:
I'm lovin' this thread.

It demonstrates how different mainstream physics models are required, in order to progressively describe and predict less immediately apparent observational phenomena, which then serves to set a different context.
This can be done without compromising the consistency of prior models, which can still still be valid within their own original contexts.

Pseudoscience however, is created by those who just want to continue in believing that the prior models always described 'the way it must be', (ie: in absolute terms), whereas the objective reality is, that its the changing models which describe 'the way we currently think it is'.

Good stuff! .. Thanks!

AdB · Jul 31, 2022

sjastro said:
What has unfolded in this thread has not been a discussion of Setterfield’s model nor SED but your misinterpretation of Setterfield’s model by thinking it can be explained by light passing a through medium.
Setterfield explains how ZPE affects electrons in his model.

My intention for this thread was actually to get engaged with people who are also interested in Setterfield's cosmology, you and some others are also in another way and that resulted more in a discussion on some specific topics where you say Setterfield's cosmology is not in line with evidence. This is fine with me also because I'm always open to criticism to see if the theory can refute it. There are actually many facets to Setterfield's theory but we touched only a few, simply because my technical understanding is still very limited so I try to keep things digestible...

sjastro said:
Why should this occur in Setterfield's mechanism where the electron is treated as a particle and not as an electron probability cloud?

Good question, I will direct this to Setterfield for an answer, just like I have done for the "blue light would travel slower though a medium" question that was discussed earlier. However it may take some time before there will be a response because Setterfield's current health issues are heavily restraining his ability to handle all the questions he's getting beside his regular work.

sjastro said:
Setterfield's model is proven wrong by both experiment and observation and is pseudoscience.

I think this conclusion is quite rash, first of all because you don't even know if there is are refutations to your arguments. And even a paradigm not having turnkey explanations to every criticism doesn't mean it can be dismissed just like that, even the current mainstream paradigms needed (a LOT of) time to provide solutions to problems it encountered along the way. This is not a problem at all, this is just a hallmark of science, it will never be possible for any scientific paradigm to be 100% proven.
Mainstream scientific paradigms are still facing numerous controversial problems that are only "answered" by unproven assumptions which, for the sake of enabling progress in research are taken for granted.

So I think it would only be fair to be less dismissive for alternative paradigmes such as SED, especially considering that SED has had much less attention and funding from the scientific community, and therefore has had much less dedicated research than QED.
Yet both QED and SED have a good reason to be taken seriously, QED ultimately being the result of Planck's 1901 paper while SED ultimately being the result of Planck's 1911 paper. But because quantum mechanics had already "taken off" by 1911, there wasn't much enthusiasm to abandon the work already done, so QED became the mainstream paradigm.

Both QED and SED have a lot of explaining power and both have their problematic topics, so for that reason I'm open to hear explanations from both paradigms... But it can never be an honest discussion to try to counter one with assumptions or derivatives from the other... And because I'm (not yet ) able to identify which arguments belong to the QED or the SED realm it's impossible for me to provide constructive contributions to such discussions.
The same situation applies to Plasma Cosmology as and opposing paradigm to the mainstream cosmology where gravitation is considered to be the primary force.

SelfSim said:
Pseudoscience however, is created by those who just want to continue in believing that the prior models always described 'the way it must be', (ie: in absolute terms), whereas the objective reality is, that its the changing models which describe 'the way we currently think it is'.

If you're talking about Setterfield, you clearly are not aware of his story....
If you are talking about many alternative scientific paradigms, I completely agree with you.
But I assume you are probably not talking about the mainstream scientific paradigms, but in my view this is something that is also happening there. It's a given fact that any establishment is never very willing to abandon everything that they have invested in and that provides the standing, the scientific establishment is no exception to this.

There have been many abrupt paradigm shifts in science over the course of history (most famous being the ptolemaic - copernican model shift), and every time the playbook has been the same:
- a paradigm is getting formed over a longer timespan
- the paradigm addresses many problems, but get completely stuck on others
- more and more assumptions are adopted for the sake of keeping the theory in line with observations
- alternative paradigms arise but are sidelined in favor of the mainstream paradigm
- at a certain point the mainstream paradigm is getting untenable, both because the number of assumptions become unjustifiable and/or too many problem can't be accounted for in an honest way.
- when finally the original proponents of the paradigm fade out, the best available alternative paradigm will be adopted gradually
- rinse and repeat...

So to be clear I don't oppose to QED, but I simply think that SED doesn't deserve to be discarded before it has been adequately researched, which is currently not the case. And I think the same counts for Plasma Cosmology...

SelfSim · Jul 31, 2022

AdB said:
Good question, I will direct this to Setterfield for an answer, just like I have done for the "blue light would travel slower though a medium" question that was discussed earlier. However it may take some time before there will be a response because Setterfield's current health issues are heavily restraining his ability to handle all the questions he's getting beside his regular work.

i) I notice how you have to go back to Setterfield himself for a response. This demonstrates a shortfall in terms of SED's usefulness, in terms of progressing practical science.

ii) In what way will you adjust your views towards SED, if you don't get his response?

AdB · Jul 31, 2022

SelfSim said:
i) I notice how you have to go back to Setterfield himself for a response. This demonstrates a shortfall in terms of SED's usefulness, in terms of progressing practical science.

ii) In what way will you adjust your views towards SED, if you don't get his response?

Simply because I'm in contact with him and in due time he will respond. I'm really marveling at the conclusion about SED that you come to, but I guess that is how science works for you?

SelfSim · Jul 31, 2022

AdB said:
Simply because I'm in contact with him and in due time he will respond. I'm really marveling at the conclusion about SED that you come to, but I guess that is how science works for you?

Its obviously not just me though .. is it(?)
In the case of SED, it would appear that way, however(?)
I guess we'll see. I'm prepared to wait to see his response (out of pure curiosity).

sjastro · Jul 31, 2022

AdB said:
My intention for this thread was actually to get engaged with people who are also interested in Setterfield's cosmology, you and some others are also in another way and that resulted more in a discussion on some specific topics where you say Setterfield's cosmology is not in line with evidence. This is fine with me also because I'm always open to criticism to see if the theory can refute it. There are actually many facets to Setterfield's theory but we touched only a few, simply because my technical understanding is still very limited so I try to keep things digestible...

Good question, I will direct this to Setterfield for an answer, just like I have done for the "blue light would travel slower though a medium" question that was discussed earlier. However it may take some time before there will be a response because Setterfield's current health issues are heavily restraining his ability to handle all the questions he's getting beside his regular work.

I think this conclusion is quite rash, first of all because you don't even know if there is are refutations to your arguments. And even a paradigm not having turnkey explanations to every criticism doesn't mean it can be dismissed just like that, even the current mainstream paradigms needed (a LOT of) time to provide solutions to problems it encountered along the way. This is not a problem at all, this is just a hallmark of science, it will never be possible for any scientific paradigm to be 100% proven.
Mainstream scientific paradigms are still facing numerous controversial problems that are only "answered" by unproven assumptions which, for the sake of enabling progress in research are taken for granted.

So I think it would only be fair to be less dismissive for alternative paradigmes such as SED, especially considering that SED has had much less attention and funding from the scientific community, and therefore has had much less dedicated research than QED.
Yet both QED and SED have a good reason to be taken seriously, QED ultimately being the result of Planck's 1901 paper while SED ultimately being the result of Planck's 1911 paper. But because quantum mechanics had already "taken off" by 1911, there wasn't much enthusiasm to abandon the work already done, so QED became the mainstream paradigm.

Both QED and SED have a lot of explaining power and both have their problematic topics, so for that reason I'm open to hear explanations from both paradigms... But it can never be an honest discussion to try to counter one with assumptions or derivatives from the other... And because I'm (not yet ) able to identify which arguments belong to the QED or the SED realm it's impossible for me to provide constructive contributions to such discussions.
The same situation applies to Plasma Cosmology as and opposing paradigm to the mainstream cosmology where gravitation is considered to be the primary force.

If you're talking about Setterfield, you clearly are not aware of his story....
If you are talking about many alternative scientific paradigms, I completely agree with you.
But I assume you are probably not talking about the mainstream scientific paradigms, but in my view this is something that is also happening there. It's a given fact that any establishment is never very willing to abandon everything that they have invested in and that provides the standing, the scientific establishment is no exception to this.

There have been many abrupt paradigm shifts in science over the course of history (most famous being the ptolemaic - copernican model shift), and every time the playbook has been the same:
- a paradigm is getting formed over a longer timespan
- the paradigm addresses many problems, but get completely stuck on others
- more and more assumptions are adopted for the sake of keeping the theory in line with observations
- alternative paradigms arise but are sidelined in favor of the mainstream paradigm
- at a certain point the mainstream paradigm is getting untenable, both because the number of assumptions become unjustifiable and/or too many problem can't be accounted for in an honest way.
- when finally the original proponents of the paradigm fade out, the best available alternative paradigm will be adopted gradually
- rinse and repeat...

So to be clear I don't oppose to QED, but I simply think that SED doesn't deserve to be discarded before it has been adequately researched, which is currently not the case. And I think the same counts for Plasma Cosmology...

Setterfield's model is pseudoscience.
From his website.

The final piece of information that the ZPE gives is that with the properties of the vacuum being different, the speed of light was significantly faster originally and slowed as the ZPE built up. Analysis shows light could get back from the most distant parts of the cosmos in less than 8000 years.

In addition, since atoms are made up of electric charges and magnetic fields, all forms of atomic clocks ticked faster. Using the same data from astronomy about the ZPE behavior with time, we can correct the billions and millions of years of atomic time to orbital time. Orbital time is gravitationally based and is not affected by ZPE changes. You and I run our lives by orbital time; the time it takes the Earth to go once around the Sun or the Moon once around the Earth. When the atomic dates are corrected to orbital dates using the ZPE data, then everything fits into a timeframe with a creation about 5800 BC. Furthermore the 3 catastrophes in the geological column that separate the 4 main eras then are found to coincide with Noah's Flood, the Babel catastrophe, and the Peleg continental division of Genesis 10:25.

The model is an example of creation science which by definition is pseudoscience.

Creation science or scientific creationism is a pseudoscientific form of Young Earth creationism which claims to offer scientific arguments for certain literalist and inerrantist interpretations of the Bible. It is often presented without overt faith-based language, but instead relies on reinterpreting scientific results to argue that various myths in the Book of Genesis and other select biblical passages are scientifically valid. The most commonly advanced ideas of creation science include special creation based on the Genesis creation narrative and flood geology based on the Genesis flood narrative.[1] Creationists also claim they can disprove or reexplain a variety of scientific facts,[2] theories and paradigms of geology,[3] cosmology, biological evolution,[4][5] archaeology,[6][7] history, and linguistics using creation science.[8] Creation science was foundational to intelligent design.[9]

The methodology alone is pseudoscientific; you don't start off with the conclusion creation occurred around 5800 BC and work backwards to develop a model to support the claim particularly when there is no evidence to start with of a creation date of 5800 BC.

sjastro · Jul 31, 2022

SelfSim said:
Its obviously not just me though .. is it(?)
In the case of SED, it would appear that way, however(?)
I guess we'll see. I'm prepared to wait to see his response (out of pure curiosity).

Recall the plasma cosmologist Eric Lerner who indirectly responded to comments in this forum didn't fare particularly well.
Eric Lerner is presenting his recent paper on a static universe on PhysicsForums

AdB · Jul 31, 2022

sjastro said:
The model is an example of creation science which by definition is pseudoscience.

And that statement shows your bias.
It's obvious you don't know how Setterfield came to his conclusions and from which starting point he came, but it's also obvious that you don't care.

SelfSim · Jul 31, 2022

sjastro said:
Recall the plasma cosmologist Eric Lerner who indirectly responded to comments in this forum didn't fare particularly well.
Eric Lerner is presenting his recent paper on a static universe on PhysicsForums

All seems so long ago now ..

SelfSim · Jul 31, 2022

AdB said:
It's obvious you don't know how Setterfield came to his conclusions and from which starting point he came, but it's also obvious that you don't care.

The end result is obviously not in agreement with the mainstream position though .. regardless of whatever his starting point was.

sjastro · Jul 31, 2022

AdB said:
And that statement shows your bias.
It's obvious you don't know how Setterfield came to his conclusions and from which starting point he came, but it's also obvious that you don't care.

It has nothing to with bias and not caring.
Where does the creation date of 5800 BC come from?
If it is based on science there are two possibilities.
(1) The date is based on evidence.
(2) The date is a prediction from the model which can be tested.

The answer is neither, the model is based on a YEC narrative which puts it in the pseudoscience category.

AdB · Aug 1, 2022

No use talking any further as it is clear that you guys are just sticking to your incorrect narrative without taking the time to see what the actual story behind Setterfield's ideas it.

sjastro · Aug 1, 2022

AdB said:
No use talking any further as it is clear that you guys are just sticking to your incorrect narrative without taking the time to see what the actual story behind Setterfield's ideas it.

What an ignorant comment to make.
Where do you think my comments about Setterfield connecting science with creationism or quoting his description of the effects of ZPE on orbiting electrons comes from?
I know enough of Setterfield's model as being a curve fitting exercise where you can get any value you want according to one's interpretation of the Bible when it comes to the age of creationism!

The acid test however is to prove through observation Setterfield's model about the speed of light slowing down with time as being wrong.
In a previous post according to Maxwell's equations the speed of light is constant.

The quantum mechanical energy levels of the hydrogen atom were defined by the equation.

If the speed of light varied then εₒ μₒ would also vary as would the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
Yet the spectrum of hydrogen from galaxies spanning distances of billions of light years doesn't seem to have changed when one converts the hydrogen spectrum from the observers' frame of reference into the galaxy's rest frame using the redshift conversion factor 1/(1+z) where z is the cosmological redshift due to space-time expansion.

This is a clear indication the speed of light hasn't changed over the time frames from when photons emitted from hydrogen in the host galaxies reach the observer.

AdB · Aug 1, 2022

sjastro said:
What an ignorant comment to make.
Where do you think my comments about Setterfield connecting science with creationism or quoting his description of the effects of ZPE on orbiting electrons comes from?
I know enough of Setterfield's model as being a curve fitting exercise where you can get any value you want according to one's interpretation of the Bible when it comes to the age of creationism!

The acid test however is to prove through observation Setterfield's model about the speed of light slowing down with time as being wrong.
In a previous post according to Maxwell's equations the speed of light is constant.

The quantum mechanical energy levels of the hydrogen atom were defined by the equation.

View attachment 319317

If the speed of light varied then εₒ μₒ would also vary as would the energy levels of the hydrogen atom.
Yet the spectrum of hydrogen from galaxies spanning distances of billions of light years doesn't seem to have changed when one converts the hydrogen spectrum from the observers' frame of reference into the galaxy's rest frame using the redshift conversion factor 1/(1+z) where z is the cosmological redshift due to space-time expansion.

This is a clear indication the speed of light hasn't changed over the time frames from when photons emitted from hydrogen in the host galaxies reach the observer.

Proving you actually don't know what Setterfield's model is about

SelfSim · Aug 1, 2022

AdB said:
No use talking any further as it is clear that you guys are just sticking to your incorrect narrative without taking the time to see what the actual story behind Setterfield's ideas it.

I think we all know 'the story' behind it .. and its completely irrelevant to the points being made by @sjastro, (& others previously, directly, to Lerner himself, and his excursions along similar lines).

Our only 'narrative' is objectively evidenced and is not based on beliefs.
The two are totally distinct ways for concluding what's real.
Objective science is consistently traceable to testable experiences we all have everyday, whereas beliefs are individual and personally experienced.

sjastro · Aug 1, 2022

AdB said:
Proving you actually don't know what Setterfield's model is about

I'm calling your bluff.
Demonstrate Setterfield's model is not a curve fitting exercise inspired by creationism.
Don't go running off to Setterfield for answers either, you have made the claim now take the responsibility for showing why I am wrong.

While you at it explain how the speed of light does vary despite the hydrogen spectrum of galaxies in their rest frames as described in my previous post being basically the same.

Barry Setterfield's Plasma Cosmology with Zero Point Energy

Heb 11:1

Newbie

A non "-ist"

Heb 11:1

A non "-ist"

Heb 11:1

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Newbie

Heb 11:1

A non "-ist"

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Heb 11:1

Newbie

Heb 11:1

A non "-ist"

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency