Barry Setterfield's Plasma Cosmology with Zero Point Energy

[AdB]

I actually first wanted to focus on the delay question, but since you jump to the scatter question...

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

Will light be scattered in every kind of medium and always to the same amount?

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 SED there is an actual cause for gravity and gravitational lensing is accounted for, but I'm not going to address that here...

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.

What you say is according to QED, in SED it is considered to be an energy field throughout the entire universe, but not somehow fixed to the fabric of space as an attribute.
Where Planck's Constant in QED is a factor that is not representing any concrete physical reality, in SED, following the concept of Planck's second paper, it actually represents the strength of the ZPF.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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...

If the scattering off virtual pairs is dependent on energy, then different wavelengths are scattered by different amounts. This is what happens in non-vacuum mediums all the time, and is the root cause of chromatic aberration:

Blue and red rays are refracted by different amounts, so a single lens can't focus them.

If the vacuum of virtual pairs affects lightspeed (the refractive index) and this depends on energy/wavelength, then distant things will look weird, blurry, etc. They do not look weird, therefore the virtual pairs do not affect lightspeed.

 

[AdB]

If the scattering off virtual pairs is dependent on energy, then different wavelengths are scattered by different amounts. This is what happens in non-vacuum mediums all the time, and is the root cause of chromatic aberration:

Blue and red rays are refracted by different amounts, so a single lens can't focus them.

If the vacuum of virtual pairs affects lightspeed (the refractive index) and this depends on energy/wavelength, then distant things will look weird, blurry, etc. They do not look weird, therefore the virtual pairs do not affect lightspeed.

But isn't that happening only at the interface of a medium, both when the light enters and exits the medium?

 

[essentialsaltes]

But isn't that happening only at the interface of a medium, both when the light enters and exits the medium?

We only 'see' it, in the form of a deflection, there, but the difference in speed happens throughout the medium. If blue light is racing a little bit faster than red light, over a distance of billions of light years, then we would be seeing the blue part of distant object when it was emitted at one place and point in time, and the red part from a different place and point in time.

 

[AdB]

We only 'see' it, in the form of a deflection, there, but the difference in speed happens throughout the medium. If blue light is racing a little bit faster than red light, over a distance of billions of light years, then we would be seeing the blue part of distant object when it was emitted at one place and point in time, and the red part from a different place and point in time.

Ok, so your argument is that we know that refraction happens because the speed of light is decreased once a wave enters into a medium. We also know that a light beam will be scattered into its component colors because different wave lengths will have a different measure of refraction.

Hence a prism or lense will scatter a white light beam into a rainbow. In a flat slab of medium (so with parallel entry and exit interfaces) the different colors are actually "offset" for a tiny bit because one color will be having a slightly different angle inside the medium compared to another color. This then results in one edge turning redish and tge oposite edge turning blueish.

Since the "medium" of the zpe induced virtual particles encompass the entire universe, the light source and receiver are so to speak both in the same medium, therefore there will be no refraction (and thereby no scattering into component colors) of the light waves. But because within the medium the speed of light is decreased in different measure for the different colors, over the long travel distances in the cosmos the different colors of a light beam caused at one moment (thus a single event) would eventually be received at different moments, first the color for which the speed is least decreased followed in sequence by the colors that are increasingly more delayed.

So we would then expect to see the reddish light of a specific event first, then followed by the other colors in sequence with the blueish light last.

Is this a correct conclusion? So no refraction, no scattering of different colors in different angles, but only a delay of blueish light compared to reddish light, and that of course extended to the extreme spectrum of waves.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Since the "medium" of the zpe induced virtual particles encompass the entire universe, the light source and receiver are so to speak both in the same medium, therefore there will be no refraction (and thereby no scattering into component colors) of the light waves. But because within the medium the speed of light is decreased in different measure for the different colors, over the long travel distances in the cosmos the different colors of a light beam caused at one moment (thus a single event) would eventually be received at different moments, first the color for which the speed is least decreased followed in sequence by the colors that are increasingly more delayed.

Yes, I think you've captured my main point. So a single event like a supernova would show up in different wavelengths at different times. Or since the spectrum is continuous, it would 'move through' all the colors in time. But supernovas happen all at once, as far as we can tell.

Since most astronomical sources are not specific events, but continuously produce light like stars or galaxies. This would lead to something kind of like bending, but for a different reason. Red light that left 11 billion years ago would reach our telescopes at this point in space, but blue light that left 11.2 billion years ago would be observed in a different place in the sky (if the object had some transverse movement). Objects would be smeared like a rainbow in the direction of their motion. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Yes, I think you've captured my main point. So a single event like a supernova would show up in different wavelengths at different times. Or since the spectrum is continuous, it would 'move through' all the colors in time. But supernovas happen all at once, as far as we can tell.

The explosion mechanism in a supernova is "all at once". (It takes only a couple seconds to burn the entire white dwarf in a Type Ia supernova or for neutrino heating to drive the outer core outward in a core-collapse supernova (the rest of the sub-types).

However, over the course of days, weeks, and months the expanding ejecta of the supernova does change both in physical properties and the emitted spectra. Early supernovae (like during the brightening period of a few days) are very "blue" and then as the ejecta expands and cools the spectrum becomes redder until the spectrum is dominated by large emission lines and there is no continuum to speak of to cool and become redder.

Quite the opposite of the Setterfield-derived prediction given above it is blue then red and not red light out first, then blue due to some delay. The spectra are fully understandable on the expansion and cooling of the ejecta.

For the very regular Type Ia supernovae, that pattern of color change is consistent for nearby supernovae and distant ones that are redshifted. The redshifting shifts all of colors to the red, but the relative change in color during the event is unchanged. If there were more "redshift" scattering between here and there this would not be the case.

[Bonus fail: In core-collapse supernovae, the first light emerges when the shock from the core hits the surface of the star. This creates a flash in X-rays that quickly fades into UV.]

 

[AdB]

Early supernovae (like during the brightening period of a few days) are very "blue" and then as the ejecta expands and cools the spectrum becomes redder until the spectrum is dominated by large emission lines and there is no continuum to speak of to cool and become redder.

Quite the opposite of the Setterfield-derived prediction given above it is blue then red and not red light out first, then blue due to some delay. The spectra are fully understandable on the expansion and cooling of the ejecta.

You are comparing apples with oranges because the blue-first-then-red is as you yourself indicate caused by cooling which is totally unrelated to possible decrease of light speed as discussed.

Yes, I think you've captured my main point. So a single event like a supernova would show up in different wavelengths at different times. Or since the spectrum is continuous, it would 'move through' all the colors in time. But supernovas happen all at once, as far as we can tell.

Since most astronomical sources are not specific events, but continuously produce light like stars or galaxies. This would lead to something kind of like bending, but for a different reason. Red light that left 11 billion years ago would reach our telescopes at this point in space, but blue light that left 11.2 billion years ago would be observed in a different place in the sky (if the object had some transverse movement). Objects would be smeared like a rainbow in the direction of their motion. Or at least, that's how it seems to me.

Thank you essentialsaltes for providing this concrete argument and the additional illustration with the moving object. I will try to get some feedback on this from Setterfield or others I'm in contact with, to see if they can provide a sound rebuttal to this argument. But it may take a while before I will get a response because of some personal situations these people are going through.

 

[sjastro]

I actually first wanted to focus on the delay question, but since you jump to the scatter question...


Will light be scattered in every kind of medium and always to the same amount?

You already know the answer; there are two mediums in question which have been addressed in this thread.
(1) The electromagnetic field where only high energy photons are scattered by being converted into short lived virtual particle/antiparticle pairs which annihilate each other to recreate the photons.
(2) Setterfield’s model where photons of any frequency are absorbed and emitted by preexisting virtual particles.

Since you have accused @Hans Blaster and myself of being too technical in this thread the simplest answer is the Setterfield model is wrong as it cannot explain Delbruck scattering and the lack of blurriness in deep sky images.

In SED there is an actual cause for gravity and gravitational lensing is accounted for, but I'm not going to address that here...


What you say is according to QED, in SED it is considered to be an energy field throughout the entire universe, but not somehow fixed to the fabric of space as an attribute.
Where Planck's Constant in QED is a factor that is not representing any concrete physical reality, in SED, following the concept of Planck's second paper, it actually represents the strength of the ZPF.

I’ve noticed how SED has crept into this thread.
The ED part of SED (Stochastic Electrodynamics) is one of the very few theories where the value of a physical constant, the speed of light is derived from Maxwell’s equations so how it becomes a variable in Setterfield’s model is a mystery to me.

An internet search indicates Tom Bridgman from NASA whom I have had a few dealings with in the past and in his spare time is a debunker of pseudoscience makes it clear Setterfield’s model is pseudoscience which he tries to connect to SED to make it look more legitimate.
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Setterfield, SED (Stochastic Electrodynamics), and NASA

So what are you discussing now Setterfield’s model or SED given they are not the same thing.

 

[AdB]

So what are you discussing now Setterfield’s model or SED given they are not the same thing.

Setterfield's theory is based on a combination of SED and plasma cosmology, yeah I know you don't have to tell you are a fervent oponent of that as well.
BTW the nasa article is also a bit dated and I understand Setterfield has made quite some corrections to his model over the past years.

 

[SelfSim]

Setterfield's theory is based on a combination of SED and plasma cosmology, yeah I know you don't have to tell you are a fervent oponent of that as well.

Its not a matter of being 'a fervant opponent'.
An inconsistent (bunkum) theory combined with a consistent one, doesn't magically produce a consistent one. (A logical 'or' function applies there).

 

[sjastro]

Setterfield's theory is based on a combination of SED and plasma cosmology, yeah I know you don't have to tell you are a fervent oponent of that as well.
BTW the nasa article is also a bit dated and I understand Setterfield has made quite some corrections to his model over the past years.

The cold hard facts which doesn't encompass fervent behavior on my part is Setterfield's model despite the corrections made is still wrong as it is not supported by experiment and observation.
In the very first post you asked for feedback on his model; were you hoping for a positive result as justification for creationism given Setterfield is a creationist?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I may need correcting here, but I thought that virtual particles were more of an accounting trick in Feynman interaction diagrams; i.e. a simple way of indicating the gnarly math behind how energy & momentum are conserved regardless of the mass involved in the interaction, and that they're undetectable because they're not 'real', being entirely confined to the interaction the diagram represents. So I don't see how they can scatter photons in free space.

Have I misunderstood virtual particles?

 

[SelfSim]

.. Have I misunderstood virtual particles?

No .. I think you may have misunderstood what photons are though .. (as in photons are just as much a model as Feynman diagrams are).

 

[essentialsaltes]

I may need correcting here, but I thought that virtual particles were more of an accounting trick in Feynman interaction diagrams; i.e. a simple way of indicating the gnarly math behind how energy & momentum are conserved regardless of the mass involved in the interaction, and that they're undetectable because they're not 'real', being entirely confined to the interaction the diagram represents.

We may need the philosophers, but I think they are real as opposed to a 'mere' calculating convenience.

(Hawking radiation is often described as when a particle/antiparticle pair gets too close to a black hole, and one of pair escapes, while the other falls in. To conserve energy, the black hole has to eat a negative energy particle. So this would be a virtual particle being 'promoted' to being real. Of course, Hawking radiation remains pretty speculative.)

So I don't see how they can scatter photons in free space.

I'm also doubtful on this point, despite their 'reality'.

(However, in regions of very strong electric and/or magnetic fields, the vacuum pairs get polarized and can have effects on light. With electric fields, it's the Delbrück Effect mentioned above. With magnetic fields, it's vacuum birefringence, detected for the first time a few years ago from neutron star light.)

 

[SelfSim]

We may need the philosophers, but I think they are real as opposed to a 'mere' calculating convenience.

I personally think its ok to say that within the context of theoretical Physics, a photon and a virtual particle can both be regarded as being real. The purpose of regarding them this way, is based on the respective laws/principles of thermodynamics, (eg: conservation of energy/momentum), in which all these particles also acquire their respective meanings. The evidence for this claim on reality, are the examples you provided.

I'm also doubtful on this point, despite their 'reality'.

Very cool .. (for what its worth): I agree.
Interesting.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We may need the philosophers, but I think they are real as opposed to a 'mere' calculating convenience.

(Hawking radiation is often described as when a particle/antiparticle pair gets too close to a black hole, and one of pair escapes, while the other falls in. To conserve energy, the black hole has to eat a negative energy particle. So this would be a virtual particle being 'promoted' to being real. Of course, Hawking radiation remains pretty speculative.)

ISTR reading that Hawking radiation is described that way because it's the simplest way to visualize the QM description...

I'm also doubtful on this point, despite their 'reality'.

(However, in regions of very strong electric and/or magnetic fields, the vacuum pairs get polarized and can have effects on light. With electric fields, it's the Delbrück Effect mentioned above. With magnetic fields, it's vacuum birefringence, detected for the first time a few years ago from neutron star light.)

OK, I'll move to a more neutral position on the reality of VPs

 

[sjastro]

I may need correcting here, but I thought that virtual particles were more of an accounting trick in Feynman interaction diagrams; i.e. a simple way of indicating the gnarly math behind how energy & momentum are conserved regardless of the mass involved in the interaction, and that they're undetectable because they're not 'real', being entirely confined to the interaction the diagram represents. So I don't see how they can scatter photons in free space.

Have I misunderstood virtual particles?

The effects of virtual particles are very real they can exert a pressure as demonstrated by the Casimir effect.

They are known as off shell particles as they do not satisfy the energy-momentum equation
E² - p²c² = mₒ²c⁴.
As a result unlike real photons virtual photons can have mass.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The effects of virtual particles are very real they can exert a pressure as demonstrated by the Casimir effect.

They are known as off shell particles as they do not satisfy the energy-momentum equation
E² - p²c² = mₒ²c⁴.
As a result unlike real photons virtual photons can have mass.

OIC... I'd understood the Casimir effect as the result of excluding the longer electromagnetic wave fluctuations from between the plates causing a net force pushing them together - but I guess that can be described in terms of virtual particles (photons?). That was a handy video

 

[sjastro]

OIC... I'd understood the Casimir effect as the result of excluding the longer electromagnetic wave fluctuations from between the plates causing a net force pushing them together - but I guess that can be described in terms of virtual particles (photons?). That was a handy video

Physicists had to take into consideration the possibility the plates were brought together due to Van Der Waal forces which are very weak short ranged electrostatic forces caused by the polarization of the electron cloud.

​

The Casmir effect was observed at a plate separation of up to 100 nanometers outside the range of Van der Waal forces.