As I said, Planck and others in response to his second law, considered the ZPE to be some sort of an intrinsic energy of the vacuum...
You are clearly in denial mode and I am not wasting further time having to repeat myself that ZPE envisaged by Planck had nothing to do with the energy of the vacuum, but vibrating charges in the blackbody.
This doesn’t even require a knowledge of physics but history; it was Nernst in 1916 who first proposed ZPE for a vacuum , but the idea only gained traction with the development of relativistic quantum mechanics when Dirac came up with a workable theory that the electromagnetic field in a vacuum was composed of quantum harmonic oscillators in 1927.
These are the historical facts; you are engaging in revisionism of history.
The point I was making is it led to SED which initially didn't gain much attention because QED had already captured the scientific community, but which has also led to many successful predictions and thorough explanations in accordance with experimental data.
Firstly, get your terminology correct, QED stands for quantum electrodynamics which is a QFT (quantum field theory) for the electromagnetic field.
When it comes to the evolution of the universe other QFTs such as electroweak theory and QCD (quantum chromodynamics) are just as important.
Secondly, your denial mode has reared its ugly head again, where is the evidence the speed of light was much faster in the early universe?
As I mentioned in a previous post SED is not even a scientific model, the faster speed of light is not based on evidence but on the requirement for YEC to be true.
Well it seems that is your bias...
I’d be more concerned with your own bias in using pseudoscience nonsense to justify YEC.
Well buried by the mainstream scientific community...
I asked you for evidence that the speed of light is faster in the past and this is the best you can do, I rest my case…..
Your refutations are always based on the QED framework, but this will not work because SED is a totally different ball park.
This doesn’t even make any sense QED ( or more precisely QFT) is supported by experiments and observations, SED is based on unsupported assumptions and leads to predictions which are contradicted by observations as seen in my next response.
Let me just give one very practical example of how the effects of a lower ZPE would cancel out certain negative effects.
Radioactive decay would happen at a much higher rate, but the decay process itself would generate much less energy resulting in the same amount of energy being generated in the same gravitational timespan as with the current strenght of ZPE.
This is word salad but provides a good example of SED making a prediction which is contradicted by observation.
A form of radioactive decay is beta decay, a free neutron undergoes beta decay into a proton, electron and antineutrino with a half life of around 15 minutes.
If the decay rate of a neutron was much higher in the early universe, there would not have been enough time for the universe to cool down to form nuclei.
In the worst case scenario the early universe would only have been composed of primaeval hydrogen as neutrons would have decayed away before the universe had sufficient time to cool.
Alternatively a reduced number of neutrons would hinder the production of deuterium leading to heavier nuclei such as helium.
In the very early universe there was a number ratio of about 12 hydrogen nuclei for every helium nucleus which is a prediction supported by observation.
The ratio would be different if the decay rate of the neutron was much higher according to SED.
Indeed, and that is exactly the crux of Setterfields theory.
You are swopping causes here, it would be more accurate to state that the effect of a lower ZPE would be both a faster effective lightspeed and also faster plasma processes.
I was blind sighted in my initial response that the faster lightspeed itself was directly causing faster plasma processes because plasma processes in themselves alone are able to create the celestial objects in much faster times than gravitational processes are capable of. As stated above, faster lightspeed only indirectly has to do with faster plasma processes.
More denial mode and word salad, changing the speed of light has a profound effect on plasma physics.
As mentioned in a previous post a faster speed of light reduces the fine structure constant which reduces the electrostatic force between positive ions and electrons in a plasma, while the Debye length which determines how far electrostatic forces extend in plasma is also affected.
What I didn’t mention a changing light speed also impacts on plasma physics time scales for describing the rates of processes such as oscillations, wave propagation and particle interactions.
---
But all this is actually off-topic of this thread which should be about the universe not being eternal and what we can say about the cause of the universe... So I would like to point back to the question at hand as brought up by partinobodycular to which my latest response is below...
On the contrary it is very much on topic, this sub-forum is not meant to be an echo chamber, if you introduce pseudoscience in the form of justifying YEC then it will be scrutinized and criticized accordingly.