[Advanced Creation Science]
I’m opening this thread for a more detailed and mathematically rigorous discussion of the Boltzman distribution objection to CDK. This a critique of paper by Dr. Jellison introduced here. I welcome civil, academic discussion and civil treatment of the subject matter. I thank the participants in advance for their restraint in holding back their frustrations with each other. The discussion will move forward as we stick to the facts and theories.
I’d like to thank Dr. Jellison for raising important question regarding CDK which I expect many others will have and which I hope CDK supporters will consider carefully.
I would like to offer my counter-critique in defense of CDK pertaining to page 29. The traditional Boltzman distribution is:
Dr. Jellison’s interprets Boltzman under CDK to be:
I believe this interpretation is mistaken, albeit very understandably mistaken. Before I move forward, to emphasize the dependence on “t” let me rephrase the traditional Boltzman equation as:
A mis-interpretation of the Boltzman distribution occurs because of the meaning of m(t). m(t) should be judged in terms of m(t) relative to the mass of other objects in the universe at time t, not m(t) in relation to the mass of the universe at other times ( t plus or minus some number). Thus, with this in mind, m(t) will observationally appear to be invariant with t, and m(t) = m under classical dynamics.
The derivation by Dr. Jellison reflects an interpretation of m(t) relative to the universe at other times, and I consider this erroneous. When this aspect of m(t) is taken into account, it can be shown this derivation by Dr. Jellison:
is erroneous. The correct, interpretation, under CDK axioms, and the presumption k(t) = k, and m(t) = m (for the considerations stated above) is:
which is what we observe. Hence, CDK with respect to the question raised on page 29 of Dr. Jellison’s paper, is not controverted by the Boltzman distribution.
PS
Use of Latex to display equations is discussed by jb here. To display an image in Latex on this website use
< img src="URL" />
Let me offer that this discussion points to a potential need to disambiguate traditional concepts from CDK concpets. I would be very easy to inadvertently equivocate notions in mainstream physics with notions under a CDK paradigm. It is very understandable the meaning of m(t) can be badly misinterpreted. I have not ideas at this time what sort of notational conventions can be used to help preculde these sort of inadvertent equivocations.
Thanks to those who have read (or will read) the Setterfield critique by Dr. Bridgman and myself. Here are some reactions to posted comments:
I said the work of “creation scientists” is always wrong for several reasons. First, because I think the statement is true. Also, the report I wrote is quite dry, and I wanted to “moisten” it a little. Plus, I put a lot of work into reading Setterfield’s papers, and someone might think I’m a creationist myself since I’ve devoted time to something so out of the mainstream. My message might be taken to be, Setterfield is wrong, and in this he differs from the other, much more credible, “creation scientists.” That’s not the case, in my experience.
I don’t think quantum entanglement (a subject about which I admittedly don’t know too much) has anything to do with this subject. Certainly Setterfield has never claimed so. Quantum correlations, as exemplified by EPR experiments, don’t constitute signals that transmit information faster than c. I don’t see how entangled photons could cause us to see supernovae at cosmological distances in an eight-thousand-year-old universe. Anyway, with all due respect, it’s up to those who think otherwise to explain their ideas in enough detail to allow them to be critically examined.
Similarly, I’m not sure what Salvador Cordova is referring to when he speaks of different concepts of mass. I’m guessing he is referring to the fact that, if all masses vary uniformly, the mass variation would not show up in collision dynamics, since the angles of the particles after momentum-conserving interactions would not be affected. This is true, as was noted in Dr. Bridgman’s earlier solo report on c-decay (see his website for the report), but this does not change the fact that light molecules in a planetary atmosphere would have higher average velocities.
Mr. Cordova also seems to be suggesting that Boltzmann’s constant, k, may be a function of time. Bridgman and I analyzed Setterfield’s current theory (not some possible future variant), and Setterfield has never claimed this. In his online report “Implications of a Non-Constant Velocity of Light” (http://www.ldolphin.org/cdkconseq.html), Setterfield supporter Lambert Dolphin says that the gas constant R and Avogandro’s number are c-independent, based on the historical data. This means k is constant, too.
In any event, although allowing k to increase with time along with m would allow the Earth to keep its atmosphere in past epochs, other problems would surely manifest themselves. I haven’t thought it through fully, but it seems to me that, since pressure and particle energy in a gas are proportional to kT, if k were less in the past, and temperature were the same, nuclei in stellar cores wouldn’t have enough energy to overcome the Coulomb barrier and accomplish nuclear fusion.
Cordova also suggests q, electric charge, to be a function of time. In Section IV(A) of his 1987 “SRI report,” Setterfield says that the data show electron charge to be invariant.
Regarding the origin of the red shift (whether the red shift is directly caused by c-decay), I addressed that issue in a post yesterday, but here are some more specific comments. Mr. Cordova correctly notes that the product hc is constant in Setterfield’s theory. Also, as he says, frequency varies (in proportion to the changes in c). But this does not lead to a red shift. In the Setterfield document he cites, Setterfield says that wavelength is constant (in the text right after Equation (10)). This is correct, as can be seen from his Equation (8). Since nu = c/lambda, a varying c and a nonvarying lambda lead to a varying nu. Frequency decreases, simply because the light wave is slowing down. But there can be no red shift unless the wavelength changes, as is clear from the information on diffraction gratings Mr. Cordova posted yesterday. The dispersion of light by spectrometrs depends on lambda, not nu or c.
Thanks again for your interest and comments.
Jerry Jellison
Thank Dr. Jellison for your comments. I will be away until next Tuesday after this post.
What I was referring to was equation 7A in here, charge squared relative to electrical permittivity.
e^2/ permitivity = constant
This is important since in dynamical collisions where momentum is exchanged, coloumb forces play an important role. (Please correct me if I am wrong. ) Thus in the standard equation for coloumb force, this needs to be accounted for since electrical permitivity is changing with CDK.
A charitable reading of the the 1987 report will probably show this to be the case. If I caused confusion by saying charge increases, please accept my apologies. I hope equation 7A clarifies the matter.
I actually said, “presumption k(t) = k” to indicate I had no information to argue that k had a dependence on t, and thus presumed it was constant. I only used the term k(t) to recognize that the constancy of k might need to be considered, just to be thorough. I pointed out however, what would happen under the presumption of constant k.
That is correct, and exactly what I was referring to. For example, one can see in the equation for elastic collisions:
if we let
m1 = m1_base * s(t), where s(t) = scaling changes due to light speed, and m1 = m1_base when s(t) = 1,
and
m2 = m2_base * s(t), and m2 = m2_base when s(t) = 1,
we see that with respect to collision dynamics there is no change in v1 or v2, thus from a behavioral stand point in terms of velocities (and thus positions), CDK does not affection collision dynamics.
Because the Boltzman distribution is rooted in Collision Theory, I don’t see why the notion of “lighter” particles is affected by CDK, since “lighter” is related to the mass of other particles in collision dynamics. As you can hopefully infer (with as much rigor as you are willing to apply) from the considerations I give, the Boltzman distribution (which is rooted in collision theory) ought not to be affected by CDK.
That said, I do value your paper, and I’ve agreed with you where I thought your analysis was correct. For example, the apparent calculus error you pointed out in your appendix, I concur with.
I have posted above some of the reasons, from a scientific standpoint, why it may be desirable to hope for a CDK solution. I certainly have a personal stake in it, I don’t deny that, but I think the physical evidence is sufficient to demand a second look at mainstream paradigms. I have certainly done my arguing against YEC theory in the past, and one can gather, from my posts, I haven’t exactly fit in to with the YEC community, particularly certain quarters within the community….
However, neither Barry, Walter Brown, nor myself started our exploration into these matter because we were YECs to begin with. We all may have a personal stake in it now because of the time invested in developing and defending the theory (Barry and Walt so much more than myself), but that was not our starting premise.
And for the record, you are more acquainted with the details of Barry’s work than I. When I made my public presentation, I had a slide indicating that I still had reservations in terms of what needed to be done for the theory to take hold, and I was planning to get more physicists involved to help review and possibly improve Barry’s work…
I view the process of exposing CDK theory to mathematical scrutiny as part of helping to put it on a sound theoretical foundation, if indeed CDK is what happened in the past. It could still fail and no solution may be forth coming. I would however like to give the theory a chance to succeed.
I thank you very much for your hard work on the issue, and I’m sorry we are in a sense on opposite sides of the issue since how ever this turns out, at least one of us will have have invested a great deal of time and energy on something that will be falsified.
If Mr. Cordova is saying that, because of the collision dynamics argument, the low-mass particles in past epochs would have had the same velocities in the atmosphere as they do today, I strongly disagree. If k is constant, the average kinetic energy of atmospheric molecules depends on temperature, and that’s all. All molecular species, light or heavy, have the same average energy. Clearly, the lighter particles will have greater velocity. This isn’t “relative” to other molecules.
If the Earth’s atmosphere were replaced with pure helium, with all atoms having the same (low) mass, the velocities of the atoms would be much higher. The Boltzmann distribution would have the same functional form, but would be scaled to higher velocities. Many of these low-mass particles would have velocities greater than the escape velocity, and the Earth would lose its atmosphere. That’s what would have happened in the past, if Setterfield’s model were correct (as currently formulated).
Cordova apologizes for confusing the issue of electron charge, but it’s I who needs to apologize. I didn’t mention electromagnetic quantities in my writeup and didn’t remember what Setterfield said about them. When I read the cited section in the 1987 report, I saw Setterfield talk about the “measured constancy of e” and thought that meant e had been measured to be constant. If I’d done more than glance at the material, or reviewed the recent document Cordova cites, I would have seen that e does vary in Setterfield’s theory. I believe the following is what Setterfield proposes (express via Dr. Bridgman’s helpful “zeta” notation):
electron charge (e) is proportional to 1/zeta^0.5
permittivity (epsilon) is proportional to 1/zeta
e^2/epsilon is constant
However, I don’t think any of this is relevant to the “observable” issues under discussion. Since e^2/epsilon occurs in the Coulomb force law, the electric force between charges is invariant in Setterfield’s model. This means there will be no spectroscopic evidence of these variations (for example, the zeta term cancels out in equations (27) and (28) of my report).
Jerry Jellison
You have correctly represented my position, and that is all that I can fairly ask. It appears we cannot agree on this point.
For the lighter molecules to achieve escape velocity, they have to move faster, a higher v, in other words. But where have lighter molecules gotten their velocities in the first place? Mostly through collisions. If that is the case, I showed considerations why velocities based on collision dynamics will be invariant to CDK.
But I respect your position, and at this time we’ll simply have to disagree until some bit of information causes one of us to change our minds…
I can understand it seemed irrelevant, but let me point out where this was headed. If mass is increasing, then for physical dynamics (like the approxmations in newton’s law)s to appear to be unaffected by increasing mass, things like coulomb forces have to increase as well. One can see what must happen to F if mass is increasing
F = d(mv)/dt
for this to happen, increasing coulomb forces would have to exist also (so would all the other forces of nature for that matter) with CDK, lest we have some major problems! If coulomb forces (like all the other forces) play roles in dynamics, particularly collision dynamics, then it is relevant to the Boltzman distribution.
I could of course be wrong on these matters, but that is the way I view things as of today.
regards,
Salvador
It may be naive of me, but I would like to think we aren’t doomed to forever disagree on matters of basic physics. In a gas in thermodynamic equilibrium, all molecular species will have the same average energy. Each species will have a Maxwellian distribution that is independent of the existence of other species. For example, helium atoms in the atmosphere have the same (high) average velocity as they would in the absence of other gases such as nitrogen, etc. Differing species will, however, take longer to relax to a Maxwellian distribution than would be the case if all particles had the same mass.
The validity of the Maxwell distribution doesn’t depend on the specifics of the interactions between the particles. It doesn’t even matter whether the interactions are attractive or repulsive, or electrical or gravitational. The stars in globular clusters act like molecules in a gas, and have a Maxwellian distrubution.
Where does the velocity come from? This is difficult to deal with in the case of decreasing mass, since “real” physics doesn’t tell us how to deal with such a radical situation. I confused and un-confused myself with the following little problem, which may be helpful or not…
Consider a gas in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, at some stable temperature. Assume the molecules in the gas to be composed of two atoms bound together (ignore rotational and vibrational energy levels). Now imagine that each molecule “comes apart” gently, so that each pair of “daughter” particles is traveling at the same speed as the “parent.” The particles now have half the mass they did before, and hence half the kinetic energy. Since there are twice as many particles, the total energy of the gaseous system hasn’t changed. But (this is what initially confused me) the absolute temperature of the system has now gone down by a factor of two, since the average kinetic energy per particle has gone down by two! It took a while, but I convinced myself of that. The system, having dropped below the equilibrium temperature, will now absorb heat from its surroundings until its temperature reaches the value it had before. Of course, this will produce the claimed increase in average particle velocity. This is the closest I can come to a reasonable thought experiment that considers the effect of a reduction in particle mass.
Collision dynamics is invariant in CDK, but that simply shows that the Maxwell distribution will still be valid. Standard statistical mechanics will still apply.
I still maintain that Coulomb forces are invariant in Setterfield’s theory, and I believe Setterfield would confirm that understanding. This can be seen, for example, by requiring atomic energy levels to be unaffected by the gradual changes implicated in c-decay (as opposed to the discontinuous “quantum jumps”). For energy levels to be unaffected, the Coulomb potential must stay the same. This can be seen from the Schrodinger equation. The “zeta” terms in h^2 and m will cancel, and so the potential must also be invariant, otherwise the same wave function could not be a solution of the equation as c-decay progresses.
Jerry Jellison
Dr. Jellison,
I thank you for your forebearance in this discussion, and I am glad that you are willing to entertain my ideas. Let me point out something I agree with:
Let me suggest something radical to help clarify the issue. In the non-CDK world we have T, but in some sense in the CDK world we have T(t), Temperature dependent on t. Let me explain.
Kinetic Energy of a moving particle is traditionally:
KE = (1/2) m v^2
but in a sense, in CDK:
KE(t) = (1/2) m(t) v ^2
In a sense KE of an un-accelerated moving particle is “increasing” in CDK.
Temperature, being a measure of mean-kinetic energy is also “increasing” with t in CDK, even when in thermal “equlibrium”.
The Maxwell-Boltzman distribution relates the fact that for two systems of gas to have an equal mean kinetic energy (thus equal temperature), the ligher gas must have a higher mean velocity.
But if we make considerations of the fact that T in CDK is in a sense
T(t), then I think we’ll get terms to cancel out, and thus at least in terms of anything we observe, a lot of things appear invariant to CDK, the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution being one of them.
Salvador
Yes…yesterday I invented a scenario involving fissioning molecules, because I saw that changing masses would involve violating conservation of energy, and I don’t know how to analyze such a situation. Of course, if masses of particles increase with time, and the velocities of the particles don’t change, energy will increase (absolutely, not “in a sense”!). Although some CDK discussions seem to try to respect the first law of thermodynamics, I don’t see any way to formulate Setterfield’s hypotheses without creating or destroying energy somewhere.
As you state, if mass increases and v stays the same, kinetic energy of the molecules will increase. Since the laws of statistical mechanics don’t change, as you say, the temperature of the atmosphere will also increase. The warmer atmospher will now radiate more energy to space than it receives from the sun, so the temperature will drop back down to its equilibrium level. The average velocities of the molecules will therefore wind up less than before the mass change. (Of course, all this is supposed to be very gradual, and wouldn’t happen in two well-defined stages, but the point is valid.)
We have been discussing the state of the atmosphere in the past, when mass was supposedly less. So the above argument has to be run in in reverse. When we “run the movie backward,” we would see mass decreasing, with a concomitant drop in temperature, as in my example of yesterday. The atmosphere will then be “too cold,” so it will experience a net influx of energy from space, causing the molecules to move faster. If we go far enough into the past, we would see the molecular velocity exceed the escape velocity, and the atmosphere would disappear into space.
Jerry Jellison
You raise again important issues.
I wanted to put the notion of Kinetic Energy on the table as this will obviously affect everything, including notions of Temperature which also lead to Blackbody radiation problems, etc.
The change I propose of T(t) solves the issue with Boltzman distribution, but it brings a host of potentially more difficult problems, such as the issue of blackbody radiation and absorption, etc. as you pointed out.
Also in the interim, and maybe less painful, is couching the formulation of T(t) and KE(t) a manner that will preserve more traditional notions. I think it can be done, and if so it will also help solve the form of the black body issues.
I will attend to this next week and maybe feature this on our new website in a prominent place where others can examine and ponder these difficult issues.
Many thanks you for your time.
Please Note:
ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!
Salvador