[Advanced Creation Science]
Objectivity cannot be equated with mental blankness; rather, objectivity resides in recognizing your preferences and then subjecting them to especially harsh scrutiny — and also in a willingness to revise or abandon your theories when the tests fail (as they usually do).
— Stephen Jay Gould
[Gould was the beloved mentor of creationist Kurt Wise]
I will try to put a mix of advanced creation science with topics of interest to the general reader. YoungCosmos will be set apart from other websites in its willingness to invite and discuss serious challenges with various YEC hypotheses.
However, I recognized, exclusive focus on specialty topics will discourage interest in the website. So, I’ll try to maintain about a healthy mix of interesting topics and specialty topics. This post deals with an attempt at clarification of both Setterfield’s work and Dr. Jellison and Bridgman’s work regarding wavelength behavior with respect to time at the same general location and at various locations….
The wavelength of various waves of light can be measured directly or indirectly. The earliest measurement a wavelength was not too far of from the notion of using an actual ruler, but with some clever variation to measure wavelengths of light. One such method is the use of Diffraction Techniques.
My reading of CDK is that, presuming a chemical or electrical generation of light, if hypothetically I were around near the beginning of creation on Earth, I could take a laser and the wavelength measured at day 100 would be the same at day 30,000 when the diffraction measurement is made close to the laser (say 10 meters or so).
However, what would happen if I somehow measure the laser beam from far away? Say I measure a light beam emitted by the laser and detect it on day 30,000 but much farther away, in fact, as far away as the beam could travel from day 100 to day 30,000. I would presume, I would see a red shift, but is my interpretation of CDK wrong?
There is also another consideration on top of all this. When the Zero-Point Energy causes the universal transition which Barry Setterfield ties to quantized red shifts, would the laser device create a different diffraction frequency when changes in light speed/ZPE cause a universal quantum jump?
If the change of such processes (like with the laser) were universal, chemical processes ought to behave similarly since the abosorption behavior will be alter as well. However, any processes which are tied to physical distances (like crystal lattices) might be affected. This consideration, might of course lead to empirical confirmations or falsifications. That’s presuming of course, I’m representing CDK correctly. I would welcome discussion of this.
This discussion is tied to issues raised in Jellison and Bridgman, which can be found: here
This is what I was trying to explain with Figs 1-3 in my writeup. If c-decay were real, and one were performing a “local” measurement on a light source with constant frequency, a decreasing speed of light would result in a shortening of wavelength (blue shift) as time goes on. (Looking at distant objects is equivalent to looking back in time, resulting in a relative red shift.) But Setterfield maintains that the characteristic frequencies of atomic processes were greater in the past. So as time passes, the frequency goes down, which cancels out the c-decay wavelength shift. Thus, Setterfield does not try to explain the cosmological red shift as a direct result of c-decay.
So if you measure the wavelength of a laser, or the wavelength of a particular atomic transition, 10 meters from the source, the wavelength you get will always be the same, no matter how much c-decay may occur. Of course, Setterfield would say that you would measure a diminishing frequency.
If c decreases while the emitted light travels through space, and you analyze the light far away from the source, you will find an additional decrease in frequency. The wavelength, however, would not change (any more than the length of railroad cars changes when the train slows down). Since the equations for the angle of diffraction from a grating do not depend on c, a spectrometer would not record any red or blue shift.
Setterfield’s hypothesis of “quantum jumps” claims there will be discontinuous changes in atomic energy levels (at rare intervals). If such jumps were real, they could be detected “locally.” The wavelength of the laser 10 meters away would suddenly shift to a slightly different value.
Setterfield claims this is a byproduct of changes in ZPE density. ZPE allegedly is absorbed by atoms, maintaining the orbits of the electrons. As ZPE levels increase, electrons shift to higher energy levels (although Setterfield has no convincing theory explaining why this should occur in “quantum jumps”). More recently, he has also claimed that the changing ZPE would result in discontinuous decreases in electron mass, also resulting in changing atomic energy levels. But as I explain in the very end of my report, I think Setterfield gets it backward; following his argument through to its logical conclusion results in a prediction of a BLUE shift for distant galaxies and quasars!
Will try to respond to other comments tomorrow.
Jerry Jellison
Dr. Jellison,
I concur the derivation of dM/dT suggests a calculus error which has matriculated through other calculations. This implies a reworking of that section is in order.
Barry has revised much of his work in the past in response to corrective feedback from others. I am appreciative of your review, and if we must go back to the drawing board for major revisions, so be it.
================================
Note to YEC readers
I will again emphasize that proving the narrow claim of intelligent design is easy compared to proving the universe is plausibly young.
ID proponents (many engineers and mathematicians and computer scientists) oppose biology professors who have little or no math background. The ID proponents thus often have an easy time with their opponents in the controversy. We can, for example, envision William Dembski making quick work of Richard Dawkins.
In contrast, when YEC cosmologists must confront their brethren in the OEC community and also physcists who simply look at the math as Dr. Jellison has done, the story changes.
I have an open thread where we can talk about things more, and I’d like this thread to focus on the math. But if the YECs out there wonder why I sometimes have harsh criticism for some in the YEC community, it’s for the fact that demands for absolute belief in YEC are made when serious and colossal theoretical issues still confront YEC.
I have been involved in trying to solve the problems, and yet get criticized by pastors who haven’t done anything in terms of serious research to make the YEC case more believable.
Until more of the math and physics are vetted and cleaned up, the case for YEC will not advance.
I have said however, that the physical evidence has persuaded me that the case for YEC is promising. The opposing hypothesis of Big Bang followed by galactic, stellar, and planetary evolution has colossal problems as well. The YECs for the time being, can take comfort in the fact there exists something of an empirical and theoretical stalemate between OEC and YEC.
My request is that the YECs out there who cannot participate in the scientific end of these matters uplift the people studying and researching these matters (like Barry Setterfield and his colleagues and myself), even those who are not YECs, and especially the OEC brethren who, as I have said many times, have no metaphysical stake whatsoever in being OECs. They would for the most part be YECs if the theoretical and empirical case were compelling.
God bless you all,
Salvador
Salvador, you said:
“I have said however, that the physical evidence has persuaded me that the case for YEC is promising. The opposing hypothesis of Big Bang followed by galactic, stellar, and planetary evolution has colossal problems as well.”
Maybe you could make a blog post elaborating on this in layman/popular-audience terms. What are the specific physical evidences that have moved you more toward accepting a YEC model? What are the problems you’ve identified with galactic, stellar and planetary evolution?
[...] [Introductory Creation Science] jb asked that I post my thoughts on evidences for YEC. He asked in comment #3, Wavelength behavior at a fixed location, Jellison and Bridgman’s critique… Maybe you could make a blog post elaborating on this in layman/popular-audience terms. What are the specific physical evidences that have moved you more toward accepting a YEC model? What are the problems you’ve identified with galactic, stellar and planetary evolution? [...]
We were emailed about this thread. I, Helen, am typing while Barry is speaking:
The first matter that I would like to consider is the derivation of dM/dT. It has been suggested that there was a calculus error which has matriculated to other calculations. This particular section of the derivation has been criticized on several counts. In the first place, it seems that some computer math packages are not picking up the fact that 1-T^2 = (1-T)(1+T). This is standard first year algebra. It has been the source of problems with several correspondents as they have been using the programs which do not recognize that the difference between two squares can be factored! The other problem which was pointed out to me arose from the fact that I had put ‘k’ in front of the product of two different variables when I probably should have put it in front of each individually. When these and other more minor changes are followed through, the derivation remains intact. A new version of this derivation will be put on the web in a couple of weeks. We have a family wedding to attend to first, as well as some other business. But when the corrections are made, hopefully people will understand what is going on.
Next, concerning wavelengths at fixed locations with the changing speed of light, there seems to be some considerable confusion. Let me, first of all, congratulate Dr. Jellison on a very good analogy — one which I had not thought of. This analogy, if borne in mind, will save a lot of confusion. Wavelengths of light in transit will not change any more than the lengths of railroad cars change when the train slows down.
Unfortunately, it has become standard in today’s science to consider frequency as being the primary factor when considering the behavior of light. As it turns out, in the scenario which is being presented by me, and had been verified in calculations by Dr. Keith Wanser, professor of physics, it is wavelengths which remain unaltered in transit, while the frequency is what alters. Going back to the train analogy, an observer by the side of the rail track would see a constant length of the cars (the wavelength), but the number of cars passing per second is dependant entirely upon the speed of the train. It is the same for light. Therefore, no matter where you are in the universe, or at what time, the wavelengths of light that you would see are the same as the wavelengths that were emitted by the source. The frequencies, however, would change with time.
Dr. Jellison is making a conceptual error in his statement when he says “if c-decay were real, and one were performing ‘local’ measurement on the light source with a constant frequency, a decreasing speed of light would result in a shortening of wavelengths (blue shift) as time goes on.” This is incorrect on two counts. First of all, light sources will not have a constant frequency if the speed is declining. Wavelengths would not shorten, but remain fixed. This is in line with the analogy he correctly presented! Experimental evidence has shown, and Professor R. T. Birge confirmed, that wavelengths were unchanged locally with a changing speed of light, and fringe shifts would not be apparent in spectrometers. In addition, Birge pointed out that atomic clocks are running at a rate proportional to the speed of light. Therefore atomic frequencies used to measure light speed are not going to indicate any change — as they are changing synchronously.
Jellison also says, “Setterfield’s hypothesis of ‘quantum jumps’ claims there will be discontinuous changes in atomic energy levels (at rare intervals). If such jumps were real, they could be detected ‘locally.’ The wave length of the laser ten meters away would suddenly shift to a slightly different value.” I seriously doubt this man has read much of my work. One point which I thought I had made clear in my papers is that any quantum change occurs instantaneously throughout the whole cosmos. On that basis, no change would be noticed in the wavelength of the laser at ten meters, as the comparison you are using for the measurement would also be shifted simultaneously, as would all relavent atomic processes. However, light that has taken some considerable time to get to us will have been emitted prior to this particular quantum jump, and so will be registering at a lower energy and will thereby will appear red shifted.
Jellison states that “the changing ZPE would result in discontinuous decreases in electron mass, also resulting in changing atomic energy levels. But, as I explain at the very end of my report, I think Setterfield gets it backwards; following his argument through to its logical conclusion results in a prediction of a BLUE shift for distant galaxies and quasars.” First of all, the math on this is extremely plain. In the atom, at the quantum jump, an orbital angular momentum is unchanged, and velocities are unchanged as well. This means that electron mass time orbit radius is a constant. Therefore, as mass decreases, orbit radius increases, thus increasing orbit energy. The further out an orbit is from the nucleus, the greater the energy. Thus, the light emitted from new orbit after the jump will be bluer (reflecting the greater energy level). THus, as we look back in time we are seeing lower energy levels at the time of photon emission and thus the light will be red shifted.
I would like to thank Salvador for his request for both YEC and OEC brethren to uplift the people studying and researching these matters. Trying to follow the data instead of what all the interpretations have directed that it must mean is like trying to carve a new path through the mountains. We are interested in the truth and will continue to deal with data primarily rather than presuppositions or standardized explanations.
Barry Setterfield
On the calculus error:
The Excel spreadsheet I emailed to Mr. Setterfield didn’t fail to pick up on anything. It demonstrates his equation to be incorrect. I will email the spreadsheet to anyone who requests it.
Reference 95 in my report is an online symbolic math utility that one can use to calculate a derivative. As I communicated to Setterfield in an earlier email, the result shows that his derivative is incorrect.
Of course, all one has to do to settle the matter is compute the derivative using basic calculus, and see what the result is? Has Setterfield done that?
On the k factor:
I’m not saying Setterfield should have put k in front of two factors. He shouldn’t have introduced “k” at all, since it is simply equal to -1. If he’d kept the factor of -1, it would have shown him that his derivation didn’t produce the result he wanted.
On “local” measurements:
What I said was, IF one performed local measurements on a constant frequency source, one would see a blue shift. Atomic radiation in the c-decay theory are NOT constant in frequency, and Setterfield and I have no dispute on this. As he says, and as I show in my Figure 3, his model claims that atomic frequencies and c both DO vary in a way that results in no wavelength shift in local measurements.
If one performs local measurements on light from a laser (with emitted frequency determined by atomic processes), during a quantum jump, the wavelength will change. If one passes this light through a diffraction grating spectrometer to measure the wavelength, I believe one certainly would be able to measure this wavelength change. This conclusion didn’t come from Setterfield’s writings; it makes sense to me, and if I’m misunderstanding anything I would welcome clarification.
On getting it backwards:
I’ve read a lot of Setterfield’s writings, but has he read our 43-page report? Of course, if electron mass goes down, the Bohr radius goes up, and energy levels increase. But as I explain in Appendix C, emitted photon energy (and therefore wavelength) does not depend simply on energy levels. Rather, the emitted wavelengths depend on the DIFFERENCES between energy levels. The energies go up (become less negative), but the differences decrease. This is shown in our Figure 21.
Jerry Jellison
Barry here:
As far as the ‘calculus error’ is concerned, yes, I have computed the derivative using basic calculus. It was checked by Ph.D.’s in both mathematics and physics. The derivation is correct.
As far as the ‘k’ factor is concerned, it has been legitimately introduced because we are talking about physical systems, not pure mathematical abstractions, and physical systems have other parameters which need to be accounted for. Each of these needs its own separate proportionality factor.
Jellison says, “If one performs local measurements on light from a lasar (with emitted frequency determined by atomic processes), during a quantum jump, the wavelength will change.” Yes, indeed it will. However, so will the wavelengths of our standards which are being used for comparison. Thus, no change would be recognized when measured in that way.
It is possible a change could be measured via a diffraction grating spectrometer, but I have not checked on this.
I have not read your 43 page report. I would need to know where to find it in order to answer anything else in your post here. Please keep in mind that reading 43 pages the week before my son’s wedding, at which I am officiating, is probably not in the cards. But I will get to it when possible.
Thank you.
Barry Setterfield
The report is posted at
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/cdecay/cdecay_2007Jellison.pdf. It was also linked on this site by Mr. Cordova.
I’m sure no one expects an immediate response. As I’ve learned to my regret, being too hasty in responding to comments serves little purpose except to produce errors.
I never expected everyone to agree on the scientific criticisms of c-decay, but I also never expected it to be so difficult to agree on mathematical issues. I still say the calculus derivation is wrong. When you take the derivative of the first term in the numerator, you need to bring down a factor of 1/2, which would cancel out the 2 that came from differentiating T^2. What happened to the 1/2?
In any event, this matter of the calculus error has produced the near-impossible: Salvador Cordova and Jerry Jellison agreeing on something. (Isn’t math wonderful?)
As noted, I believe there is no substantive dispute on the “local measurement” issue. As long as the diffraction grating has the same size after the quantum jump, it would see the wavelength change. But as I note in my report, there is the issue of whether physical objects DO stay the same size, since atoms supposedly expand during the jumps.
More importantly, following up on the comments about red/blue shifts resulting from quantum jumps, we have the following situation:
Setterfield claims:
electron mass large (small) gives atomic radius small (large) and emitted wavelength red (blue) shifted
Jellison claims:
electron mass large (small) gives atomic radius small (large) and emitted wavelength blue (red) shifted
But we don’t need to argue about this. Nature has been generous enough to provide “heavy electrons” in the form of mu mesons. These particles are negatively charged, so they can exist in bound states around nuclei just like electrons, but are 200 times heavier than electrons. As Setterfield and I agree, this results in a small Bohr radius; in fact, the muon wave function has substantial overlap with the nucleus, allowing muonic atoms to be used to gain data about nuclear sizes, shapes, etc. And in agreement with my position but contradicting Setterfield’s, the emitted photons from muonic atoms are indeed blue shifted (high energy), relative to the photons produced by analogous electron states. Blue shifted so much, in fact, that they are in the x-ray part of the spectrum.
Jerry Jellison
Barry,
Please take your time. I am trying to find more physicists in the YEC community (many names I cannot disclose) to help further this importan research. I apologize for a few of my misunderstandings. But as I understand your work better, I can help promote discussion and exploration of it.
I am grateful for the time you have given here, and please know I am am deeply appreciative. In the mean time, I will post why I provisionally concur with Dr. Jellison, and if there has been a misunderstanding, hopefully this will clarify a few things. I am preparing equations in latex on this point.
I realize you and Daniel Dzimano may have arrived at the final deriviation independently via another line of reasoning, so I suspect a remedy may be forthcoming .
Barry, Dr. Jellisonthank you sincerely for your time on this important issue. Regards.
Salvador
Here is my derivation so far.
I haven’t simplified it, but so far it agrees with Dr. Jellison’s paper. I invite the reader to try to simplify the terms.
This is on the right track. To avoid confusion, let me point out a minor typo: in the last two lines, I think you forgot to copy the minus sign on the “1/2″ exponent in the f ‘(T) term.
As you can see, the “1/2″ and the “2″ cancel each other in the third line. This is the error that Setterfield refuses to admit (and I think I first tried to tell him about it back in April!).
There are two ironies here: first, I don’t regard the end result of this calculation, a population equation for ZPE particles, as being central to Setterfield’s theory. Second, as noted in my report, his population equation is really not what he needs it to be (when written in a straightforward manner). It’s at least remotely possible, if he were to acknowledge the calculus error and follow through the entire derivation, that the resulting population equation would turn out right!
I can provide the rest of the derivation, resulting in my equation dM/dT = -M/[(1-T)(1+T)], but I think you’ll succeed in getting it yourself. Anyway, I have no idea how to use this Latex thing. I can provide the derivation in a Word attachment to a personal email if desired.
Jerry Jellison
Dr. Jellison,
I would be very much delighted to see your derivation. Please send it via e-mail, and I will manually convert it when I have time.
Thank you for pointing out my typo.
By the way, a rather dumb question, how do you put math equations into Word documents? Where can I learn to do that.
regards,
Salvador
Insert -> Object…
Choose “Microsoft Equation” from list.
This should bring up an equation editor the use of which is self-explanatory.
Will send derivation in a day or two.
Jerry Jellison
from Barry: I have seen the math on this page. It is interesting. But it is coming at the material in an entirely different way. I will need to spend some time with it, as I cannot see, at this point, any errors in the original derivation. The fact that you folks are coming at the material in an entirely different way needs to be examined. Thank you for posting it.
Nothing better than faithful opposition. This is potentially quite helpful, and thank you.
Two other issues were raised. Dr. Jellison said, “As I note in my report, there is the issue of whether physical objects DO stay the same size, since atoms supposedly expand suring the jumps.” I have dealt with this a number of times, as noted on our discussion page on our website. In short, crystalline structures today are considered to have nuclei at fixed distances with the electrons poured into the gaps between. Thus there is no reason for these to change sizes. In addition, there are three definitions of atomic radius, depending on the conditions under which the atom is placed. In each case, the orbit radii undergo a degree of ’squashing’, or expansion, without any additional effects on molecular sizes. This is basic chemistry.
The last issue concerns the red shift, which Jellison claimed would be a blue shift. First of all, his example involving muons has nothing to do with changes over time which produce blue shifting. He is referring to a condition which exists at any one time and I am discussing a change in conditions which results in a change in red shift. I would point out that the light emitted from muonic atoms would become bluer with time, the same as other atoms. The particular shade of blue at any one time has nothing to do with the fact of change.
If we start an atom which has electrons distinct orbits, at one unit, two units and three units from the nucleus. I am simplifying for the sake of understanding here. OK. If we consider the quantum jump to be a 50% change in distance, we then have electrons at 1.5 units, 3 units, and 4.5 units distance. When an atom is excited, one or more electrons will end up in higher orbits. When they snap back into their lower, normal orbits, each will emit a photon of light. The energy of the photon depends on the energy difference between the two orbits. If an electron falls from orbit 2 to orbit 1 in the original atom, the energy difference will be one unit. If it falls from orbit 3 to orbit 1, the energy difference will be two units. After the quantum jump, however, the difference between orbit 2 and orbit 1 has increased to 1.5 units, thus producing more energy which results in a bluer light. The same goes for any of the jumps which might take place at any distance after the quantum jump.
Any muonic atom will undergo the same sort of change. Thus, when Jellison tries to compare the condition of the muonic atom with the condition of the normal atom, that is entirely a different story than comparing changes in each one. I am discussing change and he is discussing condition at any one time, without considering changes.
Here is a lay example from my wife. Consider an overweight man of 200 pounds. Suppose he is about 5′6″. He cannot jump very high. However, as he loses weight, he will have more energy to jump higher. At the same time there is a basketball player who is 6′6″ and a lean 230 pounds — much heavier than the shorter man at any time during his beginning and ending diet. The basketball player can always jump higher than the shorter man, regardless of weight. But this has NOTHING to do with the fact that the shorter man will be able to increase HIS jumps as he loses weight.
The muon atom is the basketball player. Great jumper. High energy. The normal atom is the shorter man. His changes result in changes in his energy ability. But you cannot compare his changes, or the normal atom’s changes with the static condition of the taller man or the muonic atom.
You are welcome. I was delayed in getting the following converted to latex, but here are two documnets that further elaborate the math along with a numerical analysis of the derivative.
I am personally favorable to the YEC view as you know, and I hope that my agreement with Dr. Jellison on the matter signifies that I am concerned something needs revision.
Here are the links to the documents. This one gives the full derivation:
Derivation.doc
and this one shows a numerical integreation which agrees with Dr. Jellison’s derivation.
CalculusErrors.xls
your friend,
Salvador
PS
Dr. Jellison, my apologies for my delay. Latex is major pain to work with, and I wasn’t able to convert your document as quickly as I wished. Thus I made the files you sent me available to everyone.
We are not able to access those pages, Salvador. I’m sorry.
Helen
Helen,
My apologies. I think I fixed it. Please let me know.
Also, we’re working hard to build another site where these sort of discussions will be easier to access and where we can exchange vital information more efficiently.
Salvador
Thank you. I printed them off for Barry.
OK, in the ‘derivations.doc’ Barry noticed something. There is a difference in your equation above and in the equation in the doc. First line in the doc. you have dM/dT = (in the numerator) -T(1-T^2)^-1/2
However, above, your section containing this part of the equation shows a positive exponent for the final 1/2. Could you please clarify?
There was a typo in the derivation above. That typo was the one Dr. Jellison was referring to here.
I left the typo uncorrected in the post so that readers could see the typo that Dr. Jellison was referring to.
Thank you. Barry’s still asleep this morning. We had surprise guests last night…I’ll show it to him later.
In reading my above posts, I realized it may appear the documents were authored by me when in actuality they were Dr. Jellison and Birdgman’s. My apologies to him and Dr. Bridgman. I was supposed to convert the documents to latex so they could be viewed by everyone. Sorry for the confusion.
Salvador, did you email us? I erased a bunch of stuff this morning and Barry thinks something from you may have gone out with it. If so, could you email us again, please? We have more guests coming today and Barry will get to this thread asap. Thanks. Helen
One small clarification to Salvador Cordova’s 7/3 post…CalculusErrors.xls is not a numerical integration. It is a numerical differentiation of M wrt T (delta M/deltaT).
Will post a response to the Setterfield comments tomorrow.
Jerry Jellison
Responses to Setterfield’s comments:
On the calculus error: Setterfield says, “…the math…is coming at the material in an entirely different way… I cannot see, at this point, any errors in the original derivation.” I have pointed out, privately to Setterfield, and publicly in the Jellison/Bridgman report and on this website, exactly where the error occurs. He clearly didn’t bring down the “1/2″ exponent when he took the derivative of M wrt T. There aren’t many “entirely different ways” to take a derivative (at least not if you do it correctly).
On size changes: I don’t intend to discuss this in detail, since it’s not one of our more significant objections to Setterfield’s work. But I do think he’s wrong about crystalline structures changing size. The interatomic spacing in crystals can be related to electron degeneracy pressure, and so it does depend on electron mass. For a brief discussion of this, see “The Accidental Universe” by Paul Davies, pp. 44-48.
On muonic atoms: Of course muonic atoms are relevant to this discussion. Setterfield previously posted the comment: “as (electron) mass decreases, orbit radius increases, thus increasing orbit energy. The further out an orbit is from the nucleus, the greater the energy. Thus, the light emitted from new orbit after the jump will be bluer (reflecting the greater energy level). THus, as we look back in time we are seeing lower energy levels at the time of photon emission and thus the light will be red shifted.” His comment means that higher electron mass would result in smaller Bohr radius, and a red shift of emitted photons. This is what he believes was the situation in past epochs, when electron mass was greater than today, due to discontinuous mass decreases at “quantum jumps.” But muonic atoms allow us to observe – today – how “heavy electrons” behave in orbit around a nucleus. The answer is, we see a blue shift instead of a red shift. To be specific, a muonic atom shows us, today, what an “electronic” atom would have been like in the distant past, if electron mass had been 200 times greater than today. Such atoms would have radiated x-rays, and that’s what we would see in the spectra of distant galaxies. Of course, muonic atoms would have been “blue” shifted even further.
On emission from atoms with larger electron orbits: Setterfield gives an example of a stylized atom that has orbit radii at 1 and 2 distance units from the nucleus. He defines the photon energy resulting from a transition between these two orbits as 1 unit. He then says if a quantum jump causes a 50% increase in electron orbit radii, the same electron states would correspond to distances of 1.5 and 3 units, and the emitted energy would be in proportion to these numbers. Subtracting 1.5 from 3, he gets 1.5 units: greater energy corresponding to a blue shift.
This is entirely wrong. Setterfield is tacitly assuming that the energy of an atomic state is proportional to the orbit radius. This would be true in a spatially constant force field, but the Coulomb field, of course, goes as the INVERSE SQUARE of the distance from the nucleus. By taking the integral of the force, we find that the energy at distance R is proportional to 1/R, rather than to R.
Using Setterfield’s numbers, here is how to do the calculation correctly:
Before quantum jump, with radii equal to 1 and 2, energy difference is proportional to:
1/1 – 1/2 = 0.5
After quantum jump, with radii equal to 1.5 and 3, energy difference is proportional to:
1/1.5 – 1/3 = 0.667 – 0.333 = 0.333
Hence, with the larger orbital radii, the energy difference is less, rather than greater as Setterfield claims. Smaller electron mass -> larger Bohr radius -> lower emitted photon energy -> red shift.
Jerry Jellison
Helen,
I haven’t mailed anything recently, so things are ok for now.
We will be making major revisions to the website so that important discussions don’t fall off the map and everyone can keep topics alive for as long as needed.
Important long term collaborations will be in our upcoming discussion forum. I’ll let you all know when that happens.
Salvador
First of all, we want to thank those who have taken the time to point out where, in fact, Barry and Dr. Dzimano did make an error in the calculations. Faithful opponents are perhaps the most valuable of friends! Barry is working on the calculations right now to see where they lead and if they disagree with his final conclusions. He will not only post here but post the results on our website with acknowledgements to those who have been of help in pointing out the error. I, Helen, just saw Jellison’s latest post and will copy it off and give it to Barry now.
We have had constant company for the last week and our son’s wedding the week before. Someday life will settle down enough for us to do things in a more timely manner. Thank you all for your patience.
Helen and Barry,
Congratulations to your family on the wedding of your son. By all means, this takes priority. The website will be here today and tomorrow, but your son’s wedding is once in a lifetime!
In the meantime YoungCosmos is about to split into 3 websites:
1. Main Portal (homepage for everything, resources, and links)
2. Blog (which you are now reading)
3. Discussion Fourm
We are working to make the links and site navigation a little easier than right now. It should be clear how to navigate once we get everything in place.
The Discussion Fourm is now active and is the best place to host discussions like those that have taken place here at the blog. The blog was not the best place for such protracted discussions, but that was all we had until JB and Rick got the Discussion Fourm up and running.
In order to make the discussions more orderly, and so that they don’t fall off the map, please feel free to make future comments regarding these sorts of things at the Discussion Fourm.
To specifically to access this discussion regarding equation 25 of the paper Barry and Dr. Dzimano, visit:
http://www.virtual-creations.net/~youngcos/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=41#41
Please let me know if you can post your responses there. Your passwords and logins should still work. That would be a better repository for updates. [We are a few days from retiring this temporary weblog and splitting into our new 3 websites! The Discussion Fourm is the first of the 3 new websites that is now working.]
The interface in the Discussion Fourm is a little diffent than here. If you have problems, I can help you out with that. That website is more tailored for scientific discussions that may take weeks if not months to unfold.
To the rest of the readers,
Though Dr. Jellison and Dr. Bridgman are critics of CDK, I extend my sincere thanks to the many hours of reasoned critique invested. There are a lot of other topics Dr. Jellison and Dr. Bridgman have raised that I will hope to explore in the future and I look forward to being discussed publicly at:
http://www.YoungCosmosDiscussion.com
We will continue to blog at this website on developments with CDK, but as you can see, blogs are not conduscive to protracted technical discussions like the Discussion Fourm. We will also have a resources website (still under construction) that will point to reference materials as well as these discussions.
Thanks again to everyone for participating, and I hope the 3 YoungCosmos websites will serve research and reasoned critique of CDK.
Hi,
Tried to log in the discussion forum and it refused the password you had emailed me in the beginning…
Hi,
If something has gone wrong with our process, thank you for alerting us.
We tried to transfer the passwords you use here to discussion forum so that users would not have to create double accounts with the blog and the discussion forum.
Just to make sure, I presume you tried logging in as “Helen Setterfield” at the discussion forum with the same password you use to log in here. Is that correct?
If that failed, I can change the password to the “Helen Setterfield” account to a temporary one, and mail you the temporary one. After you receive the temporary one, you should be able to change the password to something you prefer.
Salvador
PS
Thanks for bearing with our technical difficulties.
Yes, correct. I would appreciate a new password and thank you.
Helen
Helen,
My apologies. I just sent you an e-mail from one of my hotmail accounts. I created a new password at http://www.YoungCosmosDiscussion.com which you should be able to change once you log in.
I left some instructions on some glitches in our software which you may need to workaround for now. I just realized our system has more kinks to iron out.
Please e-mail me if things don’t work.
In the meantime, even though it’s a pain, it might be a good idea to save your text to a word file or notepad before you try to post it just in case our system chokes and loses it. Hopefully we’ll be able to iron out all these kinks soon.
regards,
Salvador
PS regarding “faithful opponent” I consider myself a friend. As it says in proverbs:
”The blows of a friend are faithful, but the kisses of the enemy are treacherous”
Helen,
Jb just informed me he created yet another password on your behalf. He e-mailed it to you recently.
Sorry again for the technical issues. We’re working on them.
regards,
Salvador
Dr. Jellison raises several issues, the first one relating to crystalline structures changing size. Dr. Jellison says, “the interatomic spacing of crystals can be related to electron degeneracy pressure, and so does depend on electron mass. For a brief discussion of this, see The Accidental Universe, by Paul Davies, pp. 44-48.” I did so, with interest. As it turns out, Paul Davies presents the formula for the degeneracy pressure and the electrostatic pressure. One is proportional to the square of Planck’s constant divided by electron mass. The other is proportional to the electron charge squared over the permittivity of free space. As it turns out, both of these quantities remain unchanged with changes of the Zero Point Energy. As my work has shown, Planck’s constant squared is proportional to the electron mass. As I have also shown in my work, the square of the electronic charge over the permittivity of free space is constant. So the degeneracy pressure and the electrostatic pressure are invariant. Therefore crystal sizes will not change. The only other parameters involved are the number of electrons which, in a crystalline structure, will not change.
The second point concerns atomic orbit radii energy levels. Dr. Jellison says, “On emission from atoms with larger electron orbits: Setterfield gives an example of a stylized atom that has orbit radii at 1 and 2 distance units from the nucleus. He defines the photon energy resulting from a transition between these two orbits as one unit. He then says if a quantum jump causes a fifty percent increase in electron orbit radii, the same electron states would correspond to distances of 1.5 and 3 units, and the emitted energy would be in proportion to these numbers. Subtracting 1.5 from 3, he gets 1.5 units: greater energy corresponding to a blue shift.” This is entirely correct. However, Dr. Jellison then goes on to state, “This is entirely wrong. Setterfield is tacitly assuming that the energy of an atomic state is proportional to orbit radius. This would be true in a spatially constant force field, but the Coulomb field, of course, goes as the INVERSE SQUARE of the distance from the nucleus. By taking the integral of the force, we find that the energy at distance R is proportional to 1/R, rather than 2R.” Up to that point Dr. Jellison is also correct. In fact, I was well aware of this from the equations. Dr. Jellison then goes on using the 1/R proportionality to derive a red shift with increasing orbit radius instead of a blue shift. However, Dr. Jellison is incorrect for a very simple reason. As you have a look at all of the energy equations for atomic orbits, 1/R actually appears as -1/R not +1/R. Therefore, as R increases, 1/R decreases, so that -1/R becomes less negative and hence more positive. And so the energy of the atomic orbit is actually higher, and the emitted energy is also higher. I can give numerous examples of this if he requires it.
Finally, as far as the calculus error was concerned, the ultimate outcome of this is to change the numeral 2 to 4, and that is basically all that it does. There are a few other minor bits and pieces but it has no ultimate bearing on the conclusion.
Thank you for your patience. We have had constant activity here for the past several months and almost everything is getting behind.
Note: the above post was from Barry and I was typing. I’m sorry to not have made mention of that initially. Thank you.
On the first point, Setterfield has forgotten the context of the discussion. My claim is that crystals should enlarge DURING QUANTUM JUMPS when mass drops and atoms expand. He says degeneracy pressure won’t change because the change in electron mass is cancelled out by the change in Planck’s constant. But in his 2007 report “Behavior of the Zero Point Energy…” he states “…at the actual moment of the jump…Planck’s constant, h [and other constants] will all remain unchanged…the only basic quantity left to change in the orbit energy equation is the mass of atomic particles, m…” Since his own theory claims that Planck’s constant doesn’t change during the jumps but mass does, my argument stands.
On the more important matter of the red/blue shifts: yes, of course, energy is proportional to -1/R. The energies of the atomic states are all negative, otherwise they wouldn’t be bound states. But this is precisely where Setterfield gets it wrong.
All the states are negative. The upper ones are very closely spaced, and they merge into the continuum of free states at E = 0. If electron mass decreases at a quantum jump and the atom enlarges, all the states will increase in energy. But the upper ones won’t increase much because they are bounded above by the “barrier” at E = 0. Clearly, if the lower states move up a lot and the upper ones barely move, all the states will be compressed into a narrower range of energy values. Hence, energy differences between states will decrease!
By all means, let’s take a specific example. In hydrogen, the lowest energy level (n = 1) has an energy of about -13.53 eV. This can be computed from the simple Bohr energy level formula (equation (34) in the “Behavior of the Zero Point Energy” document). The n = 2 state has an energy of about -3.38 eV. The difference in energies is thus 10.15 eV. Since Planck’s constant is 4.14E-15 eV-sec, an electron making a transition between these two states (the “Lyman alpha” transition) will have a frequency of 2.45E15 sec-1. The wavelength will be 1216 Angstroms.
If we now let the electron mass decrease by a factor of two (to make the point dramatically), the energies of the n = 1 and n = 2 states will be reduced in magnitude, to -6.765 and -1.69 eV, respectively. This follows as before, from the Bohr energy equation. As Setterfield says, they are both larger (less negative). But their DIFFERENCE is now 5.075 eV, which is smaller, not greater! Obviously, the energy difference between the states has gone down by a factor of two, so the emitted photon energy will be DOWN by this factor. The wavelength of the emitted energy will be greater by a factor of two. Redshift, redshift, redshift!
If this is still unclear, please see the energy level diagram on page 39 of the Jellison/Bridgman report (Figure 21).
(I will also post this in the Discussions Forum, since I think that’s where these discussions are now supposed to take place.)
Regarding the discussion forum, I must accept some of the blame as the transition has not been totally smooth.
Helen,
Did you get the new password from JB at the discussion forum? If there is a password you like, you can e-mail it to me and I’ll set it there.
The weblog is here is a bit unwieldy for these sort of discussions and we may be moving the weblog soon.
Do you have my e-mail?
Salvador
Barry gave me permission to post the following:
Please Note:
ATTENTION! YOUNG COSMOS HAS MOVED!
Salvador