Presentation on theme: "Speed of Light & Creation And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from."— Presentation transcript:
Speed of Light & Creation And God said, Let there be light, and there was light. And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night…. (Genesis 1:3-5) 2011Speed of Light1
The speed of light, c, is a fundamental constant of the physical universe as in Einsteins famous equation, E=Mc 2 c occurs in literally hundreds of equations defining all sorts of physical phenomena. It is related to almost every other physical constant in Physics (Planks Constant, gyromagnetic constant, radioactive decay constants, etc.) According to Einstein, c was the only true constant in physics. In the Theory of Relativity, Time, Mass (& Energy), & Space itself are all related through equations with c in them. 2011Speed of Light2
History With few exceptions, people of antiquity (especially Aristotle) believed the speed of light was infinite. Galileo and a few others thought the speed of light might be finite and measurable. In 1657, Olaf Roemer undertook observations of the occultation of the moons of Jupiter as they orbited the giant planet. After 20 years of observations, he published a paper asserting the speed of light must be finite. Since that time, 16 different experimental methods have measured the speed of light. 2011Speed of Light3
Roemers Experiment X (Jupiter with 4 visible moons with Galilean telescopes) O (Earth) Jupiter year = 12 Earth years Jupiter day = 10 hours Orbital Radius = 389,165,000 km (Jupiter has 65+ moons & 4 rings, but most were discovered by fly-by satellites or space telescopes.) Orbits of moons Io = 1.8 d Europa = 3.6 d Ganymede = 7.8 d Callisto = 16.7 d Earth orbital radius = 150,000,000 km Minimum observational distance D = 239,165,000 km (778 seconds) Maximum observational distance = 539,165,000 km (1753 seconds) D Plot of time of observation for a moon; the distance of observation variation (Earths orbital diameter) divided by the time variation gives c. Remember, Roemer was using wooden clocks & the orbital diameters were not well established. 1 cycle = 1.083 years
History (continued) Since 1930 (& the general acceptance of the Theory of Relativity), c has been accepted as constant & invariant at 3 X 10 5 km/sec (186,000 miles/sec or 1 foot/nanosecond) Since 1960, there have been hundreds of experiments to precisely measure c In 1971, c was established as 299,792 km/s & time was defined by Cesium clock standards; this made the measurement of c more difficult because if c varies, it also affects the Cesium standard, making variations undetectable unless time if measured by another method. 1n 1983, c was defined as 299,792,458 m/s based upon precision laser measurements 2011Speed of Light5
Background of the Issue 1n 1977, Barry Setterfield, an undergraduate in physics, conducted a study of the historical measurements of the speed of light. He was expecting to find a nominal distribution around the established value, perhaps with differences introduced by the methods of measurement. Instead, he found that c was decreasing over time. Dr. Alan Montgomery & Dr. David Lambert, intrigued by Setterfields paper, analyzed the data and concluded lightspeed was significantly higher in the historical past. The Naval Observatory has been contributing to this issue continuously since 1972, having developed 4 different techniques for measuring c. 2011Speed of Light6
Naval Observatory Measures 2011Speed of Light7 (Precision measures are in meters per second) 299,792,458.xxxx
Modern Measurements (from 1947) 2011Speed of Light8 Measurements include uncorrected instrument/experimental errors
Modern Measurements (from 1947- 1983) with approved corrections 2011Speed of Light9 Best-Fit Curve Notice improvements in experimental error limits
Accepted Values of c 307,500 +/- 5400 km/s (Roemer, corrected) (1677) 303,430 +/- 750 km/s (Bradley) 1727 303,320 +/- 65 km/s (Delambre) 1738 302,220 +/- 620 km/s (Britannica) 1771 315,300 or 313,300 +/-10,000 km/s (Fizeau) 1849 * 299,921 +/-13 km/s (Harvard) 1876 (incl. Michelson) 299,802 +/-15 km/s (Michelson) 1925 299,794.2 +/-1.4 km/s (Aslakson) 1951 299,792.5 +/-0.02 km/s (NRC/NBS/IAU) 1967/8 299,792,460 +/-0.006 m/s (NRC/NBS) 1973 299,792,458.6 +/-0.0003 m/s (NBS) 1983 2011Speed of Light10 * Fizeau was widely published, but his experiments are widely disputed because of gross experimental errors. Other results, 305,650 & 298,000 km/s were not widely published.
Implications for the Past Assuming that the physical processes causing the changes in c are consistent, c was at least: – 2.5% faster 300 years ago – 30% faster 2000 years ago – 100% (2X) faster 3000 years ago (600,000 km/s) – 4X faster 4000 years ago (1,200,000 km/s) – Over 10,000,000X faster 6000 years ago (3X10 12 km/s) – This is based on a cosecant squared best fitting of the historical measures; the best fit curve (a hyperbolic curve) was not considered because it becomes infinite somewhat over 6000 years ago (i.e., even faster than the cosecant squared curve) All radioactive decay data is grossly overestimating historic age (radioactive decay rates are coupled with c such that estimated age from these techniques is inversely related) The oldest age of the Universe by radiographic data given the projected c in the past is less than 10,000 BC (but it could be younger still). 2011Speed of Light12
Best-fit Graph of c 2011Speed of Light13 Flood The Beginning Abram David Christ 1 st measure Us today Cosecant-Squared Function (partial) (Dr. Alan Montgomery & Dr. David Lambert) Moses
Best-fit Graph of c 2011Speed of Light14 Flood The Beginning Abram David Christ 1 st measure v Us today Cosecant-Squared Function (partial) OR Hyperbolic? Moses Alternatives? What is causing the change in c? Without knowing the mechanism causing the change, many different functions might describe the past behavior of c. But a guess at the function can help to discover the possible mechanism…maybe.
Why is Decay of c Controversial? The best data is based on VERY recent measurements (since 1983 – older measures are suspicious). Almost all measurements prior to 1961 need corrections for experimental errors. The oldest measurements are only 300 years old (compared to 4500 years of historical time) – this is less than 7% of historical time. The plentiful & most trustworthy day is less than 0.7% of historical time. There are disagreements about the best fit curves – is there a better fit that allows for different conclusions (such as small variations or oscillatory behavior) rather than infinite in recent time? The implications are extensive, largely unexplored, and contradict commonly held beliefs. (Remember, it took 50 years for Roemers conclusions to be accepted. This idea was only introduced in 1977.) If true, what is causing the decrease in c?
More About Light: Red Shift In studying light, scientists noticed that the Red Shift was quantized. – Hubble thought Red Shift was caused by Doppler shift from the expansion of the Universe, a remnant of the Big Bang – Quantized Red Shift implies Hubbles assumption is wrong – Each quanta of Red Shift has been shown to represent a 72 km/s Doppler- assumed change in c; more than 60 steps have been found in 399 data sets (Guthrie & Napier – 1995). – The Sky Survey of Red Shift showed the values are in concentric shells. This indicates either the Earth is close to the center of whatever causes Red Shift (Dr. Russell Humphreys) or the effect is universally observed regardless of position in the universe. – Quantized Red Shift also shows that the radius of the Universe is fixed. Red Shift data disputes the Big Bang assumption, i.e., the primary cause of Red Shift cannot be due to Doppler shifts (observed Doppler shifts are minor contributions to overall Red Shift) Together with the decreasing c, Red Shift data shows the Universe is both much smaller and younger than assumed in modern science. 2011Speed of Light16
More on Red Shift The Red Shift Data is consistent with the Universe being stretched forth rather than banged into existence. See Job 9:8; 37:18; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 40:22; 42:5; 44:24; 45:12; 48:13; 51:13; Jeremiah 10:12; 51:15; & Zechariah 12:1. The picture shows the emission lines of Hydrogen (top), Helium, Mercury, and Uranium (bottom). These spectra are shifted toward the red as the source becomes farther from Earth. [Population 1 stars (such as our sun), have up to 3% heavier elements. Population 2 stars have less than 0.1% heavier elements.] (Only about 2% of all stars are Population 1.) Red Shift means that these emission are more red than expected, making the source to appear to be rushing away from us at high speed (Hubbles Law). If a stellar object were coming toward us, its spectrum would be Blue Shifted.
Red Shift is Quantized 2011Speed of Light18 This is the Red Shift phenomenon. The amount of Red Shift is quantized and is independent of the direction of observation. Computers greatly simplify collecting Red Shift data. Tiffts data was very controversial, especially since such large Red Shifts were reported & because it refutes the prime assumption of Hubbles Law – Doppler shift as the cause. Tiffts Data (1972) (repeated with Cocke 1987) In 1995, Guthrie & Napier sought to disprove Tiffts report by using the space telescopes & the numerous results of the Sky Survey together with enhanced corrections for local motions. Instead of refuting Tifft, they confirmed his findings, extending the data to 60 Red Shift points & demonstrating that the peaks above are much sharper than expected. | | - attributable to Doppler (Guthrie & Napier)
Red Shift Implications Red Shift has been separately confirmed with accuracy using the 21 cm emission line of neutral Hydrogen through radio-telescopes. Quantized red shift has been observed even with galactic pairs (galaxies orbiting around each other or colliding with each other) and binary stars (stars orbiting around each other). Radio-telescope surveys have confirmed the concentric nature of red shift phenomena around the Earth. Red Shift is NOT caused by Doppler from an expanding Universe sourced from a Big Bang Red Shift appears to be caused by a stretching forth of the Universe with resultant relaxation of the stretching tension. This can be examined through Quantum Mechanics (but is only well explained by Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), not so well by Quantum Electrodynamics (QED)) – QED is the Standard Model, SED is relatively new and more controversial (but it also works better). If Red Shift is caused by the stretching of the Universe, what is the implication of Isaiah 34:4 & Revelation 6:14?
Zero Point Energy (ZPE) 2011Speed of Light20 65432106543210 X Degrees Kelvin (symbolic particle states) Zero Point Energy is the energy of elementary particles at absolute zero (0 degrees Kelvin). According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, we can only know the position and velocity of a particle to a limited degree of precision. Because of ZPE, every particle has a velocity even at absolute zero as well as a definable positional uncertainty. However, molecules are frozen in relationship to each other. The velocity increases with temperature, but the particle state changes in discrete steps. These discrete steps in state are quantized states, examined by Quantum Mechanics.
Zero Point Energy (ZPE) ZPE is the residual energy at absolute zero, 0 K (particles must still have motion & energy even when frozen) ZPE is driven by Planks Constant, h, which is inversely proportional to c ZPE upper bound is 10 110 joules/cm 3 in a vacuum, which is greater than all of the energy radiated by all of the stars in our galaxy (& perhaps the Universe) (the upper bound has increased over past 100 years) ZPE upper bound can be directly measured, & is increasing consistently with the decrease in c ZPE is basic to quantum electrodynamics (QED), stochastic electrodynamics (SED), & quantum astrophysics ZPE may explain the cosmic background radiation (CBR) ZPE is linked to the existence & behavior of gravity by SED ZPE considerations predict that if neutrinos have mass, then c must be decreasing with time. In 1998, it was affirmed that neutrinos have mass. ZPE upper bound changes appear to imply the rate of the expansion of the universe is increasing rather than decreasing if you apply Big Bang assumptions. However, other experiments & consistent interpretations of the data indicate the universe is flat – i.e., neither expanding nor contracting. 2011Speed of Light21
Is the Universe Expanding or Contracting (& if so, at what rate)? Big Bang creation: it must be expanding. – The rate of expansion must be decreasing because of the mutual drag of gravity. – Eventually, the rate of expansion could stop & the Universe could start to implode (fall in on itself) based on its space-time curvature. – All components should be getting farther away from each other. – Light from distant objects should be red-shifted due to Doppler. Stretched forth creation: it should be neither expanding nor contracting (i.e., flat). – Components may interact with each other through mutual gravitational attraction. – Light from distant object should be red-shifted, but not due to Doppler. Are there other cosmological alternatives? – maybe, BUT… 2011Speed of Light22
Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) (Why do I care?) New (since 1994) theories originating in SED: – Explain the existence of mass based on ZPE flux – Show that ZPE changes give rise to quantized Red Shift in c consistent with the measured values (ergo, Red Shift is not caused by an expanding Universe nor Doppler shift) – Show how radioactivity arises in atoms, allowing reconciliation of different radioactive decay rates for different elements – Predict that neutrinos have mass (demonstrated in 1998) – Show that all forces can be derived without inventing non- observable subatomic particles to mediate singularities in the Standard Model (based on QED) – Allow a Grand Unified Field Theory (GUFT) reconciling all known forces with observed astrophysical properties (which also requires a creation event of stretching rather than big banging). – (According to Colossians 1:16-17, Christ is the GUFT) 2011Speed of Light23
A History of c Based in SED (one of many possible that reconcile a young universe to radioactive age estimates) Day 1Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 8x10 11 CV end of Day 1 end of Day 2 1.3x10 7 CV end of Day 4 end of Day 3 Average c over 1 st 4 days of Creation = 4x10 11 CV Using these values, radioactive decay rates can be reconciled to be self-consistent (i.e., Carbon, Strontium, Thorium, etc. methods all yield the same, consistent results). The differences in the composition of Population 1 & 2 stars is explained, Population 2 stars will have an apparent age of ~1.4x10 12 atomic days (= 3.84 billion years) greater than the population 1 stars. The overall age of the Universe will appear to be nearly 14 billion years. Population 2 stars created Population 1 stars (including our sun) created 1.0x10 7 CV end of Day 7 4x CV 2000 years later (Abrahams time) (Remember 1000 years = 365,000 days) (Current apparent upper age of the universe is 13.7 billion years.)
Power of God A View of the Universe 2011Speed of Light25 ZPE boundary Perceived Universe (a miniscule bubble within God at slightly higher energy than background.)
Summary Data from hundreds of measurements of c by 16 methods & thousands of measures of related physical constants by 25 other methods all show a decrease in c over time at statistically significant levels. Direct implications (among thousands) include: – Young age of the Universe (<< 12,000 years) (Bible ~6000 years). – Big Bang cosmology is incorrect; stretched forth Universe is more credible & IAW the Bible. – Size of the Universe is smaller than assumed, and most probably is not expanding (or contracting) at all. (Relatedly: space-time is not changing.) The increasing rate of expansion (obtained from red shift data assuming a Doppler mechanism) is very wrong. – Radioactive dating methods are inconsistent with each other unless (1) decreasing c & (2) a young Universe is accepted (which means you must also reject evolutionary formation of heavy elements); then, all radioactive data can be brought into agreement. 2011Speed of Light26
Summary (2) – on Reconciling Quantized Red Shift Data Across Physics 1984, T.C. Van Flandern (U. S. Naval Observatory), If the Universe had constant linear dimensions, in both dynamical and atomic units, the increase of redshift with distance (or equivalently, look-back time) would imply an increase in c at past epochs, or that c was decreasing as time moves forward. 1987, Troitskii (Radiophysical Research Institute, Gorky), The agreement with fundamental physics laws is achieved by introducing the evolution of a number of other fundamental constants synchronously with the variation of the speed of light. (Summary: It only works if the speed of light is decreasing from the beginning. Galactic motion, Einstein Gravitation, & space-time expansion are ruled out.) 2011Speed of Light27
More Summary If c is decreasing, all evolutionary models are invalidated & all assumptions needed for evolution are proven false. – The basis for the evolution of stars & galaxies is disproved. – The basis for the evolution of heavy metals is disproved. – The Big Bang hypothesis is disproved. – The age of the universe is less than 10,000 BC. No implication of c decreasing contradicts any assertion of the Bible Red Shift Cosmology puts Earth (& man) near the center of the Creation. Neutrinos with mass (reported 1998) require c to be decreasing (& Planks Constant to be increasing). Ephemeris in atomic clocks, planets, & distant satellites are all consistent with c decreasing. 2011Speed of Light28
Direct Impacts on the Philosophy of Science Assuming that there is no God (& related dismissal of the truth of the Bible) prior to formulating hypotheses have led to false hypotheses & erroneous interpretations of data. – You may not assume that there is no God (His existence is not directly proved, but He is the most reasonable explanation) – Hypotheses must be formulated to allow for the existence of God and assumptions must avoid His exclusion. A more careful reading of the Bible might lead to more successful hypotheses and experiments (i.e., return to the way science was conducted in its foundation). 2011Speed of Light29 If these matters had been known to Charles Templeton, he probably would not have turned away from the ministry of the Gospel. He was deceived by the untrue & unrevealed assumptions of modern science.
Other Philosophical Issues Competing multiple Universe theories. – Foam: (multiple bubbles) on the ZPE ocean – Multiple universes in other dimensions – Universe of universes interconnected by Worm Holes – Inverted Black Holes, etc. Ultimate questions: – What is the source of the concept? (Pure imagination) – What evidence is there to support any of these speculations? (NONE) – What mathematics will support any concept? (NONE) – What connection is there to REALITY? (NONE) – What is the Scriptural Support? (NONE) 2011Speed of Light30