ATOMIC CONSTANTS

Setterfield: A question has been asked about the behaviour of the energy E of emitted
photons of wavelength W and frequency f during their transit across space. The
key formulae involved are E = hf = hc/W. The following discussion concentrates
on the behaviour of individual terms in these equations.

If c (the speed of light) does indeed vary, inevitably some atomic constants must change, but
which? Our theories should be governed by the observational evidence. This
evidence has been supplied by 20th century physics and astronomy. One key
observation that directs the discussion was noted by R. T. Birge in Nature
134:771, 1934. At that time c was measured as declining, but there were no
changes noted in the wavelengths of light in apparatus that should detect it.
Birge commented: "If the value of c is actually changing with time, but the
value of [wavelength] in terms of the standard metre shows no corresponding
change, then it necessarily follows that the value of every atomic
frequencyÉmust be changing." This follows since light speed, c, equals
frequency, f, multiplied by wavelength W. That is to say c = fW. If
wavelengths W are unchanged in this process, then frequencies f must be
proportional to c.

Since atomic frequencies govern the rate at which atomic clocks tick,
this result effectively means that atomic clocks tick in time with c. By
contrast, orbital clocks tick at a constant rate. J. Kovalevsky noted the
logical consequence of this situation in Metrologia Vol. 1, No. 4, 1965. He
stated that if the two clock rates were different "then Planck's constant as
well as atomic frequencies would drift." The observational evidence suggests
that these two clocks do indeed run at different rates, and that Planck's
constant is also changing. The evidence concerning clock rates comes from the
work of T. C. Van Flandern, then of the US Naval Observatory in Washington. He
had examined lunar and planetary orbital periods and compared them with atomic
clocks data for the period 1955-1981. Assessing the data in 1984, he noted the
enigma in Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants II, NBS Special
Publication 617, pp. 625-627. In that National Bureau of Standards
publication, Van Flandern stated "the number of atomic seconds in a dynamical
interval is becoming fewer. Presumably, if the result has any generality to
it, this means that atomic phenomena are slowing down with respect to
dynamical phenomena."

To back up this proposition, Planck's constant, h, has been measured as
increasing throughout 20th century. In all, there are 45 determinations by 8
methods. When the data were presented to a scientific journal, one Reviewer
who favoured constant quantities noted, "Instrumental resolution may in part
explain the trend in the figures, but I admit that such an explanation does
not appear to be quantitatively adequate." Additional data came from
experiments by Bahcall and Salpeter, Baum and Florentin-Nielsen, as well as
Solheim et al. They have each proved that the quantity 'hc' or Planck's
constant multiplied by light-speed is in fact a constant astronomically. There
is only one conclusion that can be drawn that is in accord with all these
data. Since c has been measured as decreasing, and h has been measured as
increasing during the same period, and hc is in fact constant, then h must
vary precisely as 1/c at all times. This result also agrees with the
conclusions reached by Birge and Kovalevsky.

From this observational evidence, it follows in the original equation E
= hf = hc/W, that since f is proportional to c, and h is proportional to 1/c,
then photon energies in transit are unchanged from the moment of emission.
This also follows in the second half of the equation since hc is invariant,
and W is also unchanged according to observation. Thus, if each photon is
considered to be made up of a wave-train, the number of waves in that
wave-train remains unchanged during transit, as does the wavelength. However,
since the wave-train is travelling more slowly as c drops, the number of
wave-crests passing a given point per unit time is fewer, proportional to c.
Since the frequency of a wave is also defined as the number of crests passing
a given point, this means that frequency is also proportional to c with no
changes in the wave structure of the photon at all. Furthermore, the photon
energy is unchanged in transit.

Variation by location?

Question: Please bear with me once more as I
attempt to come up to speed here. If the values of fundamental "constants"
vary with location in the universe it implies that there are preferred
reference frames. That is, a physicist could determine some absolute position
relative to some origin because the "constants" vary as a function of
position. If the "universal constants" are different at the position of
supernova 1987A, for example, then the physics is different and an observer in
that frame should be able to determine that he is in a unique position
relative to any other frame of reference and vice-versa.

Are there observables to show this
effect or are transformations proposed that make the physics invariant even
with changing "constants?

Setterfield: It is incorrect to say that the values of the
fundamental constants vary with LOCATION in the cosmos. The cDK proposition
maintains that at any INSTANT OF TIME, right throughout the whole cosmos, the
value of any given atomic constant including light-speed, c, will be the same.
There is thus no variation in the atomic constants with LOCATION in the
universe. As a consequence there can be no preferred frame of reference. What
we DO have is a variation of the atomic constants over TIME throughout the
cosmos, but not LOCATION.

Because we look back in TIME as we probe deeper into
space, we are seeing light emitted at progressively earlier epochs. The
progressively increasing redshift of that light, as we look back in TIME,
bears information on the value of some atomic constants and c in a way
discussed in the forthcoming redshift paper. So Yes! there is a whole suite of
data that can be used to back up this contention. I trust that clarifies the
issue for you somewhat.

Variable Constants

Comment: I enjoyed reading your paper on the A/M subject and would highly appreciate your comments on the following remarks

Mass can be expressed as m3. s-2 (volumetric acceleration) in the LT system of units therefore G (the gravitational constant) is a dimensionless ratio of volumetric accelerations.

Dimensionless ratios at least in general, are variable (entropy, R gas constant, etc) now if we accept as a matter of principle that G varies with time wouldn't this explain the cosmological observations you mentioned in your paper, what if G is a periodical ratio with extremely long period wouldn't this make the universe a more understandable place.

Setterfield: Thank you for your note. Yes, your suggestion of a change in gravitational constant does potentially answer some of the data that we are getting from outer space and earth as well. However, all told, there are five anomalies which require explanation:

The measured increase in Planck’s constant

The measured decrease in the speed of light

The measured increase in atomic masses

The slowing of atomic clocks compared to gravitational phenomena

The redshift and its quantization

As far as I am aware, there is only one parameter which links all five anomalies, and that is an increase in the strength of the Zero Point Energy with time. The increase in the ZPE with time accounts for observed anomalies with mass and gravitation in a way which varying gravitation itself does not – at least not that I have seen formulated in any theory. Milgrom has proposed a mechanism to account for the flat rotation curves of galaxies by changing gravitational acceleration in a certain way. This overcomes the problem of missing mass in a very helpful manner. However, the discrepant phenomena which induced Milgrom’s solution has a different solution in ZPE theory, and one which is just as viable. You might be interested in Zero Point Energy and Relativity.

In summary, then, while variation in G may explain some phenomena, such as the mass (#3) and time (#4), this leaves the others unexplained still. Thank you for pointing out the behavior of G as a dimensionless ratio of volumetric accelerations. I find this a helpful suggestion which I will be keeping in mind.

Changing ratios?

Question:Someone asked me last night if the “fine tuning” of the universe is an issue with light slowing down since creation. Since one of the finely tuned “constants” is the speed of light. From what I understand so far, there are ratios that are held constant because ultimately Energy is conserved in the Universe. So if E = hc/lamda. h = planck’s constant c = speed of light, E = Energy of a photon and lamda= wavelength of the frequency associated with its electromagnetic wave. But, with ZPE increasing over time does that change the ratios?

Setterfield: The question relating to the fine tuning of the universe is not really relevent as far as the Zero Point Energy and the speed of light is concerned. What we have is a set of mutually cancelling constants whose product or ratio remains fixed no matter what the ZPE does in the universe, and no matter how the speed of light behaves. Thus the product of Planck's constant, h, and the speed of light, c, remain a fixed quantity no matter how the ZPE behaves. That is, hc is invariant. In a similar way, since atomic masses, m, are proportional to 1/c2, the product mc2 will always be a constant, and so energy will be conserved.

In the specific case of E = hc/lamda = hf, then we have planck's constant, h, proportional to ZPE strength, c inversely proportional to ZPE strength, and frequencies, f, inversely proportional to ZPE strength. Therefore, hf is a constant; hc is a constant, and wavelengths, lamda, remain unchanged as the ZPE varies. One additional point needs mentioning here. Wavelengths in transit through space will remaion constant, but emitted wavelengths from atomic transitions were longer when the ZPE was lower because the ZPE strength determines the energy of atomic orbits. It is for this reason that we get the redshift of light from distant galaxies. Therefore, the idea of the "fine tuning of the constants" turns out to be something of a misunderstanding of what is happening.