Zero Point EnergyBarry and Helen Setterfield May, 2024
To understand a problem that was cropping up in physics at the end of the nineteenth century, it is necessary to explain something about the colors we see. If you have on a red shirt, all the colors are being absorbed by that shirt except red, which is rejected, and so is what you see. In other words, the colors you see on objects are the colors the object 'doesn't want.' White bounces everything back and black absorbs everything. Well, that was the theory. Until the problem of black body radiation came up. Why did an absolutely black thing still radiate some kind of energy? Nothing that was done mathematically fit with with what they were seeing themselves. The data and the theory did not match. One of the people working on this was Max Planck. In 1901, he published a paper in which he introduced a 'fudge factor' he referred to as 'h.' Using 'h,' all the math worked well with what they were observing. Almost everyone was happy with that -- and, in fact, this first paper was the basis of later quantum mechanics. But Max Planck was not happy with it. You can't just stick some kind of fudge factor unknown quantity in and say "Look! It works!" What was 'h?' What did it represent? There had to be a reason for it. By 1911, he had figured it out. In this second paper, he identified 'h' as radiation intrinsic to space. Later, this came to be known as the Zero Point Energy. It was called that because in a complete vacuum which had been cooled to as close to absolute zero as we can get, that radiation still exists. Planck's second paper was largely ignored by physicists, who were so excited about the first paper. So, whereas the first paper gave rise to Quantum Electrodynamics, the second paper gave rise to Stochastic Electrodynamics, which is taditional physics with the addition of the Zero Point Energy. At this point, there were two possibilities for 'h.'
The evidence points to explanation #2. There is evidence of the Zero Point Energy (referred to as ZPE) throughout space.. It is not intrinsic to matter. Here is an artist's rendition of the ZPE waves:
The Zero Point Energy is made up of waves from all parts of the electromagetic spectrum, but the vast preponderance of waves are the very short ones, as indicated above. This is going to be very important. So where did the ZPE come from? If you recall, from the plasma and creation article, the vast majority of cosmologists agree there was an initial rapid expansion of matter in the early universe. Where did the energy for that expansion come from? There are a lot of theories, and some of them are pretty wild, but if we check the Bible, we will find that at least ten times God says HE stretched out the heavens. Remember, that was written thousands of years before science discovered what has come to be known as the Big Bang. God's word was already there.
Think about that stretching for a moment. If God was using the same laws of physics He established so we could learn from them, then we have a clue. If you stretch a rubber band, you use your kinetic (active) energy to invest it with potential energy. When you let that rubber band go, the potential energy quickly converts to the kinetic energy of movement. Try it yourself a couple of times and notice how quickly the potential energy converts to kinetic energy at the beginning and then slows down to a stop. This is regardless of gravity pulling it down. The conversion of potential to kinetic energy is extremely rapid at first and then peters out. If you look at the references on the net to find out how much energy is in the ZPE, you will find massive differences, from "very little" to "almost infinite. Barry's research unearthed the following:
The Zero Point Energy is responsible for the electromagnetic properties of space. The magnetic properties are referred to as the permeability of space and the electric properties are referred to as the permittivity of space. The existence of the Zero Point Energy has been confirmed many times. One of the most understandable ways is the Casimir Effect.
The Zero Point Energy is like a parent with several children -- things which it causes. Three will be discussed here: the speed of light, the redshift, and atomic behavior and radiometric dating. The Speed of Light Light is comprised of tiny bits called photons. A photon is a bit of energy that is released by an electron. When an electron is forced out of its proper place in respect to its nucleus by some incoming energy, it then snaps back into place. That snapping back releases the energy that forced it out in the first place. The energy is released as a photon of light.
When the speed of light is being referred to, it means the time it took for light between its creation by the electron and its final point of absorption. In 1987 a paper was published by Flinders University in Australia, which had been commissioned by the Stanford Research Institute. Barry Setterfield had been requested to write up what was referred to as a 'white paper' (which was meant for internal review only) regarding his research on the data indicating a change in the speed of light. When Flinders was informed "Did you know that fellow is a creationist?" they tried to retract the paper, but it had already been published. The paper, Atomic Constants, Light and Time, was highly praised by some and highly ridiculed by others. It needs to be noted that all the paper did was review the actual data from physics journals and which had been accepted and discussed in those journals. However, in 1941, Raymond Birge, of the University of California in Berkeley, had declared the speed of light to be a constant, regardless of contradicting data. A speed of light which was invariably constant was much easier to work with mathematically and fit Quantum Mechanics perfectly. Can the speed of light change? You can see it in your kitchen. Put a straw into a glass of water. The straw looks "broken" at the surface of the water. Light travels more slowly through a thicker medium.
What does this have to do with the ZPE? ZPE waves are all over, going in all directions and wavelengths at the same time. That means they can, and do, hit each other. With every hit, something interesting happens. Look at another picture first. When cross-current waves hit in the ocean, whitecaps form. They are short-lived and die down quickly.
When two ZPE waves hit, they form a pair of incredibly tiny virtual particles -- one positive and one negative. These virtual particles slam back together almost instantaneously. ALMOST. But while they exist, they each are capable of absorbing a photon of light. As they slam back together, the photons are released to go on their way -- until they hit another pair of virtual particles. The artist's rendition on the right shows the idea of these virual particles being formed. In 2013, research in physics showed the speed of light was dependent upon virtual particles (Marcel Urban, "The Quantum Vacuum as the Origin of the Speed of Light", European Physical Journal D, Jan 16, 2013). Going back to the rubber band stretching, the the conversion of potential to kinetic energy, please recall that the conversion would begin very quickly and then slow down. But it had to start with nothing, at the instant of release. The same would have applied to the universe. At the first instant, no Zero Point Energy, and thus, no virtual particles. But almost immediately that conversion would start. At first, with a very low ZPE, there would be very few virtual particles. As the ZPE increased, there would be more and more virual particles at any one time in any one area of space. The more virtual particles, the more often light photons would be absorbed and then released. So the initial speed of light would have been incredibly fast. Actually, the speed of light is still that fast -- in between virtual particles. But, like a runner going over hurdles, those hurdles slow down its arrival at its finish line -- its point of absorption. The fewer the hurdles, the faster the final speed; the more the hurdles, the slower the final speed.
How many virtual particles are there today? About 1050 per cubic centimeter. The speed of light slowed as impedance increased. At creation, the speed of light would have been about 3 billion times faster than it is now. The light from our quasar would have reached us in about 3.7 minutes. The entire Milky Way Galaxy would have been lit by the quasar in about fifteen minutes. (Today, it takes over eight minutes for the light from our sun to reach us.). Light has never gotten 'tired,' or 'old.' It has simply had to deal with a lot more hurdles. The Redshift Every element, when seen through a spectrscope, shows its own unique series of lines in the color spectrum.
It becomes very easy to know what element you are seeing because each set of lines, or bars, is unique to each element -- kind of like bar codes on things you buy. But the farther out in space we look (and thus the further back in time), these unique sets of lines shift more and more to the red ind of the spectrum.
The first thing we have learned from redshifts is that they can tell us how far an astronomical object is from us. They also tell us what that object is made of. And, since distance in space correlates to times past, we can figure about what time in the universe's age we are looking at. What is important to note is that the red end of the color spectrum involves longer and less energetic wavelengths, whereas the blue end involves shorter, more energetic wavelengths. There are currently two main explanations for the redshift: 1) that it is due to constant universe expansion, which stretches out the wavelengths, and 2) it is due to a visual Doppler effect. If stretching was the cause due to universe expansion, then the black lines would become wider. They don't. As can be seen above, they stay sharp and clear. So the idea of the wavelengths stretching out due to universal expansion does not offer a good explanation. What about the Doppler effect? For those who are not sure what that is, it is something you hear when a siren passes you. When the vehicle is approaching, the sound is high. As soon as it passes you, the sound lowers.
The same thing happens with light:
The letter used in equations to denote the redshift is 'z.' In a nearby galaxy, z is close to zero. In the early equations, the number 1 represented the speed of light, so z certainly could not be more than that. Until about 40 years ago, nothing higher than 1 had been measured. As we developed more powerful telescopes and, later, as we were able to send them into space, the redshift measurements left '1' far behind! Recently, the James Webb telescope measured a distant redshift of 16. When the equations were altered to use an Einsteinian correction, the redshifts were still approaching the speed of light at the far distant reaches of space. The following graph was published in Nature, in 2022.
What would happen to galaxies moving at close to the speed of light? "These high red shifts are not likely to be Doppler; how could so massive an object be accelerated to speeds close to the speed of light without complete disruption?" (Meisner, Thorne, and Wheeler in Gravitation, Freeman and Co. 1997) As you can see from these photos of those distant galaxies, no disruption is seen. Below is the galaxy cluster Abell 2218, about 13 billion light years away.
Redshift measurements have presented another problem: they go in jumps. Think of anything accelerating, such as a car. The speeds don't go up in jumps of five miles per hour; instead they ramp up smoothly. That is what was expected with the redshift measurements. That is not what was found. From 1976 onward, astronomer William Tifft, in charge of the Steward Observatory in Tucson, Arizona, started pubishing papers in peer-reviewed journals recording his discovery that the measurements he was getting for the redshifts were going in jumps -- they were not smoothly progressing. He was challenged by a number of other astronomers in the years that followed, but every one of them found the same thing. The redshift measurements were 'quantized.' They came is discrete clumps. Below is one of the graphs:
There is an explanation for this which we can demonstrate to ourselves at any time. Push a large piece of furniture. It resists movement until your force is too much, and then it jerks forward. Push more and it jerks forward again. (This is why we use rollers and such.) Atoms and molecules in space show the same resistence to force. We are seeing successive jerks to higher energy levels with the redshift measurements as they come closer to us -- they become bluer until they reach our 'earth standard.'. So there is a question to be asked -- instead of wondering why the redshift is getting redder, and thus indicating less energetic light emission at the edges of the universe, shouldn't we be wondering why it is getting more energetic, and thus bluer, as it comes closer in time/distance? In addition to each element having its own 'bar code' of light, the energy of the photon depends on the amount of energy released by the electron -- and that depends upon how much energy it took to move it out of its place originally. The bluer the light, the more energetic the light. The answer to this may well be the build-up of the Zero Point Energy through the first part of the universe's history. The rapid conversion of potential to kinetic energy and the responding changes in the energies of light emitted by the electrons would explain the very steep curve of the redshift measurements at the beginning. This would also explain why a redshift jump has been measured going right through the middle of a galaxy. If the cause of the redshift -- or rather the blue shifts coming toward us -- is an increasing energy from the ZPE, those jumps are explained, and it has nothing to do with the speed of the universe expanding or anything else. It has everything to do with atoms responding in jumps to increasing energy from the ZPE. Atomic Behavior and How it Relates to Radiometric Dating First, a little basic stuff about atoms. The most common representation, on the left, is called the Bohr model. It works well for explaining to students about the basics. The picture on the right, however, is considered a more accurate representation. Be that as it may, it is the Bohr model to keep in mind here, as it will help with understanding.
There are three parts to the atom. In the center, or nucleus, are the protons, which have a positive charge, and the neutrons, which don't have a charge. Surrounding the nucleus, but at quite a distance from it, are the negatively charged electrons. A normal, or neutral, atom, has as many electrons as protons, so the net charge of that atom is zero. The types of elements are determined only by the number of protons in the nucleus. If there is only one proton, it is hydrogen. Two make helium. Eight make oxygen. Twenty make calcium. Until we get to calcium, the number of neutrons and the number of protons in the nucleus is usually the same (some slight differences in the numbers of neutrons can occur). However, once we get past calcium, the humber of neutrons becomes more than the number of protons. As we get to the heavy elements, such as platinum, there are 78 protons in the nucleus and 117 neutrons in the middle. Because the protons are all positive, and positive charges repel each other, the neutrons help keep the nucleus together (the spin of the protons also counts here). One of the most basic questions which must be asked is, if the nucleus is positively charged, and the circling electrons are negatively charged, and opposite charges attract, why don't the electrons spin into the nucleus. If they did that, all of creation would disappear in a flash. So what is keeping the electrons out there? In 1987, in Physics Review D 35:10, Hal Putoff presented the answer: the Zero Point Energy keeps investing the electrons with the energy they need to stay in place around the nucleus. In his words, "Without the ZPE, every atom in the universe would undergo instantaneous collapse." That's the first effect of the Zero Point Energy. The second has to do with the mass of these subatomic particles. The electron is so small (it takes 1840 electrons to equal a proton, which is still way too small to see even with an electron microscope) that it is considered simply a charge -- a negative charge. Some definitions say they are tiny negatively charged particles, but they have no mass. Yet we can measure their mass. Their mass is defined by their total energy. So how do you measure that? Since they are negatively charged, passing them through a magnetic field will give us a lot of information. Below is a simplified illustration.
The more the electron deviates, or bends, the less mass (energy) it has. This can be seen by where it hits on a fluorescent screen. Proton mass can be measured the same way. We have been able to measure the changes in the deflections for the last hundred years. Electrons have been gaining mass. One simple, but incomplete, explanation comes up quickly on the net: electrons gain mass as they gain momentum. Why? That part is not answered. The answer is, again, however, the ZPE. The faster an electron moves, the more ZPE waves it impacts, picking up energy from them. This leads to the logical conclusion that, if the ZPE were lower, then subatomic particle masses would be less. The more the ZPE makes them jiggle, the more mass they have. Remember that the vast majority of ZPE waves are the smallest, so that can produce a lot of changes through time in the mass of subatomic particles. How does this connect with radiometric dating? First of all, what is radiometric dating? If you recall, it was mentioned that some elements are quite heavy, in terms of how many protons and neutrons are in the middle. These are also jiggling around. Uranium, for example, has 92 protons and 146 neutrons in its nucleuss. That is an enormous atomic weight of 238. Uranium, as do some other heavy elements, shoots off bits of itself occasionally. Since the number of protons determines what it is, when one or more protons are released, it is no longer uranium. It goes throughy several states until it only has 82 protons in the nucleus, which defines it as lead. The amount of time it takes for one-half of the uranium atoms in a rock to decay into lead is called the half-life. Then it takes just as long -- another half-life -- for half the remaining uranium atoms to decay into lead. Then it takes another half-life for half of that remaining uranium to decay into lead.
The current half-life of uranium is considered to be about 4.5 billion years. That means, if we find a rock that is half uranium (the 'mother' element) and half the type of lead it decays into (the 'daughter' element), we presume the rock is about 4.5 billion years old. That works fine, assuming the rate of decay -- the length of the half-lives -- has been constant through time. However, we do know the Zero Point Energy has affected all subatomic particles, causing them to gain mass through time. Just like with us, the heavier something is, the more slowly it tends to move. As you will see below, we can coordinate the redshift data with the atomic time data and the ZPE data and we get the following three graphs.
The coordinate completely. Atomic rates were incredibly faster in the beginning, and therefore so were radiometric half-lives.
The increasing Zero Point Energy impacted all subatomic particles, causing more 'jiggle.' This jiggle energy increased their mass, so that atomic processes slowed down accordingly. Atomic processes HAVE slowed; atomic speeds have changed through time. The lower the ZPE, the faster the atomic processes; the higher the ZPE, the slower the atomic processes. the Zero Point Energy is the inhibiting factor for atomic processes and electromagnetic interactions. When the information about plasma and the information about the Zero Point Energy is all put together and the mathematics done, the following emerges:
The following illustration was made by Rinus Kiel to show the effects of the Zero Point Energy
Radiometric dating must take this into account. When it does, the dates end up matching very well with what the Bible says. There is only one more question left to ask: why should we have been so surprised, or shocked, to find that actual science completely lines up with what the Bible says?
|
ergs (or 
joules) per cubic centimeter. However, because of its theoretical mode of origin on the Quantum Electrodynamic approach, it has been stated that: “Formally, physicists attribute an infinite amount of energy to this [the ZPE] background.” [17] This meant the QED approach cannot mathematically integrate the ZPE in their equations. In contrast, work by SED physicists indicates there is an upper limit for the ZPE strength at about 
ergs (
Joules) per cubic centimeter. This is imposed by the Planck length cutoff as well as other factors. Paul Davies put the estimate slightly higher at “about 
joules per cubic centimeter.” The existence of the Planck length cutoff gave QED physicists a reason to accept the ZPE as a reality rather than just a virtual entity. 
watts, (that is to say about 3,800,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts). In our galaxy there may be as many as 200 billion stars. If their average radiation is about the same intensity as our sun, then the amount of energy expended by our entire galaxy of stars shining for 10 billion years is less than the energy locked up in one cubic centimeter of space. There aren’t enough zeroes for that here, but it shows that the 'physical vacuum' is not just an “empty nothingness.” [Setterfield, Cosmology and the Zero Point Energy, Natural Philosophy Alliance, 2013, pp 34-35]
