C-decay

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The correct title of this article is c-decay. The initial letter is shown capitalized due to technical restrictions.

c-decay refers to a Young Earth Creationist proposal that the speed of light has been changing through time. By carefully selecting the decay rate, one can construct a universe that is billions of light years across, yet objects at these long distances are still visible even though the universe would be only a few thousand years old. It is an alternate to the Omphalos argument, which argues that the universe was created with the light already "in-flight", to the same end. Neither theory is widely accepted, even within the creationist community.

1 History
2 Criticism
3 References
4 See also
5 External links

[edit] History

The concept was first proposed by Barry Setterfield in 1981 in an article for the Australian creationist magazine, Ex Nihilo. He selected a number of historical measurements of $c$ starting with the original measurement by Ole Rømer in 1667, and proceeding through a series of more recent experiments, culminating in "modern" measures in the 1960s. These showed a decreasing speed over time, which Setterfield claimed was in fact an exponential decay series that implied an infinite speed in the not distant past. The claim was later expanded to cover an apparent similar decay of several other physical constants.^[1] Similar charts have since been displayed in a number of creationist works.

Setterfield argues that this resolves the so-called "starlight problem". As Setterfield's original suggestion in Ex Nihilo notes, "If you propose that the universe and all in it is the product of an act of creation only 6-7000 years ago, many people ask - 'How is it that objects millions of light years away can be seen? Surely such light would take millions of years to reach us." If c is a constant, as is widely accepted, then this implies the universe is billions of years old due to the fact that we can see objects billions of light years away. However, if the speed was significantly faster in the past, as Setterfield argues, then the light would have traveled most of this distance in a short time. Setterfield proposes this as an alternative to mainstream physical cosmology and, as such, c-decay represents a unique creationist cosmology.

[edit] Criticism

There are any number of problems with this claim, from the obvious to the subtle. One of the more obvious ones simply invokes Einstein's famous formula, $E = m c 2$ : If Setterfield is correct and the value of $c$ was much larger in the past, the energy released in chemical reactions would be much higher during this early epoch. When confronted with this argument, Setterfield claimed that the value of Planck constant was increasing to offset this effect. This would have equally noticeable effects on the universe, which are likewise unseen. In a more general sense, $c$ is so "ingrained" into basic physics that any macroscopic change would be likely to result in the universe not being able to exist in its current form at all. No convincing argument covering these issues has been proposed.

Further, all modern measurements agree to a value that precludes the decay. In Setterfield's report he introduced a "cutoff date beyond which there is a zero rate of change", apparently to address this issue, making the theory unfalsifiable by new observations of $c$ . Further, he claims that the speed was also fixed for some time in this early epoch, apparently to avoid an infinite speed, but offers no strong argument why this would be. So the claim is that the speed was fixed at the beginning of time, is again today, but was decreasing measurably in an arbitrarily selected period between the two.

Just as worrying at a fundamental level is the apparent "cherry picking" of the data in order to fit the original curve. Many experiments measuring the speed of light, some of them famous, were left out of his analysis. When these are included the graph becomes much more "flat". Even when one considers only the quoted experiments, Setterfield left out a number of measurements when attempting to illustrate the statistical accuracy of his claim. When these three points are added back into the set, the decay disappears. More recent versions of Setterfield's paper include these figures, using adjusted mathematics to rebuild the curve. These mathematics have been the object of ridicule.^[2]

Moreover, Setterfield's argument is most highly dependent on Rømer's original measurement, which is the outlier that defines the curve. His measure was copied from an issue of Sky and Telescope which he stated said the speed of light was "301,300 plus or minus 200 km/sec", about 0.5% above the current value. The article was actually an excerpt from The Astronomical Journal ^[3], which disagrees completely, and in fact states quite clearly that "The best fit occurs at zero where the light travel time is identical to the currently accepted value value."^[4] In other words Setterfield's own set of experiments directly contradict his claims.

Observations taken since the concept was first proposed also invalidate the claim. In particular, measurements of the "light echo" from SN1987A show that the speed of light when the supernova occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago was within measurable accuracy of the figure today.^[5] This argument is subtle, but being based entirely on geometry its result is not effected by changes to any physical constant. If the speed of light has not changed, SN1987A is about 168,000 light years from Earth. This matches quite well with other distance measurements using different methodologies, which suggests that these measurements are "correct" and the speed of light has not changed significantly. This also implies that the light took 168,000 years to reach us. If the speed of light were faster in the past, the observations would require SN1987A to be further away by an equal amount – the overall travel time would remain the same. There appears to be no obvious way "around" this measurement, the universe is old under any possible interpretation, and the simplest of those suggests the speed has simply not changed.

There is no support for c-decay in the mainstream scientific community and, in fact, little support for it in the creationist community, including the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). Answers in Genesis (AiG), a leading creationist organization, says that this proposal has a number of problems that have not been satisfactorily answered. AiG currently prefers Dr. Russell Humphreys’ explanation for distant starlight.