jaycwru

I was thinking about the Setterfield c decay. He claims that radioactive decay rates have c in the denominator. I was doing a little math to see how that affects decay.

This is the normal model.
y'=ky

And the Setterfield model should look something like:
y'=k*C/c(t)*y
or
y'=k*C/a*exp(b*t)*y
Where c(t) = a*exp(-b*t), and above C (in CAPS) is today's accepted value of the speed of light.

The solution to this is:
y=exp(exp(b*x)*(k*C)/(a*b))

Sorry if that looks like a mess, but I'm trying to keep track of the constants so I can make substitutions easy later.

The problem I've ran into is finding Setterfield's model. I seem to remember it being an exponential decay (seems it would have to be to explain a "seemingly" constant c now, and yet a huge change over 6 ky or something like that.

I'd guess with the two exponentials, that you'd wind up with dates looking like they were way too young for a 6 ky old world. This would be quite ironic, since creationists would have to do a 180, and now argue that decay rates were SLOWER in the past.

I've looked on Setterfield's website (do a google search on Setterfield to find it,) but its crap, and I'm losing interest just by reading it.

If anyone cares to check the numbers out, and do a little (should be simple now), math to finish this out, I'd be curious to see what the result is.

Also if you see any big errors, mention that as well.

[edit - spelling goof]

[ August 19, 2002: Message edited by: jaycwru ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

Could we have some context here?

What are y' and y? You did not say. Your post is like starting to read a novel at the middle.

Doing some thinking, I guess you mean that y is the number of radioactive atoms and y' is its time derivative (i.e. rate of decay).

If my interpretion of what you say is correct, would not this new equation for "radioactive decay" not produce isochrons? Would this alone disprove that.

lpetrich

I am familiar with this subject, and I know that he's dead wrong.

One can derive the alpha-decay rate using pure Newtonian quantum mechanics -- relativistic effects are not very big for it. The same is true for spotaneous fission; however, beta and gamma decays depend on more complicated power laws of c.

Furthermore, if c changes, what does it change relative to?

jaycwru

Sorry about the confusion. I was thinking about it for too long, so everything seemed familar to me.

y' is the rate at which an isotope decays. y is the remaining amount of an isotope in a sample.

The current model, as I understand it, states that the rate radioactive decay is proportional to a decay constant and the amount of remaining isotope in a sample hence:
y'=ky

The solution to this model is:
y = C*exp(kt) where C is the initial amount of the isotope present.

If you consider y as a percentage remaining of the initial amount it reduces to
y=exp(kt)

Setterfield claims to solve the old age problem associated with radiometric dating with his model of c decay. The model itself is most certainly wrong, but it seems to be easier to demonstrate a ridiculous implication rather than defeat the model itself.

He claims that k in the below equations is inversely proportional to c. For a variable c:
k(t) = K*C/c(t)
where the values in caps are the current accepted values, and c(t) is the speed of light t years since "creation."

The mathematical problem I see is that this changes the form of the solution entirely. He is introducing time into the original simple first order ODE.

Now:
y' = f(t)*y instead of k*y.

The solution to one such f(t) - an exponential model, is in my earlier post. I suspect that this change will radically change the age of the Earth rather than have the linear affect he is predicting. The problem is that I've not been able to find his formula for the speed of light as a function of time.

I am not certain what effect this would have on isochrons, but from my basic understanding of isochron dating, I would suspect that it may. I definately like the idea though, since it could make it unnecesary to know the coefficients in Setterfield's c(t) model, and perhaps the equation itself.

Hope that clears things up a bit, thanks for the input!

jaycwru

Excuse the shotgun posting...

Unfortunately there's a double standard in cre/evo debates. You've gotta kill their theories, yet accepted theories are always subject to ridiculous standards. Your response (ultimately correct IMO) won't convince them. Its not fair, but whats the point of arguing with them at all if you aren't going to convince them?

Your last question is interesting. Setterfield finds himself redefining so many variables. Sooner or later he'll find dc/dt = dt/dt or some stupid shit like that.