Tuppence wrote:
Here is a little raw data for you: The three measurements of the atomic constants listed are from 1969, 1980, and 2002, in that order. The trend is then listed as up or down. I think you will find that there have been changes!
COMMITTEE ON DATA FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
(CODATA) RECOMMENDED VALUES
The figures in parenthesis are error values as per the last digit(s) in the measurement
Planck’s Constant
x 10-34 Joule-seconds
6.626196 (50)
6.6260755 (40)
6.6260693 (11)
Two problems: Firstly, those are NOT raw data. Those are recommended values at different times encompassing experimental results up to those times. That is, the later values take into account data used in earlier recommendations as well as data from after the earlier recommendations. The analysis assumes constancy of Planck's Constant over time. If that assumption of constancy is in error, then the actual recommended values are without basis.) If the trend in recommended values is real (it's pretty small, if it is real) it might at most suggest a time-variation of Planck's Constant.
More amusing, though, is combining this apparent "trend" in Planck's constant with any trend in the speed of light over the same period. Setterfield claims that although h and c vary with time, their produ
t is strictly constant over time.
Now if we take these data for Planck's constant we find a relative decrease of about 2 parts in 100,000. If the product hc has been constant over this time interval, then we would have expected to observe (since the precision of c-measurements is much greater than this) a relative increase in c of approximately similar magnitude. That is, we should have seen a change in c of about 6 km/sec. We havent.