Science in Christian Perspective
Is Steady-State Cosmology Really Dead?*
OWEN GINGERICH
Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
From: JASA 24 (March 1972): 8-10.
Independence for Cosmologists
Astronomers from all over the world converged on Brighton, England, in August
1970 for the triennial Congress of the International Astronomical
Union (IAU).
There they shared the latest data on pulsars and quasars, named the formations
on the far side of the moon, and resolved to call 1973 the
"Copernican Year."
Scarcely noticed among the multiplicity of lectures, symposia and overlapping
commission meetings was a battle about whether to create still
another commission,
one on cosmology.
Traditionally, the cosmologists worked within the commission on galaxies. This
happened because when the study of cosmology first became popular in
the 1930's,
the galaxies provided virtually the only information about the
large-scale structure
of the universe. The hoped-for answers to questions about the
curvature of space,
the extent or finiteness of the universe, and the time scale since
creation, lay
with the distant nebulae and the red shifts of their spectra.
But the last decade has brought an abrupt trans
formation in the observational base of cosmology. The field, which
had been straight-jacketed
by ever-ambiguous data, suddenly gained new vigor with the discovery
of the quasars
and the socalled 3-degree background radiation. For these reasons the
cosmologists
in the IAU grew restive within the unit on galaxies and sought a commission of
their own. Several astronomers fought the new division simply because
IAU members
can participate officially in only three of the Union's many
commissions and yet
another group made it more difficult to keep their fingers in a
variety of interests.
Nevertheless, the ultimate formation of the cosmology commission
accurately reflected
the new diversification in the data on which cosmological systems rest.
New Data
Dennis Sciama, a one-time steady-state cosmologist, has described his
own reaction
to the new flow of data:
I have often wondered what it must have been like to be a nuclear physicist in the early 1930's, particularly in 1932-that annus mirabilis which saw the discovery of the neutron and the positron and the first splitting of the nucleus by artificially accelerated particles. Now I think I know. As a cosmologist I have seen in the 19611's a similar stream of discoveries following one another at an almost indecent rate.1
The first of the unexpected new phenomena were the quasi-stellar radio objects
or quasars. Discovered at Palomar in 1960, they posed such an enigma
that no formal
account appeared in print until 1963. The quasars emitted strong
radio radiation,
but unlike the majority of radio sources, they appeared star-like on
photographic
plates. Their spectra exhibited a puzzling pattern of emission lines.
These spectral
features were at last deciphered as enormously redshifted lines normally found
in the far ultraviolet spectra. In a sense this discovery only
deepened the mystery.
Interpreted as Doppler shifts, the displaced spectral lines indicated
velocities
approaching the speed of light; assuming they fit the same red-shift-distance
relation of the galaxies, then their distances have to be immense. From this it
followed that their luminosities must be incredibly large in order to he seen
so well at such great distances.
Standing alone, the quasars seemed too contradictory and
unsatisfactorily explained
to give any direction in cosmology; yet astronomers quickly recognized that if
they really were at immense distances (and hence represented the universe as it
appeared in a far-gone epoch), the homogeneity in space and time
required by one
of the two main rival cosmologies, the steadystate theory, was lacking.
Big Bang vs. Steady State
Readers will recall that, in the absence of decisive data, the 195O's
had brought
acrimonious disputes between the partisans of the "big bang" theory
(which pictured a universe expanding from a super dense state at some definite
past epoch) and the "steadystate" theory (which postulated a universe
uniform and infinite in time as well as space). Perhaps the best known of the
steady-statists was Fred Hoyle of Cambridge University, whose
widely-read paperbacks
publicized his cosmological view that the universe had existed in the same form
forever. Hoyle's openly avowed atheism did not endear him to religions-minded
astronomers, who, nourished by the writings of Eddingtnn and Mime, intuitively
trusted the "big bang" cosmology with its longpast moment
of creation.
During the 1960's the radio astronomer, Sir Martin Ryle, Fred Hoyle's archrival
at Cambridge, had already claimed other evidence for an absence of
the homogeneity
in distant space requisite for the steady-state cosmology. Ryle based his view
on a statistical analysis of the faint radio sources he was
observing. The strong
radio sources appeared comparatively more numerous at great distances and hence
in earlier epochs galaxies radiated more actively in radio
wavelengths. The ensuing
controversy, of the sort that English dons seem to wage with more
enthusiasm than
American professors, led to bitter claims and fierce rebuttals in the English
press and to wry remarks about "pouring Hoyle on Ryled waters."
Undoubtedly the increasing strength of Ryle's observations would have
ultimately
proved persuasive by themselves, but before they did, a second un-an
ticipated new phenomenon turned up. At the Bell Telephone
Laboratories, and almost
simultaneously at Princeton University, weak cosmic radio radiation,
corresponding
to a blackbody temperature of 3°K, was found coming from all
directions. The
most elementary interpretation of this 3° background radiation explained it
as the far red-shifted remnants of the primeval fireball from which
the universe
began its (roughly) 15 billion-year expansion.
Faced with these new data Fred Hoyle finally renounced his
steady-state cosmology
in a nowfamous capitulation published in Nature.2 As an alternative,
he proposed
that the universe might go through an unending series of
oscillations, expansion
followed by contraction like a perfectly elastic bouncing ball.
But more recently, Hoyle has remarked in a televised interview that
the steady-state
theory has never been more alive or vital.
Can the steady-state cosmology be revived? In order to gain more insight into
this possibility I took advantage of a recent visit to England to ask several
investigators for an opinion on the current state of cosmology. Unfortunately
Hoyle himself was on sabbatical leave from his Institute of
Theoretical Astrophysics
(IOTA) in Cambridge, but I soon gathered from his colleagues that no
very serious
effort to save the steady-state theory was underway there. "Of course Fred
has a basic commitment to the theory," I was told. "He has
been working
with fluctuations in a steady-state model, and he can always make it
work if the
fluctuation is the size of the observable universe! But so far there has been
no acceptable alternative explanation to the 3° radiation."
The Background Radiation
Attempts to explain the background radiation in some other fashion
have exploited
the fact that it has been observed at comparatively few wavelengths. Thus the
detailed shape of the microwave radiation curve is not yet known, and
it can only
be hypothesized that the radiation follows a smooth black-body relation. Given
the proper chemical composition of interstellar grains, they could
emit selectively
at just the observed wavelengths, producing an apparent but spurious black-body
curve. The trouble with this scheme is that whenever observations
become available
at another wavelength, the proposed composition of the grains must be revised
to a still more esoteric form. Not only are the observations available at comparatively
few wavelengths, but it is only conjecture that the curve turns downward at the
proper longer wavelengths. In fact, some recent measurements made by a group at
M.I.T. indicates that the curve does not turn hack down as
anticipated for 3°K
black-body radiation, but these experiments are disputed by other
investigators.
Although most astronomers specializing in this area discredit the
M.I.T. results,
those measurements sustain lingering doubts that all may not be well with the
present explanation of the background radiation.
Quasars
The interpretation of the quasars is even more controversial. Some astronomers
maintain that the quasars are relatively nearby high-velocity ejecta from the
nucleus of our own Milky Way galaxy. This view avoids the difficulty
of the fantastic
intrinsic luminosity that quasars must have if they are at great distances, but
it fails to explain how an explosion in the center of our galaxy could yield so
much kinetic energy. Most astronomers consider this a fatal objection
to the "local"
interpretation of quasars.
The fact that some quasars exhibit simultaneously several patterns of spectral
absorption lines, with multiple red shifts, provides a serious challenge to the
simple red-shift-distance interpretation. At the very least, some
additional physical
mechanism must be involved. Equally puzzling is the result of
Geoffrey and Margaret
Burbinige, still debated, that the quasars exhibit a marked propensity to have
a set of absorption lines at a specific red shift of 1957, a
phenomenon that would
not be expected if the red-shifts indicate distance and if the
quasars were somewhat
randomly distributed in distance. C. Burbidge and Hoyle have also
shown that when
the red shift is plotted versus apparent magnitude, there is a great
deal of scatter,
in contrast to a similar diagram for faint galaxies. In their
opinion, this scatter
argues against any simple redshift-distance relation3.
In spite of the fact that the puzzling pieces of data about quasars don't all
fit into place, most astronomers agree that they are at immense or
"cosmological"
distances simply because the resulting picture is comparatively tidy.
As Palomar's
Alan Sandage has pointed out, the quasars seem to fit at the end of a
smooth sequence
that goes from distant ordinary galaxies through galaxies with
peculiarly bright
and active nuclei (including the so-caller! Seyfert galaxies) and
through a class
of radio sources linked with faint galaxies. The fact that lIovIe and Burbidge
have found a scatter diagram its the graph of red shifts versus magnitudes for
quasars can merely mean that quasars, like stars, have different
intrinsic luminosity
classes, and the multiple absorption-line red shifts could result
from the absorption
by material between us and the more distant quasars.
As the astrophysicist Philip Morrison reminds us, it is the duty of scientists
to make sense out of the universe and this must he done by searching for unity
rather than disparity in the interpretation of phenomena, Certainly at present
the most unified vies' of the cosmos places the quasars at immense
distances from
our own galaxy, and on a sequence with other galaxies and radio
sources. But such
an interpretation is automatically an evolutionary picture that rules
out a steady-state
cosmology, for it concentrates the quasars at a remote bygone epoch
when the universe
was far different than it is now.
Oort's Explanation
An ingenious and coherent explanation for the distant concentration of quasars
and radio sources has recently been outlined by the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort.4
His argument exploits the fact that within a Big-Bang cosmology,
increasing distances
reveal the universe at increasingly younger stages in its
development. Oort notes
that whereas the population density of radio sources was hundreds of
times greater
when
the universe was only 20% of its present age, the numbers then drop
off very rapidly
for still greater distances and younger times. In fact, not a single
radio source
has been found at a distance greater than that corresponding to 13%
of the present
age of the universe. Only at an age of about 20% had the universe
expanded sufficiently
for the density to allow the formation of the rotating spiral
galaxies, Oort believes,
and hence in this period an immense concentration of galaxy births
occurred. Associated
with the birth trauma of the spirals, he hypothesizes, was an
intense, explosive
activity in the galactic nuclei that reveals itself as quasars and other radio
sources.
It is the duty of scientists to make sense out of the universe and this must he done by searching for unity rather than disparity in the interpretation of phenomena.
Oort also remarks on the most interesting fact that the universe apparently has
just enough energy to keep expanding forever, but not much excess. He goes on
to say that if it had much less energy than this, it would have
quickly collapsed
again, thus not giving time for the evolution of intelligent life, whereas if
it had had much more energy, the density would have dropped so
rapidly that galaxy
formation might not have occurred. The single argument of this kind is not by
itself so impressive, but I recall another passage of the same genre
in the last
chapter of Hoyle's hook Nuclei, Galaxies and Quasars. There he remarks that if
the nuclear energy levels of oxygen were only slightly different with respect
to carbon, the formation of oxygen would have been greatly enhanced
at the expense
of carbon, so that carbon would have been so rare that life could not
have formed.
Another considerably more famous phenomenon of the same sort concerns
the uniqueness
of water, carefully explained in Henderson's hook on The Fitness of
the Environment.
Personalities at Cambridge
Soon after I arrived in Cambridge, England, I encountered Martin Rees, one of
the IOTA staff members. In a recent Scientific American article he and Joseph
Silk had addressed themselves to the formation of galaxies5; although
their main
arguments were embedded within the framework of an evolutionary universe, they
included a rather weak claim that the ideas might also work in a steady-state
situation. I chided Rees for trying to have it both ways, and he conceded that
the steady-state theory looked moribund. He added however, " I try not to
have any beliefs on cosmological theories. I want to be open
minded and prepared to accept evidence for any of them."
Dennis Sciama, who had joined our discussion, countered Rees'
position: "You
can try to be neutral, but you have to make a commitment for what you
are willing
to do. I won't spend any more time working on the steady-state cosmology', and
so for me personally steady-state is dead." Others with whom I
spoke agreed
that few cosmologists were spending time on the steadystate theory
these days.
One of the most penetrating thinkers I met was W. H. McCrea, Research Professor at Sussex University, who has not
only accepted
the big-hang cosmology, but has worked out a philosophy about why it
is the sort
of universe we view. His "A Philosophy for BigBang Cosmology" printed
in 1970 in Nature6 presents a stimulating analysis. McCrea points out that in
spite of the simplifing assumptions underlying the cosmology of the
expanding universe,
it is, "self-consistent in so many unexpected ways that it can scarcely be
illusory." As McCrea sees it, increasingly sophisticated
theorems show that
many of the observed properties of the universe (e.g., its particular chemical
composition, its expansion, its isotropy) will arrive almost independently of
the particular conditions of its origin; conversely, observations on
these features
will reveal comparatively little about the initial circumstances.
MeCrea's philosophy is in part an answer to the unsparing
anti-cosmological criticism
unleashed by Gerard de Vancouleurs in 1970 in Science.7 The Texas
astronomer argued
convincingly for a hierarchy of inhomogeneities, which, in his
opinion, vitiated
the simplified relativistic models of the expanding universe that have now won
wide acceptance. McCrea's response is that ultimately the simplifications don't
matter; where somehow we can't get enough observations of homogeneous
properties,
this lack does not destroy our ability to describe the large-scale
universe.
Physical theory is not in general designed to make predictions about the universe in the large. If it does, they will be about the smoothed-out universe; for this and other reasons they will not he subject to precise tests. But the fact that the theory does apparently make generally valid predictions of this uucoveoaoted sort gives a new kind of confidence in physical theory.
McCrea's arguments give little encouragement to those who would seek an ever-closer parallel between Genesis 1 and contemporary cosmology. To be sure, the difficult problem of reconciling a steady-state universe that had existed forever with the concept of creation has apparently vanished with the demise of the steady-state cosmology. But the picture of a universe that is less and less "knowable" as we work hack toward the initial singularity gives only the fuzziest view of creation.
That our physical laws are created constructions of the human mind should serve as awaiting to anyone who would prove or disprove Genesis 1 by modern astronomy.
Contrast this with "the first half hour of creation" popularized by
George Gamow a decade or two ago. In Gamow's version the highly
condensed primeval
energy converted itself into matter within a calculable number of
minutes, producing
the present distribution of chemical elements in that initial nuclear cook-out.
A fundamental contribution of Hoyle and his associates, stimulated by
the requirements
of the steady-state cosmology, is the recognition that the heavy
elements (beyond
hydrogen and helium) could he synthesized by nuclear reactions in
stars. As MeCrea
reminds us, we know now that the chemical composition of the universe is only
roughly dependent on the initial conditions contrary to Gamaw's hypothesis.
MeCrea raises the issue of the evolution of physical laws themselves.
Admittedly
the notion of changing laws is not very useful, but, he continues (and I think
rightly), "in this fashion we get away from the concept that physical laws
are something that the universe must obey. They are something our
thinking about
the universe must obey." That our physical laws are created constructions
of the human mind has been maintained for years by many philosophers
of science;
McCrea's perceptive remarks emphasize the situation with respect to the origins
of the universe. They should serve asawarning to anyone who would
"prove"
or "disprove" Genesis 1 by modern astronomy.
REFERENCES
Note: References 1, 3 and 5 have been reprinted in Frontiers
in Astronomy, a Scientific American reader edited by Owen Giogerich
(W. Il. Freeman
& Company, 1970).
1Dennis Sciama, "Cosmology before and after Quasars" (book review),
Scientific American, September, 1967.
2Fred Hoyle, "Recent Developments in Cosmology," Nature,
October 9, 1965, vol. 208, pp. 111-114.
3Gcoffrcy Burhidge and Feed Hoyle, "The Problem of Quasistellar
Objects,"
Scientific American, December, 1966.
4J.H. Oort, "Galaxies and the Universe," Science, 25 December 1970,
vol. 170, pp. 13631370.
5Martin Bees and Joseph Silk. "The Origin of Galaxies," Scientific
American, June 1970.
6 William H. McCrea, "A Philosophy far Big-Bang Cosmology,"
Nature, October
3, 1970, vol. 228, pp. 21-24.
7Gerard de Vaueaulcnrs, "The Case for a Hierarchical
Cosmology," Science,
27 February 1970, vol. 167, pp. 1203-1213.
*
This paper was originally written in the spring of 1971. In the year since it
was prepared, the picture in cosmology remains