Big Bang Booming - Back to the Future
By: Michael Strauss
Then God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. This ancient
description of the creation of the universe found in the Book of
Genesis may be accurate after all. The big bang theory describes the
beginning of the universe as having been precipitated from an
infinitesimally small point. In this small volume, all matter and
energy was concentrated until its contents exploded in either a smooth
expansion or an incredibly violent energetic explosion that formed the
planets, stars and galaxies. Originally this theory had competition
from what is called the 'steady state' theory whereby the universe is
forever expanding and new matter and energy is created spontaneously
within the space left by the receding galaxies. However, empirical
observations have directed astronomers and scientists into the
acceptance of the big bang model. But how did we get to this point in
our understanding?
In the early part of the twentieth century the American astronomer
Vesto Slipher and the German Carl Wirtz made some important
astronomical discoveries. Using spectral analysis, Slipher deciphered
the mixtures of gases contained in planetary atmospheres as well as
nebulae. What distinguishes his findings is the discovery that most if
not all galaxies outside of our own demonstrate what is called a 'Red
Shift.' This shift is simply a change in the wavelength of the light
emitted by those objects under investigation towards a longer
wavelength. Wirtz similarly catalogued many red shifts of the nebulae
which he chose to study. But it was still to early for them to realize
the full potential meaning of their observations. That would wait until
Einstein's General Relativity would be interpreted by other scientists
through further mathematical analysis.
His contemporaries demonstrated to Einstein that his new Theory of
General Relativity published in 1916 was not compatible with a 'static'
universe of space time. The theory predicted an expanding or collapsing
universe but not a fixed cosmos. Because he personally believed the
universe to be an invariable space time continuum, Einstein engaged in
a degree of scientific legerdemain. To correct what he perceived to be
as 'flaws' in his theory he added the contrivance of a cosmological
constant known as lambda to force the static universe into reality.
Einstein's view of perfection in an unchanging space time continuum had
led him down a blind alley as much as Aristotle's concept of perfection
had brought that great philosopher into the error of believing in a
static Earth at the center of the universe.
But even with the addition of the cosmological constant lambda, the
universe was still found to be unstable and this whole affair would
later be viewed by Einstein as his "greatest blunder." His cosmological
acrobatics behind him, Einstein yielded the stage to others for a
clearer understanding of his own theory. It fell to Alexander
Alexandrovich Friedmann to consider the consequences of General
Relativity without the constant lambda interfering with his study of
these relationships. In doing so, the Russian mathematician and
cosmologist derived the solution which predicts an ever expanding
cosmological structure (1922), a prediction which was disagreeable with
Einstein's concept of universal perfection. A couple of years later,
Friedmann published his findings in "About the Possibility of a World
with Constant Negative Curvature of Space." But the entire hypothetical
construct still lacked a complete verbalization mathematically and
theoretically.
Enter the Reverend Father Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic priest from
Belgium. Rev. Fr. Lemaitre provided the equations necessary to
formulate the basis of Big Bang theory in his work entitled "Hypothesis
of the Primeval Atom." He postulated that the universe began as a
primordial atom of infinitesimal volume and enormous mass energy as
well as space and time and everything else comprising the future
universe. At some point the universe began with the explosion of this
super atom. Lemaitre published his theoretical ideas between the years
1927 and 1933 and speculated that the movement of the nebulae
demonstrated the validity of the explosion of his cosmic super atom.
Unfortunately, he also wrongly believed that cosmic rays might be an
after effect of the super atom's big bang. These are now known to be
generated not from a universal conflagration but from galactic sources
unrelated to the big bang.
However, the new theory still lacked a major source of observational
support. This would be provided by Edwin Hubble's observations of the
redshift of galaxies. Taking up where Slipher and Wirtz left off,
Hubble employed a novel technique to discern the properties of the
galactic movements. By choosing to observe stars that are known as
Cepheid Variables he could more accurately make measurements. Cepheids
are a type of star that brighten and darken and lighten back up in
regular periods of time that are well known. Cepheids that have
identical cycle times of brightening darkening and brightening again
also have identical or nearly identical luminosity. Thus, if one
compares the length of the cycle to the amount of light apparent to the
observer it is possible to accurately prepare an estimate of the
distance to the cepheid.
In this manner, Hubble had found that the nebulae or galaxies exhibited
a galactic red shift; in other words, that galaxies were receding away
from ours at a speed which is correlated directly with the distance
between our vantage point and the galaxy being studied. The further
away the galaxies were the faster they appeared to be going in moving
away from us. The results of these investigations is now known as
Hubble's Law. Essentially, this law states that universe is in an ever
expanding mode whereby the intergalactic distances continue to grow
without bound into infinity. Hubble's Law depends upon the shifting of
the wavelength of light and after having been delineated in 1929 has
been subsequently proven over and over again. Further, Hubble's
constant has been recalculated to a more 'perfect' value and retains a
great probability of being 'recomputed' in the future based upon new
observations.
Thus, it should be clear to the reader that our scientists have a
fateful habit of introducing their preconceived notions of beauty into
their models. From Aristotle's static Earth to Einstein's greatest
blunder, the constant which forces a static universe, we proceed only
from the wisdom of our weak minds. The more things change the more
things stay the same. Man's hubris knows no limits in our attempts to
understand things without the wisdom to comprehend its underlying
meaning. Humble we are not. We are making the same mistakes we always
have. Back to the future. To be continued... |