Free Ultimate Explanations of the Universe by Michael Heller Page A

from its outset it was also inspired by philosophical considerations and worldview. Its three designers found it particularly hard to accept the existence of a singularity at the beginning of “relativistic evolution.” The theory’s predictability broke down at the singularity – it was impossible to determine what happened before the beginning – and the capacity to predict is the fundamental feature required of any theory in physics. 1 Moreover, the singularity was too uncomfortably reminiscent of the concept of a creation of the universe, which all three scientists rejected on grounds of worldview.
    There is a persistent habit of mind which suggests that an eternal universe must be static and unchanging. But must it? Could not a dynamic state coexist with eternity? It could, but the continuous dissipation of energy would have to be counterbalanced with some sort of “regenerating” mechanism. After Hubble’s observations it was impossible to return to the idea of a static world. If the universe was to be eternal, it had to be a stationary system, viz. notwithstanding its variability it must always look the same. The density of matter decreases with increasing distance separating the galaxies moving away from each other; there was thus a need for a mechanism which would continuously restore the losses.
    ----
    5.2   A New Cosmology is Born
    The theory of the universe in a steady state appeared in two versions: Bondi and Gold’s, and Hoyle’s. Initially Gold’s idea of a continuous creation of matter was quite vague, but developed a more definite shape in the course of the three scientists’ discussions. Gradually, however, they went their separate ways. Hoyle followed a more mathematical reasoning and tried to reconcile the concept of the creation of matter with the formalism of the general theory of relativity; while Bondi and Gold took an approach in opposition to relativistic cosmology, building up their model from scratch. Emphatically, neither Hoyle nor Bondi and Gold rejected the general theory of relativity as a theory in physics; they were only against its application in cosmology which they said was an unwarranted extrapolation. In effect two independent papers were produced, and despite the rivalry between their authors, by a strange coincidence both were published in the same issue of The Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society .
    Hoyle was faster than his competitors and his article was ready much earlier, but it was turned down by the editors of two scientific journals. The prestigious British Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society gave the postwar shortage of paper as the grounds for its rejection; while the editors of the American Physical Review wanted Hoyle to shorten the article, which he refused to do. In outcome it appeared in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society . 2 Originally Hoyle did not want to publish in this journal, which was edited by British astronomers, since he was apprehensive of their reaction to his unconventional ideas. But in fact quite the opposite happened, as the secretary of the British Astronomical Society at the time, who decided as to what was to be published, was William McCrea, a supporter of the hypothesis of the continuous creation of matter. The same man had already earmarked Bondi and Gold’s article for publication. 3 They had not been trying their luck with other journals. 4 Thereby a great controversy was launched between the cosmology of the steady state and relativistic cosmology, and for the next two decades was to dominate developments in the science of the universe.
    ----
    5.3   Bondi and Gold’s Universe
    A summary of Bondi and Gold’s model is to be found in Hermann Bondi’s once highly influential textbook of cosmology: 5
The fundamental assumption of the theory is that the universe presents on the large scale an unchanging aspect. Since the universe must (on thermodynamic grounds) be expanding, new matter must be