PAGE 3

In the late 1920s American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that all but the nearest galaxies to us are receding, or moving away from us. Further, he found that the farther away from Earth a galaxy is, the faster it is receding. He made his discovery by taking spectra of galaxies and measuring the amount by which the wavelengths of spectral lines were shifted. He measured distance in a separate way, usually from studies of Cepheid variable stars. Hubble discovered that essentially all the spectra of all the galaxies were shifted toward the red, or had redshifts. The redshifts of galaxies increased with increasing distance from Earth. After Hubble’s work, other astronomers made the connection between redshift and velocity, showing that the farther a galaxy is from Earth, the faster it moves away from Earth. This idea is called Hubble’s law and is the basis for the belief that the universe is uniformly expanding. Other uniformly expanding three-dimensional objects, such as a rising cake with raisins in the batter, also demonstrate the consequence that the more distant objects (such as the other raisins with respect to any given raisin) appear to recede more rapidly than nearer ones. This consequence is the result of the increased amount of material expanding between these more distant objects.


Hubble's law states that there is a straight-line, or linear, relationship between the speed at which an object is moving away from Earth and the distance between the object and Earth. The speed at which an object is moving away from Earth is called the object’s velocity of recession. Hubble’s law indicates that as velocity of recession increases, distance increases by the same proportion. Using this law, astronomers can calculate the distance to the most distant galaxies, given only measurements of their velocities calculated by observing how much their light is shifted. Astronomers can accurately measure the redshifts of objects so distant that the distance between Earth and the objects cannot be measured by other means.

The constant of proportionality that relates velocity to distance in Hubble's law is called Hubble's constant, or H. Hubble's law is often written v=Hd, or velocity equals Hubble's constant multiplied by distance. Thus determining Hubble's constant will give the speed of the universe's expansion. The inverse of Hubble’s constant, or 1/H, theoretically provides an estimate of the age of the universe. Astronomers now believe that Hubble’s constant has changed over the lifetime of the universe, however, so estimates of expansion and age must be adjusted accordingly.

The value of Hubble’s constant probably falls between 64 and 78 kilometres per second per mega parsec (between 40 and 48 miles per second per mega parsec). A mega parsec is 1 million parsecs and a parsec is 3.26 light-years. The Hubble Space Telescope studied Cepheid variables in distant galaxies to get an accurate measurement of the distance between the stars and Earth to refine the value of Hubble’s constant. The value they found is 72 kilometres per second per mega parsec (45 miles per second per mega parsec), with an uncertainty of only 10 percent

The actual age of the universe depends not only on Hubble's constant but also on how much the gravitational pull of the mass in the universe slows the universe’s expansion. Some data from studies that use the brightness of distant supernovas to assess distance indicate that the universe's expansion is speeding up instead of slowing. Astronomers invented the term "dark energy" for the unknown cause of this accelerating expansion and are actively investigating these topics. The ultimate goal of astronomers is to understand the structure, behaviour, and evolution of all of the matter and energy that exists. Astronomers call the set of all matter and energy the universe. The universe is infinite in space, but astronomers believe it does have a finite age. Astronomers accept the theory that about 14 billion years ago the universe began as an explosive event resulting in a hot, dense, expanding sea of matter and energy. This event is known as the big bang Astronomers cannot observe that far back in time. Many astronomers believe, however, the theory that within the first fraction of a second after the big bang, the universe went through a tremendous inflation, expanding many times in size, before it resumed a slower expansion .

As the universe expanded and cooled, various forms of elementary particles of matter formed. By the time the universe was one second old, protons had formed. For approximately the next 1,000 seconds, in the era of nucleosynthesis, all the nuclei of deuterium (hydrogen with both a proton and neutron in the nucleus) that are present in the universe today formed. During this brief period, some nuclei of lithium, beryllium, and helium formed as well.

When the universe was about 1 million years old, it had cooled to about 3000 K (about 3300°C or about 5900°F). At that temperature, the protons and heavier nuclei formed during nucleosynthesis could combine with electrons to form atoms. Before electrons combined with nuclei, the travel of radiation through space was very difficult. Radiation in the form of photons (packets of light energy) could not travel very far without colliding with electrons. Once protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen, photons became able to travel through space. The radiation carried by the photons had the characteristic spectrum of a hot gas. Since the time this radiation was first released, it has cooled and is now 3 K (-270°C or - 450°F). It is called the primeval background radiation and has been definitively detected and studied, first by radio telescopes and then by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) and Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) spacecrafts. COBE, WMAP, and ground-based radio telescopes detected tiny deviations from uniformity in the primeval background radiation; these deviations may be the seeds from which clusters of galaxies grew.


The gravitational force from invisible matter, known as dark matter, may have helped speed the formation of structure in the universe. Observations from the Hubble Space Telescope have revealed galaxies older than astronomers expected, reducing the interval between the big bang and the formation of galaxies or clusters of galaxies.

From about 2 billion years after the big bang for another 2 billion years, quasars formed as active giant black holes in the cores of galaxies. These quasars gave off radiation as they consumed matter from nearby galaxies. Few quasars appear close to Earth, so quasars must be a feature of the earlier universe.

A population of stars formed out of the interstellar gas and dust that contracted to form galaxies. This first population, known as Population II, was made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. The stars that formed evolved and gave out heavier elements that were made through fusion in the stars’ cores or that were formed as the stars exploded as supernovas. The later generation of stars, to which the Sun belongs, is known as Population I and contains heavy elements formed by the earlier population. The Sun formed about 5 billion years ago and is almost halfway through its 11-billion-year lifetime

About 4.6 billion years ago, our solar system formed. The oldest fossils of a living organism date from about 3.5 billion years ago and represent Cyanobacteria. Life evolved, and 65 million years ago, the dinosaurs and many other species were extinguished, probably from a catastrophic meteor impact. Modern humans evolved no earlier than a few hundred thousand years ago, a blink of an eye on the cosmic timescale.

Will the universe expand forever or eventually stop expanding and collapse in on itself? Jay M. Pasachoff, professor of astronomy at Williams College in Williamstown, Massachusetts, confronts this question in this discussion of cosmology. Whether the universe will go on expanding forever depends on whether there is enough critical density to halt or reverse the expansion, and the answer to that question may, in turn, depend on the existence of something the German-born American physicist Albert Einstein once labelled the cosmological constant.

New technology allows astronomers to peer further into the universe than ever before. The science of cosmology, the study of the universe as a whole, has become an observational science. Scientists may now verify, modify, or disprove theories that were partially based on guesswork.

In the 1920s, the early days of modern cosmology, it took an astronomer all night at a telescope to observe a single galaxy. Current surveys of the sky will likely compile data for a million different galaxies within a few years. Building upon advances in cosmology over the past century, our understanding of the universe should continue to accelerate

Modern cosmology began with the studies of Edwin Hubble, who measured the speeds that galaxies move toward or away from us in the mid-1920s. By observing redshift - the change in wavelength of the light that galaxies give off as they move away from us - Hubble realized that though the nearest galaxies are approaching us, all distant galaxies are receding. The most distant galaxies are receding most rapidly. This observation is consistent with the characteristics of an expanding universe. Since 1929 an expanding universe has been the first and most basic pillar of cosmology.

n 1990 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), named to honour the pioneer of cosmology. Appropriately, determining the rate at which the universe expands was one of the telescope’s major tasks.

One of the HST’s key projects was to study Cepheid variables (stars that vary greatly in brightness) and to measure distances in space. Another set of Hubble’s observations focuses on supernovae, exploding stars that can be seen at very great distances because they are so bright. Studies of supernovae in other galaxies reveal the distances to those galaxies.

The term big bang refers to the idea that the expanding universe can be traced back in time to an initial explosion. In the mid-1960s, physicists found important evidence of the big bang when they detected faint microwave radiation coming from every part of the sky. Astronomers think this radiation originated about 300,000 years after the big bang, when the universe thinned enough to become transparent. The existence of cosmic microwave background radiation, and its interpretation, is the second pillar of modern cosmology.

Also in the 1960s, astronomers realized that the lightest of the elements, including hydrogen, helium, lithium, and boron, were formed mainly at the time of the big bang. What is most important, deuterium (the form of hydrogen with an extra neutron added to normal hydrogen's single proton) was formed only in the era of nucleosynthesis? This era started about one second after the universe was formed and made up the first three minutes or so after the big bang. No sources of deuterium are known since that early epoch. The current ratio of deuterium to regular hydrogen depends on how dense the universe was at that early time, so studies of the deuterium that can now be detected indicate how much matter the universe contains. These studies of the origin of the light elements are the third pillar of modern cosmology.

Until recently many astronomers disagreed on whether the universe was expected to expand forever or eventually stop expanding and collapse in on itself in a "big crunch."

At the General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) held in August 2000, a consistent picture of cosmology emerged. This picture depends on the current measured value for the expansion rate of the universe and on the density of the universe as calculated from the abundances of the light elements. The most recent studies of distant supernovae seem to show that the universe's expansion is accelerating, not slowing. Astronomers have recently proposed a theoretical type of negative energy - which would provide a force that opposes the attraction of gravity—to explain the accelerating universe.

For decades scientists have debated the rate at which the universe is expanding. We know that the further away a galaxy is, the faster it moves away from us. The question is: How fast are galaxies receding for each unit of distance they are away from us? The current value, as announced at the IAU meeting, is 75 km/s/Mpc, that is, for each mega parsec of distance from us (where each mega parsec is 3.26 million light-years), the speed of expansion increases by 75 kilometres per second.

What’s out there, exactly?

In the picture of expansion held until recently, astronomers thought the universe contained just enough matter and energy so that it would expand forever but expand at a slower and slower rate as time went on. The density of matter and energy necessary for this to happen is known as the critical density.

Astronomers now think that only 5 percent or so of the critical density of the universe is made of ordinary matter. Another 25 percent or so of the critical density is made of dark matter, a type of matter that has gravity but that has not been otherwise detected. The accelerating universe, further, shows that the remaining 70 percent of the critical density is made of a strange kind of energy, perhaps that known as the cosmological constant, an idea tentatively invoked and then abandoned by Albert Einstein in equations for his general theory of relativity.

Some  may be puzzled: Didn't we learn all about the foundations of physics when we were still at school? The answer is "yes" or "no," depending on the interpretation. We have become acquainted with concepts and general relations that enable us to comprehend an immense range of experiences and make them accessible to mathematical treatment. In a certain sense these concepts and relations are probably even final. This is true, for example, of the laws of light refraction, of the relations of classical thermodynamics as far as it is based on the concepts of pressure, volume, temperature, heat and work, and of the hypothesis of the nonexistence of a perpetual motion machine.

What, then, impels us to devise theory after theory? Why do we devise theories at all? The answer to the latter question is simply: Because we enjoy "comprehending," i.e., reducing phenomena by the process of logic to something already known or (apparently) evident. New theories are first of all necessary when we encounter new facts which cannot be "explained" by existing theories. Nevertheless, this motivation for setting up new theories is, so to speak, trivial, imposed from without. There is another, more subtle motive of no less importance. This is the striving toward unification and simplification of the premises of the theory as a whole (i.e., Mach's principle of economy, interpreted as a logical principle).

There exists a passion for comprehension, just as there exists a passion for music. That passion is rather common in children, but gets lost in most people later on. Without this passion, there would be neither mathematics nor natural science. Time and again the passion for understanding has led to the illusion that man is able to comprehend the objective world rationally, by pure thought, without any empirical foundations - in short, by metaphysics. I believe that every true theorist is a kind of tamed metaphysicist, no matter how pure a "positivist" he may fancy himself. The metaphysicist believes that the logically simple is also the real. The tamed metaphysicist believes that not all that is logically simple is embodied in experienced reality, but that the totality of all sensory experience can be "comprehended" on the basis of a conceptual system built on premises of great simplicity. The skeptic will say that this is a "miracle creed." Admittedly so, but it is a miracle creed which has been borne out to an amazing extent by the development of science.

The rise of atomism is a good example. How may Leucippus have conceived this bold idea? When water freezes and becomes ice—apparently something entirely different from water—why is it that the thawing of the ice forms something which seems indistinguishable from the original water? Leucippus is puzzled and looks for an "explanation." He is driven to the conclusion that in these transitions the "essence" of the thing has not changed at all. Maybe the thing consists of immutable particles and the change is only a change in their spatial arrangement. Could it not be that the same is true of all material objects which emerge again and again with nearly identical qualities?

This idea is not entirely lost during the long hibernation of occidental thought. Two thousand years after Leucippus, Bernoulli wonders why gas exerts pressure on the walls of a container. Should this be "explained" by mutual repulsion of the parts of the gas, in the sense of Newtonian mechanics? This hypothesis appears absurd, for the gas pressure depends on the temperature, all other things being equal. To assume that the Newtonian forces of interaction depend on temperature is contrary to the spirit of Newtonian mechanics. Since Bernoulli is aware of the concept of atomism, he is bound to conclude that the atoms (or molecules) collide with the walls of the container and in doing so exert pressure. After all, one has to assume that atoms are in motion; how else can one account for the varying temperature of gases?

A simple mechanical consideration shows that this pressure depends only on the kinetic energy of the particles and on their density in space. This should have led the physicists of that age to the conclusion that heat consists in random motion of the atoms. Had they taken this consideration as seriously as it deserved to be taken, the development of the theory of heat - in particular the discovery of the equivalence of heat and mechanical energy - would have been considerably facilitated.

This example is meant to illustrate two things. The theoretical idea (atomism in this case) does not arise apart from and independent of experience; nor can it be derived from experience by a purely logical procedure. It is produced by a creative act. Once a theoretical idea has been acquired, one does well to hold fast to it until it leads to an untenable conclusion.

As for my latest theoretical work, I do not feel justified in giving a detailed account of it before a wide group of readers interested in science. That should be done only with theories which have been adequately confirmed by experience. So far it is primarily the simplicity of its premises and its intimate connection with what is already known (viz., the laws of the pure gravitational field) that speak in favour of the theory to be discussed here. It may, however, be of interest to a wide group of readers to become acquainted with the train of thought which can lead to endeavours of such an extremely speculative nature. Moreover, it will be shown what kinds of difficulties are encountered and in what sense they have been overcome.

In Newtonian physics the elementary theoretical concept on which the theoretical description of material bodies is based is the material point, or particle. Thus matter is considered a priori to be discontinuous. This makes it necessary to consider the action of material points on one another as "action at a distance." Since the latter concept seems quite contrary to everyday experience, it is only natural that the contemporaries of Newton - and indeed Newton himself - found it difficult to accept. Owing to the almost miraculous success of the Newtonian system, however, the succeeding generations of physicists became used to the idea of action at a distance. Any doubt was buried for a long time to come.

Nonetheless, when, in the second half of the 19th century, the laws of electrodynamics became known, it turned out that these laws could not be satisfactorily incorporated into the Newtonian system. It is fascinating to muse: Would Faraday have discovered the law of electromagnetic induction if he had received a regular college education? Unencumbered by the traditional way of thinking, he felt that the introduction of the "field" as an independent element of reality helped him to coordinate the experimental facts. It was Maxwell who fully comprehended the significance of the field concept; he made the fundamental discovery that the laws of electrodynamics found their natural expression in the differential equations for the electric and magnetic fields. These equations implied the existence of waves, whose properties corresponded to those of light as far as they were known at that time.

This incorporation of optics into the theory of electromagnetism represents one of the greatest triumphs in the striving toward unification of the foundations of physics; Maxwell achieved this unification by purely theoretical arguments, long before it was corroborated by Hertz' experimental work. The new insight made it possible to dispense with the hypothesis of action at a distance, at least in the realm of electromagnetic phenomena; the intermediary field now appeared as the only carrier of electromagnetic interaction between bodies, and the field's behaviour was completely determined by contiguous processes, expressed by differential equations.

Now a question arose: Since the field exists even in a vacuum, should one conceive of the field as a state of a "carrier," or should it rather be endowed with an independent existence not reducible to anything else? In other words, is there an "ether" which carries the field; the ether being considered in the undulatory state, for example, when it carries light waves?

The question has a natural answer: Because one cannot dispense with the field concept, not introducing in addition a carrier with hypothetical properties is preferable. However, the pathfinders who first recognized the indispensability of the field concept were still too strongly imbued with the mechanistic tradition of thought to accept unhesitatingly this simple point of view. Nevertheless, in the course of the following decades this view imperceptibly took hold.

The introduction of the field as an elementary concept gave rise to an inconsistency of the theory as a whole. Maxwell's theory, although adequately describing the behaviour of electrically charged particles in their interaction with one another, does not explain the behaviours of electrical densities, i.e., it does not provide a theory of the particles themselves. They must therefore be treated as mass points on the basis of the old theory. The combination of the idea of a continuous field with that of material points discontinuous in space appears inconsistent. A consistent field theory requires continuity of all elements of the theory, not only in time but also in space, and in all points of space. Hence the material particle has no place as a fundamental concept in a field theory. Thus even apart from the fact that gravitation is not included, Maxwell's electrodynamics cannot be considered a complete theory.