Basic HTML Version
There was something very satisfying
in the concept that the universe was
eterna!, having no beginning and no
end. The theory also avoided the
knotty problem ofwhat the universe
was like
before
the beginning, as
well as the embarrassing conun–
drum of how the universe was able
to achieve the highly compressed
state needed for big bang cosmol–
ogy.
During the 1960s, however, the
steady state theory was severely dis–
credited as a great deal of new evi–
dence carne to light.
First, an extension of Hubble's
observations of the expanding uní–
verse clearly implied that the expan–
sion must have begun at a definite
time in the past, about 10 to 20
billion years ago. Second, the older
star clusters also seemed to be about
10 billion years old. And finally, ra–
dioactive elements appeared to have
been in existence about
5
to 10 bil–
lion years. The close agreement of
these three calculations derived by
diverse methods appeared to be a
striking corroboration of the big
bang model of the universe: There
was a beginning.
Another major blow to the steady
state theory was the díscovery, in
1965, of the so-called cosmic back–
ground radiation. This whisper of
radiation appears to fill all of space
in every direction, and its existence
was in fact predicted by astrono–
mers as a remnant of the original
big bang. lts discovery was a pow–
erful confirmation of the big bang
model of the universe.
Other observations on the num–
bers and locations of radio sources
and quasars further undermined the
credibility ofthe steady state theory.
The result was that by the 1970s
virtually al! astronomers had con–
cluded that the steady state was
wrong and that the big bang was
essentially correct.
Open vs. Osclllatlng
here remained, however, a
erplexing question. Would the
universe expand forever, or
would it eventually stop expanding
and collapse, perhaps to be reborn
in another big bang?
If the universe expands forever,
6
thís obviously implies that the cre–
atíon of tbe universe was a unique,
one-shot affair. The universe was
created at a definite time in the
past-some billions of years ago–
and is now in the process of ex–
panding to infinity. We therefore
live at a unique moment in the his–
tory of the cosmos.
On the other hand, if every ex–
panding phase of the universe is
eventually succeeded by a con–
tracting phase, which is followed by
an expanding phase, ad infinitum,
then the concept of a unique cre–
ation event loses all meaning. Such
an "oscillating universe" has much
the same philosophical attraction as
the steady state. Indeed , astrono–
mers have found the oscillating uní–
verse theory so a ttractive and, for
sorne reason, so comforting, that
they often comment on the com–
pelling " theological" arguments for
such a universe.
Actually, the implications of a
perpetually oscillating universe are
profound, especially as they relate
to the theory of evolution. In effect,
an oscillating universe could totally
demolísh all arguments against evo–
lution which are based on proba–
bility.
The logic is as follows: l) lf the
universe contains a finite amount of
matter, and 2) if the universe is end–
lessly oscillating (i.e., if the universe
is infinitely old), then 3) since there
is only a finite number of com–
binations for a finite number of
atoms, it follows that 4) every con–
ceivable combination must even–
tually be repeated an infinite
number oftimes!
This is not a new concept. In fact,
the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche
developed this principie in hís "doc–
trine of eterna! recurrence," a no–
tion which he had encountered in
the Pythagoreans. Nonetheless, the
point is that no matter how improb–
able an event (other than zero prob–
ability), if we consider an infinite
number of trials, the event becomes
an absolute certainty. Applying this
reasoning to the theory of evolution,
it would mean that the evolution of
life was inevitable.
Thus it is interesting that while
secular astronomers may consider
an oscillating universe a philosophi–
cal and even a theological necessity,
religious fundamentalists must view
the implications of an oscillating
universe with a certain amount of
skepticism if not consternation.
Crltlcal Parameters
W
e are faced, therefore.
wíth a most intriguing
question. Is the universe
in fact "open"-will it expand in–
definitely? Or is the universe
"closed"-will it eventually fa ll back
on itself, perhaps to be reborn? To
resolve the question, astronomers
need to know the rate at which the
universe is presently expanding and
the rate at which the expansion is
changing. If both these factors can
be measured, then the past, present
and future of the universe can be
determined.
In the past few years, astronomer
Allan Saodage and others have
painstakingly developed various
distance-estimating methods to a
relatively high level of reliability.
Plugging in the red-shift-deter–
mined velocit ies, astronomers find
the universe is expanding at a rate
of about
55
kilometers per second
for every million parsecs of distance
(a parsec is about 30 trillion kilome–
ters or 19 trillion miles).
But remember that in the big
bang model of the universe the ex–
pansion is expected to slow down
with the passage of time as the ini–
tial velocities of the dífferent parts
of the universe are slowed down by
their mutual gravitational attrac–
tion. The universe acts somewhat as
does a ball thrown upward from the
surface of the earth. The ball slows
down, stops, and eventually falls
back to earth. If it is thrown with
greater initial velocity, it travels far–
ther before falling back. But, if the
inítial velocity is greater than what
is called the "escape velocity," then
the ball will never faUback but will
travel upward forever, decelerating
continuously as it goes, but never
coming back.
If the planet from which the ball
is thrown is more massive than the
earth, we would expect its grav–
itational attraction to be greater and
(Continued on page 39)
The
PLAIN TRUTH December 1978