Science Notes Theories On Origin Of Universe

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29179, 13 April 1960, Page 23

Science Notes Theories On Origin Of Universe

[By KITCHIB CALDKR] . There are two principal hypotheses about the onpn of aie galaxiesand the universe as a wholethe “big bang and the "continuous they contradict each other. This is a short to Mr R. Ankjaero, of Denmark, who asfa abS the origin of the galaxies and the universe.

The big bang assumes that the Nwnta. as we know it, started general thousand million years igo as an explosion. You have to imagine that, going backwards jn time, all the galaxies were parked together in a “pill”—a giyntie primeaval atom which unstable and disintegrated. What we now see, in the universe, are the fragments, flying out in all directions. That of course means that there was an initial creation and a definite beginning of time. “Continuous creation” assumes that time has gone on and the universe has existed, for an infinite past, with space continuously expanding. There was o o definite point of creation. Matter, according to this hypothesis, is being created all the time, forming galaxies and stars, with the planets as the by-products of those stars. According to this theory there is no beginning and there can be no end.

When radio-astronomy became a science (about 14 years ago) and powerful radio instruments began io study the cosmic events thousands of millions of years old (the time it has taken for the signals to reach our presentday radio receivers) it looked as though the evidence supported the “big bang” idea. The instruments codd follow the process of expand®—galaxies retreating from us at the rate of 10 million miles an hour. If you reverse that process (as they do in the cinema when they run the film backwards and put the diver back on the diving-board) it would suggest a giant atom bomb about 10,000 million years ago. But today neither radio astronomy nor optical astronomy would fully endorse that, and both hypotheses are a matter of debate. Matter Into Energy Mr Ankjaeroe also asks about the transformation of matter into energy and energy into matter. “Is energy attached to some uncertain thing, perhaps a kind of ‘ether’?”

Answer.—Einstein’s equation E = mc2, of 1905, still holds the field. This means “Energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light” or, more simply, energy can be converted into matter and matter into energy. “Matter into energy” is, of course, the explanation of the atomic bomb—the release of energy but the disintegration of the nucleus of the atom. But the converse is also true: particles can increase in mass when they are energised, or accelerated sufficiently.

It E w ae - is an outworn concept. vL« L* conveni ent idea 50 anakrv J° ag , 0 ’ when on the ana J°Sy of a stone thrown into d^l^ Was seful t 0 of some medium in which waves 5?“ ld travel. Modern theorists dispense with it. Scientific “Troth”

Mr Shanker Das of Calcutta. wnrJ S: » " For l most toymen the a “iontist is gospel. Yet quite often you read about a careful res^> a L c h, “d observation, being modified or superseded by a new discovery. How true therefore is scientific truth?’’ ..<- A ?“ WF,, ’T I t has been said that Science is proof without certainty.” Scientific “truth” is valid only as long as It is confirmed by observed facts. No scientific law is immutable. Even Newton’s tows” were not sacrosanct, although they were uncannily near perfection. A hundred years ago, the planet Uranus was not keeping time as it should. Two men, Adams in England, and Leverrier in France, working without knowledge of each other and merely with pen and paper and the laws of gravitation, calculated that there must be a planet disturbing its gravitational force and determined precisely where that planet must be. The astronomers turned their telescopes to the spot and there, sure enough, was the planet Neptune. Here, surely, was the emphatic endorsement of the “unalterable” laws of gravitation. But later, astronomers searched in vain for the cause of similar discrepancies in the behaviour of the planet Mercury, and we had to wait for Einstein and his Theory of Relativity to provide the explanation and thus modify the laws of Newton. What is “true” in science is what is observed and experimentally confirmed. It is “true” only within the knowledge of the observed facts.

What is obviously worrying the questioner is that scientists are often contradicted by each other or by a different set of facts. We find this in its most disquietening form in the “authoritative” statements which are made about radiation hazards. One scientist will make a categorical statement, backed by measurements which will minimise the risks. Another will say, that, on his evidence, the risks to living things are great. The trouble is that ordinary people think generically of “the scientist.” They cannot distinguish the first as a physicist and the second as a biologist, the one dealing with

one set of facta and the other with another set of facts. Both may be stating the “truth" as they know it. As we found on the World Health Organisation Study Group on Mental Aspects of Atomic Energy, the distrust of “the scientist” has grown in recent years. There are faults on both sides. The public has come to regard the scientist with superstitious awe, and the scientist, deferred to as an authority, does not always make a distinction between scientific facts and personal opinions. He is, as a person, entitled to those opinions but they are not scientific evidence. He can say, “As Professor Snooks, my observed facts are so-and-so.” Or he can say, “As Bill Snooks my opinion is so-and-so.” But the distinction is important. Ultra-Sonic Research Mr Paul Badout, of Algeria, asks: “Can you tell me how ultrasonic research is progressing? I have read that ultra-sounds can find applications in laundry work, and that machines are now being perfected which will use them to wash laundry without water. Is this true, and if so how is it. done and who will be the first to benefit: industry or the housewife?” Answer. — Ultra-sonics, it should be explained, means “inaudible sound,” or compression waves of greater frequency than 20,000 per second, the range of human hearing. The vibrations can be as high as 1,000,000 per second. Vibrations of such intensity can be used to dislodge particles of grease or dirt. They can be used as a form of dry-cleaning, but the dislodged dirt has to be removed and ultra-sonic “laundering” usually involves water or some solvent. The method is used in industry, with notable results, particularly in the cleaning of metals and of minute parts. Perhaps the vogue of detergents has discouraged the extensive practice of ultra-sonic laundering. Anyway the ultra-sonic domestic appliances have not been conspicuously popular or, apparently, successful. (U.N.E.5.C.0.)