The Timeless Legacy of Expansion.

The Legacy of Expansion

Isaac Newton made an opening for me to follow. "Expansion of the Universe must have come as a bit of a surprise since I knew nothing of such a possibility. There were no legends or faiths hinting at it and there was nothing that anyone I knew had ever seen that suggested such a thing was happening."

Me: "And I know you had a very different view on this from my reading of your work on gravity. You had the dilemma that gravity was only ever an attractive force and logically this meant the Universe should be contracting."

Newton : "You're right. It was a perplexing dilemma that I never did resolve so I'm very interested in this discussion."

Boyle added, "Yes! And from what I gather even today with so many wonderful machines you cannot find any matter that travels as fast as light."

Me: "No you are absolutely right but Edwin Hubble can tell you better than I why we believe the Universe is expanding."

Edwin Hubble: "In brief it is because of analyses made at my observatory in the years before 1929 where I found the identity of stars in very distant galaxies were undergoing a shift. They were redder than were the benchmark stars in closer galaxies.

This wasn't normal. To resolve it I proposed it could only be that these stars were moving away from the Earth. "

Einstein came in at this point: "And from this it was possible for us to conclude these galaxies were accelerating which in turn meant the base position had to be the Universe was expanding and it could not be static or contracting."

Me: "Which brings me to another aspect you raised earlier; I need to set out how expansion might happen.

But first I should note that I think of it as an accelerating expansion for the reasons given by Hubble; however the motion of all the stars for a great distance from us is affected by a constant rate of expansion."

Einstein added: "And the acceleration component implies it didn't get the expansion properties it has from an explosion or Big Bang at the beginning of the Universe.

In fact we'd see something different to what we currently observe in the distant galaxies. We'd be able to see some stars becoming redder than stars of equivalent type but others would be becoming bluer."�

Me: "Yes, so we have an ongoing expansive action and any explanation I give must address this fact.

Einstein : "I agree this is important, it is exactly what I wanted you to do.

I think you need to follow the line of your earlier model and tell us which possibility you are going to use in this new phase."

Me: "Well the starting point is easy. Expansion is the insertion of a new point between two adjacent cohesive points.

The question is whether this is done uniformly at the same moment to all existing points or is a random generation process taking place at different instances and random locations throughout the Universe."

Einstein : "Exactly, that is the distinction that I see as being important. So which of these options do you think best fits to your model?"

Me: "Well as much as I might prefer, for the sake of simplicity, the steady-state mode I think evidence from nature points to the random generator."

"How so?" asked Boyle.

Me: "Robert, like many gathered here you won't be familiar with the properties of radioactive bodies. These give off what appears to be a constant rate of radiation but in reality this smoothness is just the statistical result of random events at random times throughout the material.

And since statistical style generation is at the heart of fractal patterns in nature it has to be my preferred mode."

I felt pleased with this analogy. After all Marie Curie was watching. Those sad eyes damaged along with her body by her dedication to the study of radiation, reached into my mind. I knew she would find what she sought, evidence I had absorbed her words, "We should not allow it to be believed that all scientific progress can be reduced to mechanisms, machines, gearings, even though such machinery also has its beauty." 

I had chosen radiation as my example without thought of its cruel capability. For me it was a machine, a mechanism for showing constancy but its brilliance and beauty disguise its harm.

I ached in empathy to her agony but was grateful she was present. She was an inspiring person; one of many who gives me strength to take these ideas of mine to her and her peers.

Einstein : "Although I commend your consistency I foresee many difficulties ahead if you follow that path."

Me: "Why so?" I asked, somewhat mimicking Boyle's questioning style.

Einstein :"Because of light. It has always been a problem child of science. You will have to address the issues of diffraction, refraction and much more."

Me: "I will do that but first I need to mention a few factors that are crucial to my model.

PREVIOUS     HOME   NEXT