In this film,you will see how modern astronomy and physics imply a fact that materialists are unwilling to accept, that is, the existence of a Creator.The ultimate goal of astronomers is to understand the structure, behavior, 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 (see Big Bang Theory). 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 (see Inflationary Theory). 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.

When we examine the world of living beings, we encounter very amazing examples of “technology”. On the body of a tiny insect or on the surface of a plant are mind-boggling systems designed with great precision. All of these show that there is a perfect “design” in living beings. It is impossible for this design to be the product of “chance” as Darwin’s theory of evolution maintains. It is evident that these living beings are brought into being by a Creator Who has power over the entire nature. According to growing numbers of cientists, the laws and constants of nature are so "finely-tuned," and so any "coincidences" have occurred to allow for the possibility of life, the universe must have come into existence through intentional planning and intelligence. In fact, this "fine-tuning" is so pronounced, and the "coincidences" are so numerous, many scientists have come to espouse The Anthropic Principle, which contends that the universe was brought into existence intentionally for the sake of producing mankind.Even those who do not accept The Anthropic Principle admit to the "fine-tuning" and conclude that the universe is "too contrived" to be a chance event.

Did you know that if the universe had expanded just a little faster after Big Bang, then the matter in it would have been scattered and spread out across the universe, lost in a way that would have precluded the formation of both galaxies and stars. Or if they had flown apart slightly slowly, all the matter would have clumped together before the star systems had a chance to form,. This is just one example of the universe’s fine-tuning. See how modern astronomy reveals the signs of God. Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant. This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here: One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115) The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe. Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogens is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted with slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted with slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).

Most cosmologists believe that the universe began as a dense kernel of matter and radiant energy which started to expand about five billion years ago and later coalesced into galaxies.

Cosmology is the study of the general nature of the universe in space and in time—what it is now, what it was in the past and what it is likely to be in the future. Since the only forces at work between the galaxies that make up the material universe are the forces of gravity, the cosmological problem is closely connected with the theory of gravitation, in particular with its modern version as comprised in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. In the frame of this theory the properties of space, time and gravitation are merged into one harmonious and elegant picture.

The basic cosmological notion of general relativity grew out of the work of great mathematicians of the 19th century. In the middle of the last century two inquisitive mathematical minds—a Russian named Nikolai Lobachevski and a Hungarian named János Bolyai—discovered that the classical geometry of Euclid was not the only possible geometry: in fact, they succeeded in constructing a geometry which was fully as logical and self-consistent as the Euclidean. They began by overthrowing Euclid's axiom about parallel lines: namely, that only one parallel to a given straight line can be drawn through a point not on that line. Lobachevski and Bolyai both conceived a system of geometry in which a great number of lines parallel to a given line could be drawn through a point outside the line.

To illustrate the differences between Euclidean geometry and their non-Euclidean system it is simplest to consider just two dimensions—that is, the geometry of surfaces. In our schoolbooks this is known as "plane geometry," because the Euclidean surface is a flat surface. Suppose, now, we examine the properties of a two-dimensional geometry constructed not on a plane surface but on a curved surface. For the system of Lobachevski and Bolyai we must take the curvature of the surface to be "negative," which means that the curvature is not like that of the surface of a sphere but like that of a saddle. Now if we are to draw parallel lines or any figure (e.g., a triangle) on this surface, we must decide first of all how we shall define a "straight line," equivalent to the straight line of plane geometry. The most reasonable definition of a straight line in Euclidean geometry is that it is the path of the shortest distance between two points. On a curved surface the line, so defined, becomes a curved line known as a "geodesic."

Considering a surface curved like a saddle, we find that, given a "straight" line or geodesic, we can draw through a point outside that line a great many geodesics which will never intersect the given line, no matter how far they are extended. They are therefore parallel to it, by the definition of parallel. The possible parallels to the line fall within certain limits, indicated by the intersecting lines in the drawing at the left in the middle of the next page.

As a consequence of the overthrow of Euclid's axiom on parallel lines, many of his theorems are demolished in the new geometry. For example, the Euclidean theorem that the sum of the three angles of a triangle is 180 degrees no longer holds on a curved surface. On the saddle-shaped surface the angles of a triangle formed by three geodesics always add up to less than 180 degrees, the actual sum depending on the size of the triangle. Further, a circle on the saddle surface does not have the same properties as a circle in plane geometry. On a flat surface the circumference of a circle increases in proportion to the increase in diameter, and the area of a circle increases in proportion to the square of the increase in diameter. But on a saddle surface both the circumference and the area of a circle increase at faster rates than on a flat surface with increasing diameter.

After Lobachevski and Bolyai, the German mathematician Bernhard Riemann constructed another non-Euclidean geometry whose two-dimensional model is a surface of positive, rather than negative, curvature—that is, the surface of a sphere. In this case a geodesic line is simply a great circle around the sphere or a segment of such a circle, and since any two great circles must intersect at two points (the poles), there are no parallel lines at all in this geometry. Again the sum of the three angles of a triangle is not 180 degrees: in this case it is always more than 180. The circumference of a circle now increases at a rate slower than in proportion to its increase in diameter, and its area increases more slowly than the square of the diameter.

Now all this is not merely an exercise in abstract reasoning but bears directly on the geometry of the universe in which we live. Is the space of our universe "flat," as Euclid assumed, or is it curved negatively (per Lobachevski and Bolyai) or curved positively (Riemann)? If we were two-dimensional creatures living in a two-dimensional universe, we could tell whether we were living on a flat or a curved surface by studying the properties of triangles and circles drawn on that surface. Similarly as three-dimensional beings living in three-dimensional space we should be able, by studying geometrical properties of that space, to decide what the curvature of our space is. Riemann in fact developed mathematical formulas describing the properties of various kinds of curved space in three and more dimensions. In the early years of this century Einstein conceived the idea of the universe as a curved system in four dimensions, embodying time as the fourth dimension, and he proceeded to apply Riemann's formulas to test his idea.

Einstein showed that time can be considered a fourth coordinate supplementing the three coordinates of space. He connected space and time, thus establishing a "space-time continuum," by means of the speed of light as a link between time and space dimensions. However, recognizing that space and time are physically different entities, he employed the imaginary number Á, or i, to express the unit of time mathematically and make the time coordinate formally equivalent to the three coordinates of space.

In his special theory of relativity Einstein made the geometry of the time-space continuum strictly Euclidean, that is, flat. The great idea that he introduced later in his general theory was that gravitation, whose effects had been neglected in the special theory, must make it curved. He saw that the gravitational effect of the masses distributed in space and moving in time was equivalent to curvature of the four-dimensional space-time continuum. In place of the classical Newtonian statement that "the sun produces a field of forces which impels the earth to deviate from straight-line motion and to move in a circle around the sun," Einstein substituted a statement to the effect that "the presence of the sun causes a curvature of the space-time continuum in its neighborhood."

The motion of an object in the space-time continuum can be represented by a curve called the object's "world line."…Einstein declared, in effect: "The world line of the earth is a geodesic in the curved four-dimensional space around the sun." In other words, the … [earth’s “world line”] … corresponds to the shortest four-dimensional distance between the position of the earth in January … and its position in October.…

Einstein's idea of the gravitational curvature of space-time was, of course, triumphantly affirmed by the discovery of perturbations in the motion of Mercury at its closest approach to the sun and of the deflection of light rays by the sun's gravitational field. Einstein next attempted to apply the idea to the universe as a whole. Does it have a general curvature, similar to the local curvature in the sun's gravitational field? He now had to consider not a single center of gravitational force but countless centers of attraction in a universe full of matter concentrated in galaxies whose distribution fluctuates considerably from region to region in space. However, in the large-scale view the galaxies are spread fairly uniformly throughout space as far out as our biggest telescopes can see, and we can justifiably "smooth out" its matter to a general average (which comes to about one hydrogen atom per cubic meter). On this assumption the universe as a whole has a smooth general curvature.

But if the space of the universe is curved, what is the sign of this curvature? Is it positive, as in our two-dimensional analogy of the surface of a sphere, or is it negative, as in the case of a saddle surface? And, since we cannot consider space alone, how is this space curvature related to time?

Analyzing the pertinent mathematical equations, Einstein came to the conclusion that the curvature of space must be independent of time, i.e., that the universe as a whole must be unchanging (though it changes internally). However, he found to his surprise that there was no solution of the equations that would permit a static cosmos. To repair the situation, Einstein was forced to introduce an additional hypothesis which amounted to the assumption that a new kind of force was acting among the galaxies. This hypothetical force had to be independent of mass (being the same for an apple, the moon and the sun!) and to gain in strength with increasing distance between the interacting objects (as no other forces ever do in physics!).

Einstein's new force, called "cosmic repulsion," allowed two mathematical models of a static universe. One solution, which was worked out by Einstein himself and became known as "Einstein's spherical universe," gave the space of the cosmos a positive curvature. Like a sphere, this universe was closed and thus had a finite volume. The space coordinates in Einstein's spherical universe were curved in the same way as the latitude or longitude coordinates on the surface of the earth. However, the time axis of the space-time continuum ran quite straight, as in the good old classical physics. This means that no cosmic event would ever recur. The two-dimensional analogy of Einstein's space-time continuum is the surface of a cylinder, with the time axis running parallel to the axis of the cylinder and the space axis perpendicular to it.

The other static solution based on the mysterious repulsion forces was discovered by the Dutch mathematician Willem de Sitter. In his model of the universe both space and time were curved. Its geometry was similar to that of a globe, with longitude serving as the space coordinate and latitude as time. Unhappily astronomical observations contradicted both Einstein's and de Sitter's static models of the universe, and they were soon abandoned.

In the year 1922 a major turning point came in the cosmological problem. A Russian mathematician, Alexander A. Friedman (from whom the author of this article learned his relativity), discovered an error in Einstein's proof for a static universe. In carrying out his proof Einstein had divided both sides of an equation by a quantity which, Friedman found, could become zero under certain circumstances. Since division by zero is not permitted in algebraic computations, the possibility of a nonstatic universe could not be excluded under the circumstances in question. Friedman showed that two nonstatic models were possible. One pictured the universe as expanding with time; the other, contracting.

Einstein quickly recognized the importance of this discovery. In the last edition of his book The Meaning of Relativity he wrote: "The mathematician Friedman found a way out of this dilemma. He showed that it is possible, according to the field equations, to have a finite density in the whole (three-dimensional) space, without enlarging these field equations ad hoc." Einstein remarked to me many years ago that the cosmic repulsion idea was the biggest blunder he had made in his entire life.

Almost at the very moment that Friedman was discovering the possibility of an expanding universe by mathematical reasoning, Edwin P. Hubble at the Mount Wilson Observatory on the other side of the world found the first evidence of actual physical expansion through his telescope. He made a compilation of the distances of a number of far galaxies, whose light was shifted toward the red end of the spectrum, and it was soon found that the extent of the shift was in direct proportion to a galaxy's distance from us, as estimated by its faintness. Hubble and others interpreted the red-shift as the Doppler effect—the well-known phenomenon of lengthening of wavelengths from any radiating source that is moving rapidly away (a train whistle, a source of light or whatever). To date there has been no other reasonable explanation of the galaxies' red-shift. If the explanation is correct, it means that the galaxies are all moving away from one another with increasing velocity as they move farther apart.

Thus Friedman and Hubble laid the foundation for the theory of the expanding universe. The theory was soon developed further by a Belgian theoretical astronomer, Georges Lemaître. He proposed that our universe started from a highly compressed and extremely hot state which he called the "primeval atom." (Modern physicists would prefer the term "primeval nucleus.") As this matter expanded, it gradually thinned out, cooled down and reaggregated in stars and galaxies, giving rise to the highly complex structure of the universe as we know it today.

Until a few years ago the theory of the expanding universe lay under the cloud of a very serious contradiction. The measurements of the speed of flight of the galaxies and their distances from us indicated that the expansion had started about 1.8 billion years ago. On the other hand, measurements of the age of ancient rocks in the earth by the clock of radioactivity (i.e., the decay of uranium to lead) showed that some of the rocks were at least three billion years old; more recent estimates based on other radioactive elements raise the age of the earth's crust to almost five billion years. Clearly a universe 1.8 billion years old could not contain five-billion-year-old rocks! Happily the contradiction has now been disposed of by Walter Baade's recent discovery that the distance yardstick (based on the periods of variable stars) was faulty and that the distances between galaxies are more than twice as great as they were thought to be. This change in distances raises the age of the universe to five billion years or more.

Friedman's solution of Einstein's cosmological equation, as I mentioned, permits two kinds of universe. We can call one the "pulsating" universe. This model says that when the universe has reached a certain maximum permissible expansion, it will begin to contract; that it will shrink until its matter has been compressed to a certain maximum density, possibly that of atomic nuclear material, which is a hundred million million times denser than water; that it will then begin to expand again—and so on through the cycle ad infinitum. The other model is a "hyperbolic" one: it suggests that from an infinitely thin state an eternity ago the universe contracted until it reached the maximum density, from which it rebounded to an unlimited expansion which will go on indefinitely in the future.

The question whether our universe is actually "pulsating" or "hyperbolic" should be decidable from the present rate of its expansion. The situation is analogous to the case of a rocket shot from the surface of the earth. If the velocity of the rocket is less than seven miles per second—the "escape velocity"—the rocket will climb only to a certain height and then fall back to the earth. (If it were completely elastic, it would bounce up again, etc., etc.) On the other hand, a rocket shot with a velocity of more than seven miles per second will escape from the earth's gravitational field and disappear in space. The case of the receding system of galaxies is very similar to that of an escape rocket, except that instead of just two interacting bodies (the rocket and the earth) we have an unlimited number of them escaping from one another. We find that the galaxies are fleeing from one another at seven times the velocity necessary for mutual escape.

Thus we may conclude that our universe corresponds to the "hyperbolic" model, so that its present expansion will never stop. We must make one reservation. The estimate of the necessary escape velocity is based on the assumption that practically all the mass of the universe is concentrated in galaxies. If intergalactic space contained matter whose total mass was more than seven times that in the galaxies, we would have to reverse our conclusion and decide that the universe is pulsating. There has been no indication so far, however, that any matter exists in intergalactic space, and it could have escaped detection only if it were in the form of pure hydrogen gas, without other gases or dust.

Is the universe finite or infinite? This resolves itself into the question: Is the curvature of space positive or negative—closed like that of a sphere, or open like that of a saddle? We can look for the answer by studying the geometrical properties of its three-dimensional space, just as we examined the properties of figures on two-dimensional surfaces. The most convenient property to investigate astronomically is the relation between the volume of a sphere and its radius.

We saw that, in the two-dimensional case, the area of a circle increases with increasing radius at a faster rate on a negatively curved surface than on a Euclidean or flat surface; and that on a positively curved surface the relative rate of increase is slower. Similarly the increase of volume is faster in negatively curved space, slower in positively curved space. In Euclidean space the volume of a sphere would increase in proportion to the cube, or third power, of the increase in radius. In negatively curved space the volume would increase faster than this; in positively curved space, slower. Thus if we look into space and find that the volume of successively larger spheres, as measured by a count of the galaxies within them, increases faster than the cube of the distance to the limit of the sphere (the radius), we can conclude that the space of our universe has negative curvature, and therefore is open and infinite. By the same token, if the number of galaxies increases at a rate slower than the cube of the distance, we live in a universe of positive curvature—closed and finite.

Following this idea, Hubble undertook to study the increase in number of galaxies with distance. He estimated the distances of the remote galaxies by their relative faintness: galaxies vary considerably in intrinsic brightness, but over a very large number of galaxies these variations are expected to average out. Hubble's calculations produced the conclusion that the universe is a closed system—a small universe only a few billion light-years in radius!

We know now that the scale he was using was wrong: with the new yardstick the universe would be more than twice as large as he calculated. But there is a more fundamental doubt about his result. The whole method is based on the assumption that the intrinsic brightness of a galaxy remains constant. What if it changes with time? We are seeing the light of the distant galaxies as it was emitted at widely different times in the past—500 million, a billion, two billion years ago. If the stars in the galaxies are burning out, the galaxies must dim as they grow older. A galaxy two billion light-years away cannot be put on the same distance scale with a galaxy 500 million light-years away unless we take into account the fact that we are seeing the nearer galaxy at an older, and less bright, age. The remote galaxy is farther away than a mere comparison of the luminosity of the two would suggest.

When a correction is made for the assumed decline in brightness with age, the more distant galaxies are spread out to farther distances than Hubble assumed. In fact, the calculations of volume are changed so drastically that we may have to reverse the conclusion about the curvature of space. We are not sure, because we do not yet know enough about the evolution of galaxies. But if we find that galaxies wane in intrinsic brightness by only a few per cent in a billion years, we shall have to conclude that space is curved negatively and the universe is infinite.

Actually there is another line of reasoning which supports the side of infinity. Our universe seems to be hyperbolic and ever-expanding. Mathematical solutions of fundamental cosmological equations indicate that such a universe is open and infinite. We have reviewed the questions that dominated the thinking of cosmologists during the first half of this century: the conception of a four-dimensional space-time continuum, of curved space, of an expanding universe and of a cosmos which is either finite or infinite. Now we must consider the major present issue in cosmology: Is the universe in truth evolving, or is it in a steady state of equilibrium which has always existed and will go on through eternity? Most cosmologists take the evolutionary view. But in 1951 a group at the University of Cambridge, whose chief spokesman has been Fred Hoyle, advanced the steady-state idea. Essentially their theory is that the universe is infinite in space and time, that it has neither a beginning nor an end, that the density of its matter remains constant, that new matter is steadily being created in space at a rate which exactly compensates for the thinning of matter by expansion, that as a consequence new galaxies are continually being born, and that the galaxies of the universe therefore range in age from mere youngsters to veterans of 5, 10, 20 and more billions of years. In my opinion this theory must be considered very questionable because of the simple fact (apart from other reasons) that the galaxies in our neighborhood all seem to be of the same age as our own Milky Way. But the issue is many-sided and fundamental, and can be settled only by extended study of the universe as far as we can observe it….Here I shall summarize the evolutionary theory.

We assume that the universe started from a very dense state of matter. In the early stages of its expansion, radiant energy was dominant over the mass of matter. We can measure energy and matter on a common scale by means of the well-known equation E=mc2, which says that the energy equivalent of matter is the mass of the matter multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. Energy can be translated into mass, conversely, by dividing the energy quantity by c2. Thus we can speak of the "mass density" of energy. Now at the beginning the mass density of the radiant energy was incomparably greater than the density of the matter in the universe. But in an expanding system the density of radiant energy decreases faster than does the density of matter. The former thins out as the fourth power of the distance of expansion: as the radius of the system doubles, the density of radiant energy drops to one sixteenth. The density of matter declines as the third power; a doubling of the radius means an eightfold increase in volume, or eightfold decrease in density.

Assuming that the universe at the beginning was under absolute rule by radiant energy, we can calculate that the temperature of the universe was 250 million degrees when it was one hour old, dropped to 6,000 degrees (the present temperature of our sun's surface) when it was 200,000 years old and had fallen to about 100 degrees below the freezing point of water when the universe reached its 250-millionth birthday. This particular birthday was a crucial one in the life of the universe. It was the point at which the density of ordinary matter became greater than the mass density of radiant energy, because of the more rapid fall of the latter. The switch from the reign of radiation to the reign of matter profoundly changed matter's behavior. During the eons of its subjugation to the will of radiant energy (i.e., light), it must have been spread uniformly through space in the form of thin gas. But as soon as matter became gravitationally more important than the radiant energy, it began to acquire a more interesting character. James Jeans, in his classic studies of the physics of such a situation, proved half a century ago that a gravitating gas filling a very large volume is bound to break up into individual "gas balls," the size of which is determined by the density and the temperature of the gas. Thus in the year 250,000,000 A. B. E. (after the beginning of expansion), when matter was freed from the dictatorship of radiant energy, the gas broke up into giant gas clouds, slowly drifting apart as the universe continued to expand. Applying Jeans's mathematical formula for the process to the gas filling the universe at that time, I have found that these primordial balls of gas would have had just about the mass that the galaxies of stars possess today. They were then only "protogalaxies"—cold, dark and chaotic. But their gas soon condensed into stars and formed the galaxies as we see them now.

A central question in this picture of the evolutionary universe is the problem of accounting for the formation of the varied kinds of matter composing it—i.e., the chemical elements….My belief is that at the start matter was composed simply of protons, neutrons and electrons. After five minutes the universe must have cooled enough to permit the aggregation of protons and neutrons into larger units, from deuterons (one neutron and one proton) up to the heaviest elements. This process must have ended after about 30 minutes, for by that time the temperature of the expanding universe must have dropped below the threshold of thermonuclear reactions among light elements, and the neutrons must have been used up in element-building or been converted to protons.

To many a reader the statement that the present chemical constitution of our universe was decided in half an hour five billion years ago will sound nonsensical. But consider a spot of ground on the atomic proving ground in Nevada where an atomic bomb was exploded three years ago. Within one microsecond the nuclear reactions generated by the bomb produced a variety of fission products. Today, 100 million million microseconds later, the site is still "hot" with the surviving fission products. The ratio of one microsecond to three years is the same as the ratio of half an hour to five billion years! If we can accept a time ratio of this order in the one case, why not in the other?

The late Enrico Fermi and Anthony L. Turkevich at the Institute for Nuclear Studies of the University of Chicago undertook a detailed study of thermonuclear reactions such as must have taken place during the first half hour of the universe's expansion. They concluded that the reactions would have produced about equal amounts of hydrogen and helium, making up 99 per cent of the total material, and about 1 per cent of deuterium. We know that hydrogen and helium do in fact make up about 99 per cent of the matter of the universe. This leaves us with the problem of building the heavier elements. I hold to the opinion that some of them were built by capture of neutrons. However, since the absence of any stable nucleus of atomic weight 5 makes it improbable that the heavier elements could have been produced in the first half hour in the abundances now observed, I would agree that the lion's share of the heavy elements may well have been formed later in the hot interiors of stars.

All the theories—of the origin, age, extent, composition and nature of the universe—are becoming more and more subject to test by new instruments and new techniques.…But we must not forget that the estimate of distances of the galaxies is still founded on the debatable assumption that the brightness of galaxies does not change with time. If galaxies actually diminish in brightness as they age, the calculations cannot be depended upon. Thus the question whether evolution is or is not taking place in the galaxies is of crucial importance at the present stage of our outlook on the universe.

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment