lemaitre x j mccartney 2011 ciencia y fe

8/11/2019 Lemaitre x J McCartney 2011 Ciencia y Fe

1/30

hypothse de l atome primitif En 1927, Lema

un modle d Univers en expansion. Qua

tard, il propose un commencement l Unive

la forme d un atome qui se dsintgre en un

artifice. Lobjet dune theorie cosmogonique est

actuel dans toute sa complexit. Cest avec u

conception de la matire et jeen ferai un mon

-moi un atome

appellat

iron

a probablement fait beaucoup pour

Nous pouvons concevoir que lespace

ment du temps.

Georges Lematre:

The Separation of Science and Faith

3/18/2011

J. McCartney


2/30

1

Introduction

Once nicknamed The Father of the Big Bang Theory, Georges Lematres

contributions to the history of modern physics have become increasingly neglected

in recent years. It is hard to believe that this obscure Belgian priest once enjoyed

the status of an international celebrity, both for his ground-breaking theories and his

unusual status as a theoretician and a practicing Jesuit clergyman. Though Lematre

went out of his way to keep his scientific and religious practices separate, it is still

possible to glean from his writings some indication of the connection that these two

fields had in his own mind. This essay examines Lematres life in the context of that

connection.

Early Life

Georges Lematre was born into a large family in Louvain, Belgium in 1894.

Although he had already expressed his dual interests in theology and mathematics,

it was decided very early on that Georges would study mining engineering. This

would enable him to begin a practical career and help support his family.

Unfortunately for Lematre, his college career was soon interrupted by the first

salvos of World War One. Lematre followed the expected course for young men of

his generation, and signed up to join the Belgian army.

Lematre survived many months of intense fighting on the battlefield, and was

one of the first soldiers to witness the horrific results of an attack by chlorine gas (a

substance which was in large part responsible for the outlawing of chemical

warfare). From his own accounts and those of his companions, Lematre was able to


3/30

2

keep calm under this intense pressure by reading advanced science textbooks. By

all accounts, Lematre acquitted himself honorably, and was awarded the Belgian

equivalent of the Silver Star (Croix de Guerres avec palmes) for service and bravery

after the fighting was over.

It is hard to say what impact his war experiences had on Lematre. There is no

existing record of his feelings on the matter. What is known is that when the war was

over, Lematre switched over to studying for a mathematical and physical sciences

degree, with the intention of studying theology immediately afterwards.

Early Academic Career

The significance of Lematres early collegiate academic training lies in the

influences he came under while studying physics, mathematics, and theology. It was

during this period that Lematre first discovered Einsteins relativity equations, a

subject he had to study on his own as there were yet no classes being taught about it.

It was also during this period that Lematre embarked on his Jesuit training, a path

that would support the other side of his vocation and make him well-suited to

construct logical arguments for his theories.

The Jesuit order was founded by St. Ignatius Loyola in 1540. From the

beginning, one of the main foci of the Jesuit mission was the education of the next

generation. In the early modern era, Jesuit primary schools were often the only

access to education that children in European villages had. The Jesuit order also had

a reputation for training its clerics in rigorous rhetoric and logic. In its heyday, the

Jesuit order had such influence that the head of the order was known as the Black


4/30

3

Pope and considered by many to be almost as great an authority in the Roman

Catholic Church as the Pope himself. The Jesuit training received by Lematre, in

addition to training him to act as a priest, seems to have honed Lematres ability to

hold separate the religious and spiritual teachings of his day.

Lematre was not yet a cosmologist; the term had yet to be invented. He

considered himself to be a mathematician, and as such applied for an exchange

scholarship to Cambridge University in England. He was accepted, and there he

was taken under Sir ArthurEddingtons wing, to the mutual edification of both men.

While at Cambridge, Lematre taught himself Einsteins general relativity

theory, using Eddingtons textbook as a guide and with Eddingtons assistance.

There were as yet no classes in the subject. During his studies of Einsteins theories

on general relativity, Lematre came to be heavily influenced by the views of Arthur

Eddington, an influence that was to play an important role in his later career.

Static or Expanding Universe?

When Lematre was studying for his graduate degrees, Einsteins general

relativity equations had just begun to impinge upon the publics consciousness. In

particular, very little was understood about the physical implications of these

formulae. The equations themselves were considered to be the province of

mathematicians, rather than physicists. In US universities, general relativity was still

being taught solely in math departments up until the 1950s. Thus, Einsteins model


5/30

4

was considered to be more of an esoteric mathematical interest than anything that

actually represented the state of the universe.

Even so, the scientists and mathematicians often tried to rearrange these

equations to suit their own world views. Einstein himself, and many after him, tried

to drop the cosmological constant, , from his equations, declaring it to be inelegant.

Einstein was forced to add the cosmological constant to his equations in order to

prevent his model of the universe from collapsing under its own gravity. He later

tried to re-work the formula to make unnecessary, in part to harmonize his

equation with his view that the universe should be represented by an elegant

mathematical statement. Einstein later brushed off Lematres initial attempt to

explain a hypothesis with a similar aesthetic argument, reportedly declaring the

proposed dynamic universe to be too ugly to be true.

This was in part due to the prevailing popularity of the belief in a static,

unchanging universe. de Sitter was one of the first theoreticians to try to apply

Einsteins equations to the physical universe. The solution of de Sitters model

resulted in a stable equilibrium; de Sitter and others supposed that this static version

was the only viable solution. Einstein and de Sitter, among others, were devoted to

the idea that the universe was eternal and unchanging, almost as much as Aristotle

had been centuries before.

Einstein had added the cosmological constant, , into his general relativity

equations in order to preserve his models unchanging nature. As John Farrell

writes in The Day Without Yesterday, This was the way people of the early


6/30

5

twentieth century thought of the universe, as a placid, unchanging system. (Farrell,

8)

de Sitters model used Einsteins equations to shape a physical universe that

was devoid of matter and completely flat. Einstein disliked this model, but on

ideological rather than logical grounds. In Einsteins view of the general relativity

model, the curvature of space was determined by the presence of matter; hence he

felt that de Sitters model invalidated his (Einsteins) pet theory. Alexander

Friedmann was the first to propose a variation on Einsteins equations in 1922 that

would result in a dynamic (altering in size) universe. Friedmanns work covered

some of the same mathematical ground as Lematres. However, Friedmann treated

the dynamic expansion as a mathematical curiosity, while Lematre focused on the

physical applications. Friedmanns work was also not very widely known outside

Russia.

The timing was propitious for an expanding-universe theory. Hubble had just

started making public the observations that would result in Hubbles Law ( objects in

deep space have a Doppler-shifted velocity relative to the Earth and each other).

The idea of an expanding universe was helped along by these observations, which

showed a large percentage of surrounding galaxies red-shifted (receding away from

the Milky Way).

Unfortunately for the peace of mind of the scientific community, Hubbles

observations supported the theory of an expanding universe and contradicted de

Sitters popular static theory. The challenge was to reconcile Einsteins and de

Sitters mathematical work with the known physical observations. When Eddington


7/30

6

published a Royal Society article lamenting the lack of a mathematical solution that

matched the data, Lematre sent him a reminder of his (Lematres) previous work.

At first, Lematres theory seemed doomed to a similar oblivion as

Friedmanns. His first paper on the subject was published in a little known Belgian

journal, in 1927, far from the attention of the growing cosmological community. It

wasnt until Eddington brought Lematres previous work to the attention of this

community by getting the theory published in the Royal Society journal that the idea

began to be taken seriously.

The Beginnings of Lematres Model

Though he had been working with general relativity theory since 1927,

Lematres novel conclusion of the universe expanding from a sing le, physical

singularity (what he called the Primeval Atom)was not fully expounded until 1931.

Indeed, A. Deprit, in a talk about Lematre, called Lematres letter to Nature on the

9thof May, 1931, the charter of the Big Bang Theory (Berger, 373). It was in this

letter, a response to Eddingtons repugnance at the thought of a universe with a

definite beginning in time, that Lematre declared: If we go back in the course of

time we must find fewer and fewer quanta, until we find all the energy of the

universe packed in a few or even in a unique quantum. (Farrell, 107) Going further

to rebut Eddingtons misgivings, Lematre also tried to justify this quantum as being

time-independent, saying:

If the world has begun with a single quantum, the notions

of space and time would altogether fail to have any

meaning at the beginning; when the original quantum hadbeen divided into a sufficient number of quanta. If this


8/30

7

suggestion is correct, the beginning of the worldhappened a little before the beginning of space and time.

I think that such a beginning of the world is far enoughfrom the present order of nature to be not repugnant at

all. (Farrell, 108)

The reason why Lematre did not present his views to the international

community before 1931 is not known. It is possible he was simply hesitant of the

reception his theory would receive, although Kragh presents the hypothesis that

Lematre was deliberately choosing not to seek international recognition.

Farrell suggests that Lematre had an advantage over older physicists, in that

his intrinsic worldview was different, and states, In a sense, he was the first

cosmologist to grow up with Einsteins physics rather than Newtons. (Farrell, 108)

According to Farrell, this unique perspective may have allowed Lematre to see

possibilities in the consequences of the general relativity equations that were not

readily apparent to his contemporaries.

Lematres solution was based on a correction to part of de Sitters work.

Lematre pointed out that when the coordinate system was changed to an arbitrary

one, de Sitters model resulted in a dynamic universe, capable of changing size.

There was as yet no mathematical reason to choose whether this meant an expansion

or a contraction, but the galaxy red-shift data pointed suggestively in the direction of

expansion.

In spite of Hubbles evidence, many scientists still supported the static

hypothesis. The objections were mainly philosophical rather than logical. Using the


9/30

8

cosmological constant to make the universal model dynamic resulted in a set of

equations that was decidedly less elegant than the static version.

In the realm of logical though and scientific philosophy, Kragh describes how

Lematre avoided the perennial problem of scientific induction and determinism:

Lematre had to avoid the Kantian antinomy1 of

beginning. This dilemma is based on determinism,according to which future states of a physical system can

be inferred from some initial conditions. A deterministic

explanation of a beginning will then have to refer to a

more remote state as initial conditions, which is only to

push the problem back in time. The problem ends in aninfinite regress, that is, without a solution. This was where

quantum mechanical indeterminacy came in. In anondeterministic system the antinomy will not arise and so

Lematre saw a way in which the world could havebegun. (Kragh (b), 48)

The Kantian antinomy in question is summarized in the preface of Lematres

The Primeval Atom, quoted from KantsCritique of Pure Reason as:

The world had a beginning in time and itis also limited in space.

The world has neither a beginning in time nor limits in space, but it isinfinite in time as well as in space. (Lematre, 13)

Lematre was not alone in trying to find a way around deterministic reasoning.

Farrells biography describes the scientists of Lematres generation as questioning

the philosophical underpinnings of mechanics. (Farrell, 22)

There were also theological considerations to both models. Although the Big

Bang theory is often cited as supporting the Christian view of creation, at the time,

the static theory of an enduring cosmos was thought to be evidence of Gods perfect

creation. Some physicists even adjusted their theories to suggest the spontaneous

1Antinomy: The mutual incompatibility of two laws.


10/30


11/30

10

reportedly at Einsteins suggestion shows the kind of working relationship that

eventually developed between the two men. Indeed, at a conference in California,

Lematre and Einstein developed the habit of taking long walks together, debating a

topic that the reporters who followed Einstein nicknamed Einsteins little lamb.

This was none other than the cosmological constant, lambda, which Einstein still

reviled and Lematre insisted must have some empirical significance beyond the

balancing of Einsteins equations.

Even with the best of intentions, most scientists cannot help but bring some of

their own philosophical perspectives into their work. Einsteins particular belief was

that the universe was inherently rational. In this he was influenced by the ideas of

Ernst Mach, who proposed that mechanical laws relative to the universe should be

seen as purely rational. (Kragh (b), 8) As Farrell put it,

Einstein often pointed out that the relativity theory was

itself rooted in a deep-seated beliefindeed what mightbe called a stubborn article of faith with Einsteinthat the

universe worked on basically simple universalprinciples. (Farrell, 202)

Einstein also had a marked fondness for simplicity and elegance in equations.

One of his main objections to the use of the cosmological constant in relativity

equations was that it was gravely detrimental to the beauty of the theory (Kragh

(b), 10).

Lematre absorbed some of this preference for simplicity during his studies of

Einsteins work. As Kragh put it, he became a believer in logical beauty, simplicity,

and unity. According to Lematres own journal notes from 1922, his views were

that scientific progress is the discovery of a more and more comprehensive


12/30

11

simplicity (Kragh (b), 28). Lematre also applied the search for simplicity to his

own cosmology work, stating, The purpose of any cosmogonic theory is to seek out

ideally simple conditions which could have initiated the world and from which, by

the play of recognized physical forces, that world, in all its complexity, may have

resulted. (Lematre, 162)

Lematre later confronted this preference for simplicity in a 1945 lecture on

cosmogonic hypotheses, saying,

When one reads Laplace, Kant, or Buffon, one notices that

these authors have experienced a particular pleasure in

developing their systems, a sort of exaltation related to theenthusiasm of the poets; the pleasure of discovering an

enigma, of perceiving a simplicity hidden under theapparent complexity of the world, also, without doubt, an

aesthetic pleasure before grandiose beauty, perhaps also

the pleasure of risk, which their enterprise brings, sincethe progress of positive knowledge must ultimately

control their intuitions by confirming them, unless it annulsthem or even makes them seem almost ridiculous, after a

while. (Lematre, 108)

Fame, Publicity, and Suspicions of Faith

In 1933 Lematres ground-breaking thesis began to garner more public

attention. With Hubbles discoveries of the red-shifted galaxies, the prospect of an

expanding universe began to seem more like a real possibility than a mathematical

curiosity. In the 1930s Lematre, as The Father of the Big Bang, reached a status of

near-celebrity, both for his theory and for his status as a Jesuit priest. Describing the

reaction to the rediscovery of Lematres 1927 paper, in conjunction with the

publication of Hubbles galactic velocity/distance relation, just before 1930, Farrell

summarizes:


13/30

12

Lematres public life was about to begin. His solution

seemed made to order, and the avowed expansion of

the universe was no longer a mathematicalcontrivance. It was a reality. (Farrell, 98)

Due to his work on the general relativity equations, Lematre was awarded the

Farqui prize by the king of Belgium. At the time, it was second only to the Nobel

Prize in prestige, and came with a monetary award of ~$300,000. The prize was

apparently awarded partly due to the urgings of Einstein, demonstrating the degree

of respect that he felt for Lematre.

Though Lematre always took great care to keep his faith separate from his

science, the simple fact that he was a priest led some of his detractors to regard his

theory with suspicion. To some, Lematres Primeval Atom hypothesis (later

revised and nicknamed the Big Bang Theory), with its emphasis on a single point

of origin for the cosmos, smacked of creationism. There was even some suspicion

attached to Lematres longtime mentor, Eddington.

A. Deprit, in an address at a conference commemorating Lematre, remarked,

TheBig Bang Theory had been held in suspicion by most

astronomers, not least by Einstein, if only for the reasonthat it was proposed by a Catholic priest and seconded by

a devout Quaker, hence highly suspect of concordism2.

(Berger, 387)

This is another example of the disparate accounts that exist of Einsteins

relationship with Lematre. Although their wrangling upon the various mathematical

formulae and physical theories was by some accounts very amiable, the press and

other sources apparently could not resist painting the dichotomy between

Lematres and Einsteins cosmological views as a great controversy.

2Concordism: The idea that biblical passages parallel or explain modern scientific concepts.


14/30

13

While it is undoubtedly true that Lematres theory was propounded by a

Jesuit Catholic priest, it is not as clear that the theory deserves the sobriquet of

being seconded by a devout Quaker. Though Eddington (the devout Quaker in

question) was instrumental in ensuring that Lematres expanding-universe

hypothesis gained reception with a wider scientific audience, there is some

evidence that Eddington was actually a proponent of the steady-state hypothesis. In

any case, there is no prima facie evidence that Eddington used his faith to justify his

cosmological theories any more than Lematre did.

In fact, Eddington was opposed to the idea of a non-eternal universe. In

discussing the possibility of a beginning point of zero entropy, in a 1931 article in

Nature, Eddington said:

Following time backwards, we find more and more

organization of the world. If we are not stopped earlier,we must come to the time when the matter and energy of

the world had the maximum possible organization. To goback further is impossible. We have come to an abrupt

end of space-timeonly we generally call it thebeginning (Kragh (b), 46).

Eddington went on to say, philosophically, the notion of a beginning of the

present order of Nature is repugnant to me.

As astronomical observation techniques were not yet advanced enough to

discover conclusive proof of the leftovers of the universes beginnings, Lematre had

to be content with letting his theory rest on its mathematical underpinnings, at least

for a time. Though he supported it unreservedly, Lematre was always careful to

present his hypothesis as one possible scenario, and not an undisputed,

dogmatically-held truth.


15/30

14

It was perhaps this very lack of dogmatism that aided in the acceptance of the

expanding universe theory in the 1930s. With Hubbles galactic observations, the

timing was ripe for a paradigm shift, and Lematres theory fit in perfectly with the

spirit of the times.

The idea of Lematres theory supporting concordism owing to Lematres

Catholic faith was even more in error than supposing concordism was implied by

Eddingtons Quaker religion, given Lematres views on the inappropriateness of

mixing science and the Bible. In 1933, Lematre said on the subject, Hundreds of

professional and amateur scientists actually believe the Bible pretends to teach

science. This is a good deal like assuming that there must be authentic religious

dogma in the binomial theorem (Kragh (b), 59)

Kragh calls Lematresphilosophical stance epistemic optimism. Lematre

held an attitude similar to Galileos centuries earlier, that God had given humankind

the ability to reason in order to discover more about the universe. In fact, he ended

the first chapter of The Primeval Atom on just such a note, in one of the very few

theological interludes of Lematres scientific work.

We cannot end this rapid review which we have made

together of the most magnificent subject that the human

mind may be tempted to explore without being proud of

these splendid endeavors of Science in the conquest of the

Earth, and also without expressing our gratitude to OneWho has said: I am the Truth, One Who gave us the

mind to understand Him and to recognize a glimpse of Hisglory in our universe which He has so wonderfullyadjusted to the mental power with which He has endowed

us. (Lematre, 55)


16/30

15

Other scientists philosophies were mainly based on faith in rational

empiricism, which seems to be more grounded in group consensus than an

objective rationality. Hence, once the expanding universe theory had a large

enough following, the static universe hypothesis was increasingly marginalized.

Though the static universe and the later incarnation of the steady-state hypothesis

continued to have staunch supporters who gathered sustaining evidence right up

until the 1960s, the expanding universe and Big Bang theory were given prime of

place in teaching and discussion.

Lematres Religion

It is beyond doubt that Lematre was a devout Roman Catholic. That he was

also a scientist who believed wholeheartedly in the scientific method has caused

some confusion for those who see an inherent conflict between these two belief

systems.

Lematre was perhaps fortunate that during his lifetime the Roman Catholic

Church was moving towards a more accommodating stance regarding competing

faiths and philosophies. As a Catholic, Lematre was obliged to believe in the truth

of the Bible, but for him that truth seems to have been spiritual rather than literal.

Lematre reportedly had very little patience with people who tried to find science in

the scriptures. To him, the story of creation was one that was meant to convey the

gist of a story whose main thesis was outside of human understanding.

There were some naysayers, notably Fred Hoyle and William Bonnor, who

viewed Lematres work with suspicion owing to his faith. Hoyle was also a natural


17/30

16

antagonist of the Big Bang, a nickname that was invented by Hoyle in a radio

address in 1950. Hoyle was one of the main proponents of the Steady State theory in

Britain, a theory that gained the support of physicists who were uncomfortable with

the primeval atom and indeed any model of the universe whose evolution implied a

temporal beginning of the world. (Farrell, 142)

However, even Hoyles antagonism was based on philosophical, not personal

grounds. Hoyle apparently got on very well with Lematre, and even went on

vacation with him once (Farrell, 149). This speaks well of the broadmindedness on

both mens parts, as Hoyle was a pronounced atheist with anti-clerical feelings. In

addition to his theological objections, Hoyle had scientific and philosophical

objections to the expanding universe theory as well. To Hoyle, the idea that the

universe changed in time implied the possibility that the laws of physics also

changed in time. This was a concept that Hoyle considered anathema. (Farrell, 154)

Though Lematre always endeavored to keep his science and his faith

separate, there were some instances where Lematres beliefs crept into his work.

For instance, in a 1929 prose essay on The Size of Space, after comparing the

sphere of fixed stars to a huge army, Lematre said,

How does the imagination of the poets compare with the

reality of the heavens? The world is not a dungeon, not

even a nicely-decorated dungeon; it is a boundless

perspective, marked out with bright guideposts which

seem to have been placed at the farthest distance wherethey may still help us to answer the riddle, or rather, tovalue and admire the work of beauty which has been

prepared by the God of the Armies3(Lematre, 32)

3This is a quotation from the Bible, 1 Samuel 17:45.


18/30


19/30

18

first iteration of his theory Lematre really did believe that this cosmic radiation was

caused by a primeval atom; four atoms of hydrogen meeting in interstellar space

and combining to form an atom of helium while releasing ultrapenetrating radiation

(Lematre, 77). In Lematres own words, The primeval atom hypothesis is a

cosmogonic hypothesis which pictures the present universe as the result of the

radioactive disintegration of an atom (Lematre, 134). Lematre revised his initial

theory several times over the course of a decade. The final version of the Big Bang

theory started from Lematres Primeval Atom expanded dramatically in a short

time, slowed down, and then accelerated its expansion again. Later developments

in astronomy would bear out Lematres prediction of the acceleration of the

expansion rate.

Lematre and the Popes Address

There was one event in which Lematres philosophy of science and his

religion definitely collided. This was Pope Pius XIIs address in 1951, which

explicitly used Lematres hypothesis as support for the biblical account of creation.

Speaking in a Solemn Audience and addressing modern cosmologys relation to

faith, the Pope declared,

Indeed, it would seem that present-day science, with one

sweep back across the centuries, has succeeded in

bearing witness to the august instant of theFiat Lux,whenalong with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea oflight and radiation, and the elements split and churnedand formed into millions of galaxies. (Farrell, 196)


20/30

19

This address enraged Lematre, coming as it did with no warning and

invalidating his carefully nurtured stance of neutrality on the subject of his theorys

relation to Catholic teachings.

The lack of warning may have been especially hurtful, as it was clear from the

address that the Pope had built his arguments upon those of Stephen Whittaker, one

of Lematres colleagues, while Lematre had not been consulted at all. This fact is

slightly perplexing, as Lematre was at the time a respected member of the Pontifical

Academy of Science, established especially for the purpose of providing a scientific

consulting authority for the Roman Catholic Church.

Though he later set up an individual consultation with the Pope to explain his

views, and later pontifical addresses proved much more circumspect regarding the

Big Bang theory, this event seems to have been somewhat demoralizing for

Lematre. Combined with later circumstances, it seems to have acted to prevent him

from putting in any more serious work on his theory in subsequent years.

After spending so much time defending his hypothesis, Lematre eventually

declared that it would have to wait on further proof from physics as yet

undiscovered. Lematre was referring to the cosmic rays that he supposed would

have been leftover from the disintegration of his primeval atom. Though his theory

of leftovers from the beginning of the universes expansion later bore fruit in the

shape of the cosmic microwave background radiation, Lematre had by that time

moved on to other puzzles, including scientific computing, and his cosmological

theories never moved very far from the work he had done in the 1930s.


21/30

20

When Lematre did speak at cosmological conferences in the 40s and 50s,

besides going over his previous theory, he took great care to de-emphasize the

connection between his fireworks universe and the Christian account of creation.

This is especially apparent in an address he gave at a conference in Brussels 1958,

where Lematre stated, regarding the theory of a singularity event at the beginning

of space-time:

As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside

any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the

materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He maykeep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of

mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring innon-singular places of space-time. For the believer, it

removes any attempt to familiarity with God, as wereLaplaces chiquenaude or Jeans finger. It is consonant

with Isaias speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in thebeginning of creature.

The finger that Lematre is referencing is a suggestion that one of his

colleagues, James Jeans, once made tongue-in-cheek. In discussing the origins of

the cosmos, Jeans suggested the possibility of the finger of God agitating the ether

in order to stir up high-energy photons to crystallize into electrons and protons,

and finally form atoms (Kragh(b), 42). Laplaces chiquenaude4involved a nebular

gas spinning off rings which would condense into planets

The World War Two Years

Besides the impact of the Popes address, another major event intervened in

Lematres life to prevent his having a greater impact on the developing views of

cosmology. This was the advent of the Second World War, where the citizens of

4Chicquenade: to flick (off)


22/30

21

Belgium, including Lematre, were effectively cut off from the rest of the world in

isolation under Hitlers rule.

During this period, Lematre was almost accidentally wiped out by friendly

fire from the Allied nations, as bombs meant for enemy lines were mistakenly

dropped on the city of Louvain. One of these bombs struck Lematres apartment

building. Fortunately, he escaped with minor injuries. Another bomb burned down

the library at the University of Louvain where Lematre was teaching, although again

fortunately, he was nowhere near the building.

Perhaps not by coincidence, it was during this period of German occupation

that the steady-state theory gained its greatest popularity in those countries where

cosmology research was still actively pursued. Cut off as he was, Lematre had no

way of knowing how his pet theory was being treated, and no opportunity to rise to

its defense.

It is possible that Lematre may not have been interested in that defense

anyway. During the war years, Lematre seems to have lost interest in working out

the convolutions of the Big Bang theory, and focused his attentions in other areas. He

was trying to work out how to search for cosmic rays, as well as establishing the

universitys first scientific computing center, partly with his own funds.

After spending many years travelling the globe, and being a one-time

celebrity, it is also possible that Lematre simply wanted to settle down in one place,

and enjoy his teaching career. After the war ended, he also felt an obligation to his

ailing mother which tied him even more firmly to one place.


23/30

22

Conclusion

P. J. E. Peebles, in his biographical conference address on Georges Lematre,

said it best:

Physical scientists have a healthy attitude towards the

history of their subject: by and large we ignore it. But it isgood to pause now and then and consider the careers of

those who through a combination of the right talent and at

the propitious time have had an exceptional influence on

the progress of science. As I have noted on several

occasions it seems to me that Georges Lematre played aunique and remarkable role in setting out the program of

research we now call physical cosmology. (Berger, 23)

Lematre indeed had a unique and remarkable role in the foundations of

cosmology. His final version of the Big Bang theory has been increasingly borne out

by modern astronomical observations, which prove that the expansion of the

universe is indeed accelerating. Lematre is one of very few scientists whose

adherence to an unpopular theory was vindicated by later evidence, who could truly

be said to have been ahead of his time.

In his memorial essay on Lematre, P. J. E. Peebles called the Belgian priest

distinctly the pioneer in the new vistas of physics opened up by the discovery of

the expanding universe (Berger, 25). Peebles declared Lematre to be without

peer in the field, until Gamow came on the scene in the 1940s.

Sadly, Lematres contribution to the theory of an expanding universe often

goes unrecognized by modern scientists. It is not unusual at all to walk into a

physics classroom and hear an instructor lecturing on how Hubble discovered that

the universe was expanding. What Hubble really discovered was a method of


24/30

23

measuring the distance of galaxies, and the red-shifted properties of the majority of

the galaxies he measured. However, as Kragh wrote in Conceptions of Cosmos,

Lematre was the first to introduce the crucial notion that

The receding velocities of extra-galactic nebulae are acosmical effect of the expansion of the universe. That is,

he realized that the redshifts were caused not by galaxiesmoving through space, but by galaxies being carried with

the expanding space.(Kragh (a), 144)

Though his strict policy of keeping science and religion separate served him

well in the scientific arena, it is a shame that because of this, there is no record of

what Lematre felt about the theological implications of his work. Lematre may have

been boxed in by the perceived conflict between science and religion; that as a

serious scientist, he was unable to put any of his feelings about God into his work

without facing ridicule and suspicion. There is some evidence that his early essays

included just such mentions, which were edited out before publication.

While he may have been set against finding a direct link between biblical

accounts of creation and the origin theory of the cosmos, this does not rule out an

underlying philosophical or metaphysical connection. As a scientist and a priest,

Lematre had a unique perspective about God and creation; it is a pity that no-one

will ever know what it was. Modern histories of Lematre on cosmology focus on the

mans scientific work and almost ignore his religious background. Lacking such an

elementary part of Lematre, these works will ever be sadly incomplete.


25/30

Bibliography

Berger, A., ed. The Big Bang and Georges Lemaitre: Proceedings of a Symposium in

Honour of G. Lemaitre Fifty Years after His Initiation of Big-bang Cosmology:

Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 10-13 October 1983. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1984.Print

Kragh, Helge. Conceptions of Cosmos: from Myths to the Accelerating Universe: a

History of Cosmology. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2007. Print.

Kragh, Helge. Cosmology and Controversy: the Historical Development of TwoTheories of the Universe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 1996. Print.

Farrell, John. The Day without Yesterday: Lemaitre, Einstein, and the Birth of Modern

Cosmology. New York: Thunder's Mouth, 2005. Print.

Laracy, Joseph. "Priestly Contributions to Modern Science: The Case of Monsignor

Georges Lemaitre," Faith. 42(3):16-19.

Laracy, Joseph. "The Faith and Reason of Father Georges Lematre," Homiletic and

Pastoral Review. 50-59, February 2009.

Lemaitre, Georges. The Primeval Atom. Trans. Betty H. Korff and Serge Alexander

Korff. Toronto: New-York . D. Van Nostrand, 1950. Print.

Poe, Edgar Allen. "Poe: Eureka."American Studies @ The University of Virginia. 2 July1999. Web. 19 Mar. 2011..


26/30


27/30

2

1925: Lemaitre is appointed associate professor of math at College du

Saint Esprit

1927: Lematre develops his own theory of universal expansion and

publishes it in an obscure Belgian journal

1929: Hubble publishes data on the linear relationship between the

apparent velocities of galaxies and their distance (what would become

known as Hubbles Law). Hubble argues that this supports the theory ofthe curvature of space.

1930: Eddington poses a question to the British Royal AstronomicalSociety, on how to resolve Hubbles moving galaxies with the existing

static universe models.

1930: Lematre reminds Eddington of his (Lematres) 1927 paper.Eddington aids in bringing Lematres expanding universe theory to the

attention of the international astronomical community.

1931: Einstein accepts the new paradigm of the dynamic universe but

prefers the oscillatory model.

1931: Lematre becomes dissatisfied with 1927 model of the universe

expanding from a static state, and starts work on a model that would start

from a singularity (the Big Bang).

1932: Friedmann-Lematre model (of a universe expanding

asymptotically to a de Sitter empty-space configuration) formalized.

1934: Lematreis awarded the Farqui prize by the king of Belgium, withEinsteins recommendation.

1935: Lematre is named an honorary canon of the Malines cathedral

1936: Pontifical Academy of Science is created, to replace Academia dei

Novi Lincei. Lematre is elected as a member.

1940: Lemaitre attempts to flee the German invasion of Belgium duringWWII and is turned back

1951: Pope Pius XII delivers a speech linking Lematres work with

Catholic dogma


28/30

3

1960: Lematre is named a Prelate of the Papal Household and becomes a

Monsignor

1960-1966: Lematre serves as President of the Pontifical Academy of

Science

1966: Lemaitre dies after complications from a heart attack in 1965


29/30

4

Appendix B: Early Variations on the

Big Bang

Although it may seem obvious in retrospect, the idea of a universe expanding

from a definite starting point was a great intellectual leap when it was first posited by

Lematre. Lematre himself said about the static universe:

The cosmic theory of Einstein, in addition to the

hypothesis of the homogeneity of space, implied an

hypothesis which may seem so natural that we must be

forgiven for not having mentioned it at the outset, namely,the hypothesis that the tour of the universe does not varywith time, or, in other words, that the universe is static.

(Lematre, 52)

Perhaps in recognition of the naturalness of the static universe, both

Eddington and Lematre first used a universal model that expanded from an initial

quasi-static state, which was compatible with current theories of stellar ages.

However, this quasi-static state required a very finely balanced equilibrium, which

Lematre considered unlikely. This is what spurred Lematre to take the intuitive

leap from a static to an expansive initial state. Or, as P. J. E. Peebles put it in his

address on Lematres impact on cosmology:

It was Lematre who took the bold step: if the universe

cannot have existed into the indefinite past in a quasi-static phase then let us consider the possibility that space

expanded from a singularly dense state, what Lematrecame to call the Primeval Atom (and Gamow later termedthe Big Bang). (Berger, 26)

Lematre was the first person to assemble the mathematical, physical, and

relativistic pieces of what would become the Big Bang theory. But he was not the


30/30

first person to come up with the idea. In 1848, Edgar Allen Poe wrote an essay titled

Eureka, where he described the universes creation, via a particle absolutely

unique, individual, undivided (Poe, 30):

The assumption of absolute Unity in the primordial

Particle includes that of infinite divisibility. Let us conceivethe Particle, then, to be only not totally exhausted by

diffusion into Space. From the one Particle, as a centre, letus suppose to be irradiated spherically -- in all directions -

- to immeasurable but still to definite distances in the

previously vacant space -- a certain inexpressibly great

yet limited number of unimaginably yet not infinitelyminute atoms (Poe, 30)

Lord Kelvin also provided one of the early precursor theories to the Big Bang.

When the field of thermodynamics was just beginning, the Second Law of

Thermodynamics caused some nervous speculation on how the ultimate increase in

entropy would lead to the heat death of the universe. Kelvin suggested that it ought

to be possible to work backwards to a state of less entropy. (Farrell, 50)

lemaitre x j mccartney 2011 ciencia y fe

Documents