Added 4/11/01, Modified 2/18/04

According to Fred Hoyle


Fred Hoyle was a major proponent of what is called the Steady State Theory of the universe. He didn't believe in a one-time Big Bang, but he also couldn't find a way to overcome the difficulties of a repetitive process of creation, as described in his 1962 book, ASTRONOMY.

  "In so far as one can assert any general principles by which to judge where the balance of probability lies between the (different) classes of' cosmology, one might begin by saying that nature commonly appears to avoid starting with a complex situation. Complex situations arise out of the operation of physical laws. For example, complex atomic nuclei are built from the simplest element, hydrogen, by processes which take place within the stars; there was no starting with the complex nuclei. Exactly the same situation applies in chemistry. Beginning with single atoms, molecules were formed, first relatively simple molecules, but then more and more complex ones until the vastly intricate processes of life were reached. Things did not start with life already existing."

  "If one accepts this idea of evolution from simple forms to much more complex forms, then cosmological theories of the first kind, those that require the universe to have had a definite origin, must surely be excluded; for such cosmologies require the main properties of the universe as we observe it today to have been already built into the starting conditions."

The rationale for this assertion is not evident, since the Big Bang does evolve, possibly from simple beginnings.

  "It is the duty of scientists to cover all possible forms of theory. Then, observation is used to decide which of the possibilities put forward by the theoretician are to be allowed to survive and which must be rejected. It is important to ask whether a theory can be built up to explain the observed expanding-apart of the galaxies without requiring the universe to have had a definite origin. One such theory proposes that the universe has an infinite past and an infinite future, passing through an infinity of cycles of expansion and contraction."

  "A serious difficulty in this theory lies in the reversal of the contracting phases. One can understand how an expanding phase can be replaced by a contracting phase, but no convincing explanation has yet been found for how a contracting phase can be replaced by an expanding phase. It seems as if contraction must proceed until space shrinks to a point, until the density of matter becomes infinite, and indeed until the universe ceases to exist. The difficulty lies in explaining how expansion begins from this state."

Hoyle has put his finger precisely on the problem. Re-expansion cannot be matter based, because the gravitational sink at the origin would prevent expansion! But that does not exclude a pure energy wave that creates moving matter as it goes.

  "The theory of an oscillating universe raises an interesting point. It is necessary that there be no net change of chemistry from one cycle to the next. Now, with hydrogen being systematically converted into helium within the stars during every cycle, it is clear that if there were no re-conversion of helium back to hydrogen, then by now, after an infinity of cycles, there could be no hydrogen left in the universe. And this, of course, contradicts observation. To provide for a re-conversion of helium back to hydrogen it would be necessary that the universe should contract sufficiently for the density of matter to become very high, of the order of the densities found in the nuclei of atoms. This means that all galaxies and all stars would have to be destroyed during the contracting phase."

  "It is just possible that some of the helium that we observe in the stars of our own galaxy, and in neighboring galaxies, might have been produced during a very high density phase, but it does not seem that any of the other elements were produced on a literally universal scale. Rather they have originated inside individual stars."

  "In order to preserve any of the theories so far mentioned we are compelled to say that although all the matter of the universe has passed at least once through a most remarkable high-density condition, during which a profusion of nuclear reactions must have taken place, nothing of its effects survives except, possibly, in the case, of helium; in other respects, while the world around us bears ample evidence of being processed inside stars, it bears no significant evidence of ever having been processed in a high-density-high-temperature phase of the universe."

Hoyle is right again! Near the end of the contraction phase, almost all matter would have had to have been gathered up in the form of black holes, effectively undoing all current nuclear species. There must subsequently be an extinction of the gravitational sink and the expansion of the equivalent-mass energy that recreates matter as it goes. The matter created would have to be in the form of neutrons in order to reestablish hydrogen as the dominant nuclear species.

  "Investigation shows that if we restrict ourselves to normal physical ideas we cannot find any such new theory. But are we bound to restrict ourselves to normal physical ideas? Let us approach the answer this way. Many different types of field are known to the physicist. The possibility therefore arises that some new field, not at present known from terrestrial experiment, might be important on the cosmological scale. If one makes this hypothesis, then a new type of theory avoiding the requirement of a high-density-high-temperature phase for all matter can indeed be found."

Indeed, it is proposed here that graviphotons, which are related to gravitons, are the constituents of this new field, and that they take part in recreating gravity as new mass is created away from the origin.



F. Hoyle, Astronomy, Crescent Books, Inc., 1962