Essays (1)
The Class of 1927/8
In a school in East London, England, during the school year of 1927/8, a teacher was giving his class of 13 and 14-year-old boys a science lesson. The poverty of the families of the area was reflected in the shabbily clothed and undernourished children. Many had no father. Indeed, several could not even remember a father, for World War 1 had taken its toll when the boys were still infants.
The teacher was saying that the Sun sends us both light and heat. But in an earlier lesson he had taught the class that heat does not pass through a vacuum. How then did the heat travel through the 93 million or so miles of Space that separates the Earth from the Sun? The teacher explained that throughout the Universe there must therefore exist an invisible, undetectable “ether”, and it was this that conducted the heat from the Sun to the Earth.
For one boy at least this was too much to accept. He was probably only 13, for this was in September, the beginning of the school year, and he was not 14 until late November. Nevertheless, his young mind revolted at such an artificial contrivance. However, in those days, boys respected their teachers, and he remained silent. He contented himself with the thought that the middle-aged teacher’s knowledge was probably well out of date.
But the boy now faced the problem: if “ether” was a myth, just how do we obtain the heat upon which life depends?
He then realised that there could be only one answer: we do not receive heat, as such, from the Sun, but make it here on Earth from the Sun’s invisible radiation! For the boy of 13, in 1927, this was a revelation and a breakthrough.
If this applied to heat, did it also apply to light? Yes, it must! Only that would explain why the entire sky is dark at night when, we are told, the Sun continuously radiates “light” throughout Space and the Solar System. “Light” rays, too, must be invisible! We see no rays of light, as such, on their way from the Sun to the Moon. We have light in the night sky only when some of the Sun’s invisible radiation that strikes the Moon is reflected our way. Why has this not been explained to us?
With these conclusions the boy now saw that the Sun does not send us either heat or light, as such, any more than it sends us cabbages, though its radiation is essential for all three.
The immediate reaction of other people to this view was that in large families – and the boy was one of seven children – there is always one child who is a little weird or “touched”.
The boy, ultra sensitive and reticent at the best of times, retired into himself, but he did not stop considering the idea.
He soon realised that if he were correct it meant that the Sun’s radiation passed through an evolutionary process. He now knew not only that “sunshine” and “sunlight” were fallacies but also why Space was so cold.
(“Sunrise” and “sunset” are convenient terms, but are scientifically false, and for centuries they helped to perpetuate a misunderstanding of the Universe and of Mankind’s place within it. Are we in danger of perpetuating an error of almost equal magnitude by the common use of “sunlight”? As with “sunrise” and “sunset”, the difference, in practical terms, may seem slight, but if “light” rays are invisible then “sunlight”, too, has hidden a major truth, and for much longer.)
The boy learned of the electromagnetic spectrum; and, for him, many things immediately slipped into place, with the apparent proof everywhere around him. He had already seen an electric heater and had noticed that one could feel the heat before the element glowed with light. He concluded that if invisible, high frequency short-wave radiation meets opposition to its path and penetrates, it does so only at the cost of certain high frequencies by absorbing them or by changing them to lower frequencies and longer wavelengths; and the process is always accompanied by the release of heat.
Furthermore, if the wavelength is already approaching that of the visible spectrum, colours appear in line with their wavelengths and the density of the opposition. There was no “ether”. The E-M spectrum confirmed his view that heat was created here on Earth as our planet, a comparatively tiny body in Space, was caught in the widespread flow of the Sun’s invisible radiation.
The evolutionary nature of the Sun’s radiation that this implied also immediately explained to the boy the blue of the sky, the colours at sunrise and sunset, the yellowness of London’s fogs, the warmth created by glass struck by the Sun’s rays, and the efficiency of greenhouses.
It followed, he thought, that different colours probably have different temperatures as well as different wavelengths. But what happened in Space?
He saw that what applied to our Sun must also apply to all the stars of the Universe. All radiation from them is invisible until it encounters the necessary degree of resistance. Without that resistance, all Space is cold and black. On Earth, on a clear night, particularly after rain, the rays of a car’s headlights or an electric torch are invisible when viewed sideways: we again see only the effect when they are obstructed and reflected. When and where there are particles of dust in the air each acts as a tiny mirror. Together, they reflect the rays to our eyes, which convert them into light.
This also means that neither the Earth nor the Moon throws a shadow of darkness, but only a “shadow” of invisible radiation, for each circles in the darkness of Space. We see the Moon because it reflects a minute part of the Sun’s total invisible radiation to us on Earth, where our eyes convert at least some of the radiation into light.
In an eclipse of the Sun, the Moon’s radiation shadow across our planet becomes noticeable only because it is the Earth, bombarded by the Sun’s radiation, which is generating light around it. Here, as always, the Moon does not really cast a cone of darkness, for it must be emphasised that no light, as such, comes from the Sun.
It also occurred to the boy that without the ability of the human eye to convert a comparatively narrow band of wavelengths to produce the effect of light we would be blind. We would then be aware of the Sun’s existence only by the heat that was created, or by some other range of frequencies and wavelengths for which Nature might have provided us with the equipment to detect. On the Moon, as on the Earth and, indeed, throughout the Universe, there is no such thing as light itself. Radiation from the Sun and other stars can be converted into light only where there exists the apparatus to do so. That is the miracle of our eyes, as with those of almost all animals on Earth. Remarkably, throughout the Universe, where there is no life there is probably no light, sound or smell.
The boy also realised that if radiation from other visible stars encounters gases and other matter, however thinly dispersed, as it travels the vast distances to us on Earth, that radiation must also pass through evolutionary stages by changing, absorbing or discarding its highest frequencies. Other things being equal, the degree of change would be directly related to distance. In short, to the boy, the nearer the visible red of the radiation as it appears to us, the more distant was the star.
He also thought it possible that there were stars so hot that, to us, their radiation had still not reached the visible range, or, more likely, so cold or so comparatively cold, that they no longer emitted the radiation necessary for them to be detected visually. From all this there was therefore the distinct possibility that as the visible spectrum is only a small part of the entire E-M spectrum, the stars visible to us are only a fraction of those that exist. There was absolutely no reason to assume that the stars were created only for creatures, on Earth or elsewhere in the Universe, who had the benefit of light and sight.
The boy realised that there must be very many stars whose radiation had encountered such strong opposition – or were so far away – that their radiation would have passed through the visible part of the spectrum before it reaches us, to become infra-red and radio waves, normally invisible to us. To him, it followed that given the right equipment it should be possible to detect stars on every frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum.
He therefore knew of the almost certain existence of “radio stars” and other stars of the E-M spectrum years before the former were accidentally discovered by scientists during 1931. Being a young boy he had assumed that, despite his teacher, scientists would be well aware of this. He was amazed to find, years later, that they were not!
Furthermore, it followed from the boy’s belief, as already mentioned in connection with the Earth, that, as the change in radiation is accompanied by the release of heat, there must be a very low amount of heat throughout Space, because where there is matter, however diffuse, to hinder or change the radiation, there must be heat.
(It is worthy of note that the discovery in 1965 of a slight background heat in Space – hailed as a relic and proof of the Big Bang – later won two scientists a Nobel Prize; yet, as stated above, a slight background heat is an essential part of a contrasting theory developed by a schoolboy during the school year of 1927/8. Regardless of whether that theory is scientifically well founded or no, the fact remains that it led the boy to certain truths well ahead of the professionals. Remarkably, though the “ether” theory has long been dropped, it appears that nobody yet sees or accepts the wider implications.)
Completely unknown to the boy, Hubble, in the U.S.A., was at about the same time deducing that the Universe was expanding – as announced in 1929. His view was based, primarily, on the work of other astronomers who had found by long observation of the stars what the boy had decided from simple reasoning: the farther the star, the greater the increase in wavelength of its radiation when received here. This gave strong support to the boy’s theory; but, of course, the boy was not then aware of the research that was taking place, and he was unknown to the astronomers.
However, as optical telescopes were being used, the work of the astronomers was restricted to the narrow band of wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum from which we obtain our “light” of various colours. As the researchers found that the wavelength of recorded light lengthened from that of blue to red the astronomers referred to any movement toward the red as the “Red Shift”. Of course, as stated above, the boy had already gone a major step further, for he applied the lengthening to all electromagnetic radiation.
From here, however, the astronomers took a radically different view. Doppler had shown that as the pitch of a note increased on approaching but lowered upon receding, so the wavelength of “light” would shorten on its approach and lengthen on receding in line with the speed of the source. With the Doppler effect to hand, offering what then seemed a very simple explanation, Hubble and many astronomers in the U.S.A. looked for no other: to them, the greater the Red Shift, the greater the speed of recession.
When, on this basis, it was sensationally declared that the most distant stars and galaxies were receding at staggering speeds directly proportional to distance, there was born the idea of an expanding Universe, starting way back in time with a Big Bang. Hubble’s Constant, though modified, is still used to calculate speeds of recession of the most distant star and galaxies. But the theory of the Big Bang has created its own problems.
One obvious point to laymen is that if “Universe” covers everything, including the outer limits of Space – if limits exist – into what is the Universe expanding? The Universe cannot be all-inclusive and still expand into farther Space. If Farther Space exists, it is possible that there are further and Farther Universes occupying it. (It is therefore not surprising that this is precisely the view now being put forward by professional scientists.)
Hubble, with the help of Doppler, interpreted red shift as speed of recession. That has been the key factor in the theory of the expanding Universe and the Big Bang, which, it must be stressed, faces many problems. The schoolboy, without any help or apparatus, interpreted red shift as the degree of interference met by the radiation, and this degree he related directly to distance.
(We must bear in mind that despite, to us, the enormity of the stars and the galaxies, they take up what is comparatively an almost insignificant little of the incredible vastness of Space.)
It is also important to realise that, in line with the boy’s hypothesis, the effect of interference on a star’s radiation is proven twice every sunny day, when, morning and evening, with the Sun low in the sky, the Earth’s atmosphere presents to the Sun’s radiation the conditions, in concentrated form, of those normally met by the radiation of all stars over the enormous distances of “empty” Space. At “sunrise” and “sunset”, radiation from the Sun is always red-shifted, when, it must be stressed, it is the atmosphere that alters the wavelength of the radiation and so creates the colours.
One remarkable conclusion by Hubble was that the speed of recession of galaxies is neatly proportional to their distance from us. This, surely, is an almost incredible coincidence, whereas the boy’s view that, in general, interference is directly related to distance, seems quite reasonable and involves no such coincidences.
Could the boy’s simple explanation therefore be the more accurate? His view, based on the evolution of radiation that we see and feel around us very day and upon which all life depends, needs no Big Bang. How else but by his theory of the evolution of radiation, which dates back to that class of 1927/8, does one explain why the sky is so dark at night? To him, a lengthening of wavelength was interpreted as a relative measure of distance; to the scientists it was, and is, viewed and used as a measure of speed of recession. In contrast, the boy’s explanation calls for no fantastic speeds of recession.
Certainly his theory suggests a Universe without beginning or end, but is that any less logical and any harder to accept than a Big Bang? Regrettably, as the boy’s explanation calls for no creator – and therefore no heaven or hell other than what we create here on Earth – it will doubtless meet strong opposition from a number of religious bodies.
On the scientific front, has the thinking of today’s scientists really been preconditioned by the apparent link with the Doppler effect, as earlier thinking was presumably restricted by the belief in an all-pervading “ether”? Modern scientists are somewhat amused that anybody, as in the past, could seriously regard the “ether” as anything but a myth; yet are they not now in danger of themselves adding to the mythology of science and the amusement of posterity by their acceptance of Hubble’s Constant as the basis of a Big Bang to explain the creation of the Universe? But are there, currently, too many reputations at stake?
The fact that military equipment now incorporates the Doppler effect to assess speed, as in radar, is possibly irrelevant because the distances involved are minuscule when compared with the millions, even billions, of light-years to the stars at the “edge of the Universe”. Have scientists from Hubble onward simply overlooked the fact that over such distances there could be at least one other factor to be considered?
Time and Space did not unduly worry the boy. He realised that time is only a way of recording change. Without change, time does not exist. The trouble is that everything and everybody seems to have its own rate of change; and even this can be, and often is, affected by the environment; hence the need for a universally accepted time-scale, as currently based on the Earth’s rotation and orbit. The boy also believed that truly empty, infinite Space is a contradiction in terms. To him, empty, unbounded Space had no meaning. Even if it existed, we could not travel within it, for we would not be getting anywhere - despite the fact that it would no longer be empty!
Unfortunately, very few people now believe the boy – and, to be realistic, one cannot be completely surprised at that. This is nevertheless tragic, for the boy’s story is true; but the truth remains, whether believed or not. The boy’s simple mistake was to believe that adults are much more intelligent than we really are.
The boy did not set out to create a theory, but almost incidentally there arose a hypothesis that deserves some attention. Moreover, there are a few points about it that may have a bearing on other matters current today.
It is possible, in the future, that any difficulty involved in maintaining contact with interstellar vehicles may be owing to evolutionary changes in frequencies.
The boy’s theory may explain why the Sun’s outer envelope is much hotter than its surface. The radiation from the core is converted into intense heat within the envelope, from which the heat cannot escape because of the vacuum of Space. If this is true there is probably a heated outer layer around all heavenly bodies that generate radiation of a similar nature.
However, it must be stressed that there is neither heat nor light in Space unless somebody or something interrupts the flow of radiation from the Sun and other stars. The very low level of background heat already mentioned arises from the fact that what we call Space still contains an extremely diffused amount of matter.
If, as is probable, there are oases of life, possibly intelligent life, scattered around the Universe, it is useless trying to make contact by means of normal radio signals because these will be subjected to evolutionary changes over the great distances involved.
(We must also bear in mind that intelligent life elsewhere may know nothing of radio signals. Human beings on Earth, after thousands of years, have themselves known about them for little more than a hundred years. Additionally, of course, there is the time factor: it would take a radio signal more than 4 years to reach even our nearest star other than the Sun. It would take thousands of years to reach many others.)
Here, too, we must question speed of radiation. The natural order for everything in the Universe seems to be motion at high speed, with a limit of approximately 186,000 miles per second. This figure is currently, but probably quite wrongly, recorded as the speed of “light”. Instead, it is possibly NSL, Nature's Speed Limit. If so, this no more tells us how fast “light” can travel than speed limits on our roads tell us the top speed of motorcars. We have been misled because the speed of 186,000 appears to be constant, but if there is a natural speed limit, however caused, there is a simple explanation.
As an example, “Light” projected backward from a source travelling at 3,600 miles an hour (1 mile per second) is still believed to travel at 186,000 miles per second. But does it, though it appears to do so? If there is a natural speed limit, could not the recorded 186,000 miles per second consist of (Speed of “light” at 186,001 miles per second) minus (Speed of the source at 1 mile per second)? If the “light” had been projected forward its speed would then have been reduced to 185,999 miles per second. In short, does “light” vary in speed according to the other forces or speeds involved in changes which, hitherto, have been hidden from us by the combined radiation always recording a total, or nett, speed no greater and no less than 186,000 miles per second?
We know that local stars are separated by light-years and that galaxies are even millions of light-years apart. As already hinted, stars are therefore just tiny, widely separated dots on the vast canvas of Space. Though their radiation doubtless creates a complex network throughout Space, the great majority of it may never therefore encounter anything solid. It may travel for billions of years meeting only the very thinly dispersed matter in what we call empty Space, thereby changing wavelengths very slowly. From this it follows that in total there must be a vast quantity of free energy in Space.
It is possible, of course, that this radiation, which, as already mentioned, provides the low background heat in Space, could be detected with the right equipment on many wavelengths, leading up to whatever is the maximum, doubtless very long.
At present we are told that the more distant the stars or galaxies, the faster they are receding, with speeds already approaching that of light radiation. Presumably, therefore, with better equipment, we shall one day find stars and galaxies at such great distances that, according to Hubble’s Constant, they are receding at speeds exceeding the currently believed maximum of about 186,000 miles per second. The theory of the Big Bang will then be exploded unless its protagonists can find another explanation or a compensating factor as suggested above in the paragraph on the speed of light.
Finally, if we follow the boy’s hypothesis of the evolution of radiation to its logical conclusion, we find it suggests that over billions of our years and, in terms of distance, countless billions of our light-years, the matter of individual stars and of galaxies is being slowly reduced by radiation to particles of basic energy. This clearly suggests that the basic unit of everything, however solid, is energy; and this must apply even to life itself.
Furthermore, if nothing is ever lost within the Universe it also suggests that eventually, in a process again taking billions of our years, those particles of basic energy will become reformed again into matter and new stars and galaxies. Is this unending cycle the way in which an otherwise static and apparently infinite Universe without beginning or end renews itself? And are these particles of basic energy, accumulated over billions of years, the “dark matter” of the Universe for which scientists are still searching?
………………..
Since the turn of the century I have found that a different emphasis or interpretation is being put on the work of Hubble. In a book discussing his work no mention is now made of galaxies receding at fantastic speeds. In fact, we are told that it is not the Doppler effect of receding galaxies that is responsible for the red shift: it is because the distances are expanding! This strange explanation seems to suggest that 21st century professional scientists have at last reached the same conclusion that a schoolboy, without training or apparatus, reached in 1927!
To hide this change of approach, and to defend Hubble’s reputation, we are now told that his research in the 1920s led him to be the first to associate red shift of light directly with distance; yet I know that in England in the 1920s a schoolboy of 13 had not only done so with the radiation that Hubble called “light” but had also taken a major step ahead of him and his associates in deducing that the frequency shift applied throughout the entire electromagnetic spectrum. Moreover, I must add that reports at the time were concerned with Hubble’s interest in the red shift as a measure of the speed, not of the distance, of the receding galaxies that were transmitting it, and of his sensational discovery of an exploding Universe that he claimed it proved.