GRAVITATIONAL COLLAPSE

Stars are luminous globes of gas in which the inward pull of gravity matches the outward push of pressure. The nuclear energy released in the interior at high temperature is radiated from the surface at low temperature and this low-temperature radiation sustains the chemistry of planetary life.

But to each star comes a day of reckoning. Its central reservoir of hydrogen approaches exhaustion and the star begins to die. The tireless pull of gravity causes the central regions to contract to higher densities and temperatures, and as a consequence the outer regions swell up and the star becomes a red giant. A star like the Sun then evolves into a white dwarf in which most of its matter is compressed into a sphere roughly the size of Earth. Many stars end as white dwarfs, slowly cooling, supported internally against gravity by the pressure of electron waves (as in ordinary metals).

More massive stars do not give up the game so easily. Gravity is stronger in these stars and their central regions continue to contract to even higher densities and temperatures, thus enabling them to draw on the last reserves of nuclear energy. These stars become luminous giants squandering energy at a prodigious rate. Soon their reserves of nuclear energy are exhausted. Only gravitational energy remains with its fatal price of continual contraction.

THE PRIMEVAL ATOM

The universe expands, and naturally we conclude that in the past the universe was in a more condensed state than at present. If we journeyed back in time we would expect to see the universe get steadily denser. Ultimately, we would arrive at the very high-density state popularly called the “big bang.” This conclusion seems unavoidable. It might be a mistake, however, to forget entirely the many debates among cosmologists concerning the reality of a big bang beginning. Eddington was firmly against the idea of a universe that begins in a dense state, and many persons – particularly those who were drawn to science by Eddington's popular works – have felt disinclined to set his views aside lightly. The steady–state theory of an expanding universe, proposed in the late 1940s, attracted many who were united in their dislike of the big bang idea, and even now, as the 20th century closes, a few cosmologists continue to think that a big bang interpretation of the observations is mistaken.

What do we mean by the expression “big bang?” The actual singularity of maximum density at the origin of time? Or an early period in cosmic history? If the latter, how long a period?

In the winter of 1938 I wrote a short, scientifically fantastic story (not a science fiction story) in which I tried to explain to the layman the basic ideas of the theory of curvature of space and the expanding universe. I decided to do this by exaggerating the actually existing relativistic phenomena to such an extent that they could easily be observed by the hero of the story, C. G. H.* Tompkins, a bank clerk interested in modern science.

I sent the manuscript to Harper's Magazine and, like all beginning authors, got it back with a rejection slip. The other half-a-dozen magazines which I tried followed suit. So I put the manuscript in a drawer of my desk and forgot about it. During the summer of the same year, I attended the International Conference of Theoretical Physics, organized by the League of Nations in Warsaw. I was chatting over a glass of excellent Polish miod with my old friend Sir Charles Darwin, the grandson of Charles (The Origin of Species) Darwin, and the conversation turned to the popularization of science. I told Darwin about the bad luck I had had along this line, and he said: ‘Look, Gamow, when you get back to the United States dig up your manuscript and send it to Dr C. P. Snow, who is the editor of a popular scientific magazine Discovery published by the Cambridge University Press.’