The Day We Found the Universe - Marcia Bartusiak [167]
241 Lemaître traveled to the United States for further study … in order to meet Hubble and learn of the latest distance measurements of the spiral nebulae: Kragh (1987), pp. 118–19; Kragh (1990), p. 542.
242 introduce time into the deliberations: Other theorists began to try this out as well, making de Sitter's model nonstatic. It was a lively and active pursuit among theorists, who included Kornelius Lanczos in 1922, Hermann Weyl in 1923, and H. P. Robertson in 1928. All these transformations, however, were treated as mathematical solutions for largely academic purposes.
242 “demonstrate the possibility”: Friedmann (1922), p. 377.
242 “We shall call this universe the periodic world”: Ibid., p. 385.
243 “appear to me suspicious”: Einstein (1922), p. 326. Several months later, Einstein realized that he had based his negative opinion on an error in his calculations. He immediately wrote to the Zeitschrift für Physik that “Mr. Friedmann's results are correct and shed new light.” See Einstein (1923), p. 228.
243 They didn't take them seriously: AIP, interview of William McCrea by Robert Smith on September 22, 1978.
243 “combine the advantages of both”: Lemaître (1931a), p. 483.
243 “are a cosmical effect of the expansion of the universe”: Ibid., p. 489. The gravitational field of a galaxy, far stronger than the field outside it, keeps the galaxy intact during the expansion.
244 Lemaître even estimated a rate of cosmic expansion: Kragh (2007), p. 144.
244 inexplicably did not widely discuss this latest idea with his colleagues: Kragh (1987), p. 125.
244 “Your calculations are correct, but your physical insight is abominable”: Smith (1990), p. 57.
245 “not current with the astronomical facts”: Kragh (1987), p. 125.
245 “no time for an unassuming theorist without proper international credentials”: Deprit (1984), p. 371.
246 “brilliant discovery”: “Discussion on the Evolution of the Universe” (1932), p. 584.
246 “Imagine my surprise on being able to rustle together more than 150 references”: CA, Robertson to R. C. Tolman, July 7, 1932. In 1929 Robertson had also derived a cosmological model similar to Friedmann's and Lemaître's but did not recognize the dynamic nature of the universe hidden within his equations. Though aware of Hubble's newfound law concerning distance and redshifts, he didn't recognize it as observational proof for an expanding universe at the time. See Kragh (2007), pp. 142, 146.
246 reported as breathtaking in its grandeur and terrifying in its implications: “A Prize for Lemaître” (1934), p. 16.
246 “The theory of the expanding universe is in some respects so preposterous”: “Discussion on the Evolution of the Universe” (1932), p. 587.
246 “On the face of it”: Jeans (1932), p. 563.
246 Eddington first devised this picture: Eddington (1930), p. 669.
246 “embedded in the surface of a balloon”: Ibid.
247 “About every two weeks some of the men from Mount Wilson and Cal Tech came to the house”: HUB, Box 7, Grace's memoir.
247 British cosmologist E. Arthur Milne, for example, posited that the expansion of space-time was merely an illusion: Milne (1932); Hetherington (1982), p. 46.
247 the “tired photon” theory: Zwicky (1929a and 1929b).
248 Hubble worked for a number of years with Caltech theorist Richard Tolman: Hubble and Tolman (1935).
248 Hubble made the call that his data were too uncertain, which kept the expanding universe in play: Hetherington (1996), pp. 163–70. Historian Norriss Hetherington first pointed out Hubble's philosophical preference for an expanding, homogeneous universe, despite the noted astronomer's public statements that he was objectively testing all models. In the end, he preferred the simplicity and beauty of general relativity to dreaming up new laws of physics to fit his observations, as Zwicky was doing. Zwicky did not take this verdict sitting down. He famously accused Hubble and the “sycophants” among his young assistants with doctoring “their observational data, to hide their shortcomings and to make the majority