Professional Documents
Culture Documents
La Separacion de La Ciencia y La Fe de Lemaitre
La Separacion de La Ciencia y La Fe de Lemaitre
J. McCartney
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
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.
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
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
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
5
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 world has neither a beginning in time nor limits in space, but it is
infinite 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
1
creation of hydrogen atoms somewhere in the universe (in the steady-state theory),
to supply the amount of mass necessary for a stable universe model.
In the beginning, though, Lematres hypothesis was disregarded not so much
for its philosophical implications as for its contradiction of the current paradigm.
The concept of an eternal universe was deeply entrenched in the minds of most
secular scientists, and it was difficult for them to conceive of an alternative.
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 the
enthusiasm of the poets; the pleasure of discovering an
enigma, of perceiving a simplicity hidden under the
apparent complexity of the world, also, without doubt, an
aesthetic pleasure before grandiose beauty, perhaps also
the pleasure of risk, which their enterprise brings, since
the progress of positive knowledge must ultimately
control their intuitions by confirming them, unless it annuls
them or even makes them seem almost ridiculous, after a
while. (Lematre, 108)
11
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,
The Big Bang Theory had been held in suspicion by most
astronomers, not least by Einstein, if only for the reason
that 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.
2
Concordism: The idea that biblical passages parallel or explain modern scientific concepts.
12
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 Lematres philosophical 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 One
Who has said: I am the Truth, One Who gave us the
mind to understand Him and to recognize a glimpse of His
glory in our universe which He has so wonderfully
adjusted to the mental power with which He has endowed
us. (Lematre, 55)
14
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
15
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 where
they may still help us to answer the riddle, or rather, to
value and admire the work of beauty which has been
prepared by the God of the Armies3 (Lematre, 32)
16
Lematre never used his theology to justify any of his scientific arguments, but
it may have had a more subtle impact on his work. Scholars have uncovered an
unpublished essay of his from 1922, while Lematre was just being introduced to the
heady concepts embodied in general relativity. In this essay, Lematre apparently
gave his theological view of the universes origins free rein for once, declaring as
the genesis suggested it, the universe had begun by light. (Berger, 395) This gives
even greater significance to his characterization of the universes beginning with
fireworks.
The section of Lematres The Primeval Atom most often quoted is the passage
where he compares the formation of the cosmos to a finished display of fireworks,
with only the glowing remnants of embers still visible. However, it is the paragraph
immediately following this which best gives an overview of Lematres view of
creation, and his awe of the process that produced this fragile planet for humanity.
The evolution of the world can be compared to a
display of fireworks that has just ended: some few red
wisps, ashes and smoke. Standing on a well-chilled
cinder, we see the slow fading of the suns, and we try to
recall the vanished brilliance of the origin of the worlds.
The sun-atom splinters into fragments held together
by universal attraction, fragments which splinter in their
turn, hurling into the vacuum particles which are fast
enough to escape the attraction of the entirety, sparks
escaping from the burning crucible where the atom
became a star. Rays travel in a straight line in the stillincreasing desert of space, until they encounter a lost
oasis, our galaxy, a chilled seed, our earth, and discharge
an electrometer, proving the formation of the suns.
(Lematre, 78)
There is something else of note in this passage. Though he later revised his
initial estimation based on new data about the energy level of cosmic rays, in the
17
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).
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.
18
19
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 may
keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of
mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in
non-singular places of space-time. For the believer, it
removes any attempt to familiarity with God, as were
Laplaces chiquenaude or Jeans finger. It is consonant
with Isaias speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the
beginning 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 chiquenaude4 involved a nebular
gas spinning off rings which would condense into planets
20
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.
21
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 is
good 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 a
unique 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.
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.
22
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 a
cosmical effect of the expansion of the universe. That is,
he realized that the redshifts were caused not by galaxies
moving 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.
23
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 Two
Theories 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 July
1999. Web. 19 Mar. 2011.
<http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/poe/eureka.html>.
1904: Lematre enters Jesuit High School of the Sacred Heart in Charleroi,
and shows promise in mathematics.
1914: Germany invades Belgium during WWI. Five days later, Georges
Lematre enlists in the Belgian army, along with his brother, Jacques.
Georges Lematre served for four years and reached the rank of
sergeant. Jacques Lematre reached the rank of auxiliary lieutenant.
1925: Slipher studies Doppler shifts of forty-five different galaxies. Fortyone are discovered to be red-shifted (receding)
1931: Einstein accepts the new paradigm of the dynamic universe but
prefers the oscillatory model.
1934: Lematreis awarded the Farqui prize by the king of Belgium, with
Einsteins recommendation.
1951: Pope Pius XII delivers a speech linking Lematres work with
Catholic dogma
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 conceive
the Particle, then, to be only not totally exhausted by
diffusion into Space. From the one Particle, as a centre, let
us 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 infinitely
minute 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)