Different Origins of the Universe (Theories)

There are three main theories :-

1. The Steady State Theory
2. The Big Bang Theory
3. The Pulsating Theory

The Steady Sate theory: It states that the counting of the galaxies in our Universe is constant and new
galaxies which are forming continuously are filling the empty spaces which are created by those heavenly
bodies which have crossed the boundary lines of observable Universe.

The steady-state theory is a view that the universe is always expanding but maintaining a constant average
density, matter being continuously created to form new stars and galaxies at the same rate that old ones
become unobserved as a consequence of their increasing distance and velocity of recession. A steady-state
universe has no beginning or end in time; and from any point within it the view on the grand scale--i.e., the
average density and arrangement of galaxies--is the same. Galaxies of all possible ages are intermingled.

The theory was first put forward by Sir James Jeans in about 1920 and again in revised form in 1948 by
Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold. It was further developed by Sir Fred Hoyle to deal with problems that
had arisen in connection with the alternative big-bang hypothesis. Observations since the 1950s have
produced much evidence contradictory to the steady-state picture and supportive of the big-bang model

The Pulsating Theory: In this theory it is assumed that there is continuous expansion and contraction in
universe. A word which can replace the above definition is ‘Pulsating’.

Pulsating theory states that it is the possibility that after some passage of time the expansion in the universe
may stop. Then their may be the possibility of contraction. When this contraction will approaches to a
particular size. Again the explosion will take place. As a result of this explosion the expansion of universe
will start again.
Hence it results in a pulsating universe in which there is alternate expansion and contraction of universe.

The pulsating universe theory, which is more commonly known as the oscillating or cyclic universe theory,
posits that the universe goes through regular cycles of expansion and destruction. This theory is credited to
Albert Einstein.

In the cyclic model, the universe begins with a "big bang" and ends with a "big crunch." After the big bang,
the universe expands until gravitational forces force it to stop. At this point, the universe contracts until it
implodes into a singularity. A gravitational singularity is a point where gravitational forces are infinite.
After this contraction occurs, the cycle begins again with a new big bang.

The original cyclic universe theories conflict with the established laws of thermodynamics, which state that
entropy in a system can only increase. The collapse of the universe into a big crunch results in a loss of
entropy. Newer models solve this problem by factoring in dark energy, a type of energy not yet discovered
in Einstein's time.

This theory is not the currently accepted theory about the origin and end of the universe, but does explain
some shortcomings of other theories. Most prominently, it solves the thermal state problem: how the
universe begins at such a high temperature. In cyclic theories, the implosion of all matter and energy in the
universe into a singularity produces the required energy to initiate a big bang.

The Big Bang Theory: It states that all the matter of universe was present at a single place in the form of
hot and dense fire ball, having a high temperature of nearly 10 12K. After the passage of nearly 20 billion
years an enormous explosion took place. All the matter which was concentrated at one place scattered into
space with rapid speed. This scattering was along all directions. Then this scattered matter took the shapes
of galaxies and stars.
According to Hubble’s, the velocity of light and the recession velocities of galaxies become similar at a
distance of 20 billion light years. So, it is sure that these heavenly bodies which are present at a distance of
more than 20 billion light years can never arrive near us. From the above discussion an observable boundary
of the universe is drawn.

If the recession will remain in continuity then large number of heavenly bodies will move away from us.
Hence as a result they will be lost one day. So, number of stars and galaxies will reduce continuously and a
day will come when we will be surprised to see our empty universe.

Edwin Hubble was an American astronomer whose research helped prove that the universe is expanding.
Hubble found a constant relationship between galaxies' distance and redshift, now known as Hubble's Law.
He also established a galaxy classification system that has been used by astronomers. Hubble first received
a degree in jurisprudence from the University of Oxford before attending the University of Chicago to study
astronomy. He went on to work at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California. Hubble was born in 1889 in
Marshfield, Mo. He died in 1953 at the age of 63.

Different Subsystems

The Geosphere contains all of the cold, hard solid land of the planet's crust (surface), the semi-
solid land underneath the crust, and the liquid land near the center of the planet.

The hydrosphere contains all the solid, liquid, and gaseous water of the planet. It ranges from 10
to 20 kilometers in thickness. The hydrosphere extends from Earth's surface downward several
kilometers into the lithosphere and upward about 12 kilometers into the atmosphere. • Ninety-
seven percent of Earth's water is salty.

The biosphere contains all the planet's living things. This sphere includes all of the
microorganisms, plants, and animals of Earth.

• Within the biosphere, living things form ecological communities based on the physical
surroundings of an area. These communities are referred to as biomes. Deserts, grasslands, and
tropical rainforests are three of the many types of biomes that exist within the biosphere.

The atmosphere contains all the air in Earth's system. • It extends from less than 1 m below the
planet's surface to more than 10,000 km above the planet's surface. • The upper portion of the
atmosphere protects the organisms of the biosphere from the sun's ultraviolet radiation. It also
absorbs and emits heat. When air temperature in the lower portion of this sphere changes,
weather occurs. As air in the lower atmosphere is heated or cooled, it moves around the planet.
The result can be as simple as a breeze or as complex as a tornado.

Different Characteristics of Earth to support life

*The main thing is earths distance to the sun. This made liquid water possible. As water condensed it
dissolved almost all the CO2 and turned it into carbonate rock. Venus had all the same things but being too
close to the sun water never condensed. And so the CO2 remains in gaseous form making the atmosphere
90 times as dense as earths. Earths atmosphere was just as dense in the beginning. 
Earths mass is also just right. It enables the atmosphere to remain. Mars also had a much denser atmosphere
and liquid water but being too light the atmosphere escaped. Earths more massive core also generates heat
that causes the interior of earth to be molten. That, along with earths rotation, generates the magnetosphere
that also protects earths atmosphere. Mars has the rotation but not enough heat to keep the core liquid. And
so hardly any magnetosphere. Venus is massive enough to have molten interiors but doesn´t have the
rotation. So hardly any magnetosphere there either. And so most of the water that once existed is now lost.

REASON ONE: ATMOSPHERE

Earth has a breathable atmosphere. Oxygen is the gas that is required for the life of most creatures. This is
present in Earth's atmosphere and also in water. Oxygen is constantly put into the atmosphere by plants and
trees. Earth's atmosphere also contains a small amount of carbon dioxide. This is a poisonous gas which
makes up most of the atmosphere of planets like Venus and Mars and makes them unable to support human
life. However, its smaller presence on Earth is useful as it helps to moderate the planet's temperature and is
absorbed by plants during photosynthesis to produce oxygen. Earth's atmosphere is kept on the planet by its
pull of gravity. Mars and Mercury are too small to keep atmosphere. As a result, Mercury has no
atmosphere, and Mars' atmosphere is very thin, containing gases which have not managed to escape into
space yet. Earth's atmosphere is thick enough to prevent poisonous rays of radiation from getting through it
(this is what has happened on Mars).

REASON TWO: CLIMATE

Earth has a suitable climate. This is caused by the moderate amount of carbon dioxide in the planet's
atmosphere, which is constantly refreshed whenever there is a volcanic eruption. The temperature on Earth
does not go from one extreme to the other either. Mercury can be anything from 200°c below freezing to
375°c above. At 375°c, water would only exist as a gas, and the planet would be completely dry. Venus has
a surface temperature of 480°c, which would be much too hot for anybody to live in. Mars, although it can
reach 25°c, can be as cold as -140°c, a temperature which would freeze blood and water. The other planets
are colder still.

REASON THREE: WATER

Earth has water! Water is believed to be the most important chemical necessary for life. It contains the
oxygen needed for life. Other liquids contain poisonous elements. Water doesn't burn skin (like liquids
containing acids do), it is drinkable, and it allows life-providing molecules to move around easily. Other
moons in the Solar System, such as Europa, a moon of Jupiter, are believed to have oceans of water under
its icy surface. Scientists believe that, if they could find traces of water on Mars, the possibility of life
existing on that planet would be greatly increased. Water on Earth can be found anywhere, in its three
states. It can be frozen, taking the form of ice. It can be liquid, seen in seas and oceans and lakes. It can also
be a gas, seen as clouds. In the picture below, we can see water in its three states; a solid, a liquid and a gas.
The blue glow at the top of the Earth is the planet's thin atmosphere.

Water, ice and cloud on Earth

REASON FOUR: LIGHT

All planets receive light from the Sun, but no planet uses it as usefully as Earth. Trees and plants on the
planet produce oxygen through a process called photosynthesis. Plants need the Sun to grow. Look at plants
in windows and notice how they usually seem to grow towards the Sun. Try growing a plant in a dark room
and in a light room. Notice which one grows quicker. The one which has grown quickest is the one which
also produces more oxygen. It is believed that if we were able to get plants to grow on another planet, such
as Mars, they would begin putting oxygen into the planet's atmosphere and increase the possibility of life.
Saturn's moon, Titan, has an atmosphere containing mainly nitrogen. If this moon was to possess oxygen
too in its atmosphere, by a plant photosynthesising on it, it could have a similar atmosphere to Earth.
Something else which helps the plants to photosynthesise on Earth is the length of time the planet takes to
spin once on its axis. Taking just under 24 hours means that each side of the planet receives sunlight
regularly. If we look at a planet like Venus, which takes 243 days to spin on its axis, it means that for a
large period of time certain parts of the planet are in complete darkness. So even if the planet could support
life, it would struggle to do so.

REASON FIVE: THE SUN

All of the reasons given above for life existing on Earth are only possible because of one main reason. The
Sun! Put simply, if there was no Sun, there would be no life on Earth. Technically, Earth probably wouldn't
exist either! Because of Earth's ideal distance from the Sun, it receives the perfect amount of heat and light
to allow life to be created and to support it. Imagine what would happen if the Sun suddenly vanished. How
would you keep warm? How would you see? How would you get food and drink? How would plants and
 trees grow? How would they photosynthesise? Where would Earth go? The Sun's gravity keeps Earth in its
orbit, but if the Sun vanished, Earth would simply float away.

 Even if we assume any habitable planet must be Earth-like (and it may not be), chances are we're not
alone. Astrobiologists estimate that the Milky Way has 500 habitable planets, which fit the following
criteria:

 They're a comfortable distance away from a star similar to our sun. That is, they're far enough away to be
out of the heavy heat and radiation zone, but not so far that they're extremely cold. This just-right distance
is called the "habitable zone."
 They're made of rock. Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus in our solar system are made of gases, so we don't expect
life to be able to survive there.
 They're big enough to have a molten core. Earth's core gives us a source of geothermal energy, it allows
cycling of raw materials, and it sets up a magnetic field around the planet that protects us from radiation.
Mars probably had a hot liquid core at one time, but because it's a smaller planet its heat dissipated more
quickly.
 They are good candidates for having a protective atmosphere. The atmosphere holds carbon dioxide and
other gases that keep the planet warm and protect its surface from radiation.

Origins of Solar System

Early theories
Based on ideas and observations by Descartes, Kant and Herschel, Pierre Laplace (1796) put forward the
first really scientific theory (summarized infigure 1). A slowly spinning cloud of gas and dust cooled and
collapsed under gravity. As it collapsed, so it spun faster and flattened along the spin axis. It eventually took
on a lenticular form with equatorial material in free orbit around the central mass. Thereafter material was
left behind as a set of rings within which clumping occurred. Clumps orbiting at slightly different rates
combined to give a protoplanet in each ring. A smaller version of the scenario, based on the collapse of
protoplanets, produced satellite systems. The central bulk of the original cloud collapsed to form the Sun.
This monistic theory, that produced the Sun and the planets in a single process, has an attractive simplicity
but a fatal flaw. It suggests that most of the angular momentum of the system is in the Sun — which is not
so. The Sun with 99.86% of the mass of the system has only 0.5% of the total angular momentum contained
in its spin; the remainder is in the planetary orbits. All 19th century attempts to rescue the theory were
unsuccessful. The theory, although based on scientific principles, did not agree with observation and so had
to be abandoned.
Some time later James Jeans (1917) suggested a dualistic theory, one for which the Sun and planets were
produced by different mechanisms. A massive star passed by the Sun, drawing from it a tidal filament
(shown infigure 2). The gravitationally unstable filament broke up with each condensation forming a
protoplanet. The protoplanets, attracted by the retreating star, were retained in heliocentric orbits. At first
perihelion passage a small-scale version of the same mechanism led to a filament being drawn from a
protoplanet within which protosatellites formed.
The theory had a good reception — especially as it was supported by some elegant analysis. Jeans found
how a tidally affected star would distort and eventually lose a filament of material from the tidal tip. He
showed that the filament would fragment through gravitational instability and he also derived a condition
for the minimum mass of a filament clump that could collapse. Despite the initial enthusiastic acceptance of
the theory, it soon ran into trouble. Harold Jeffreys (1929), by a mathematical argument involving the
concept of circulation, suggested that Jupiter, which has the same mean density as the Sun, should have a
similar spin period. The periods differ by a factor of 70. Other simpler, and hence more readily accepted,
objections followed. Henry Norris Russell (1935) showed that material pulled from the Sun could not go
into orbit at more than four solar radii — well within Mercury's orbit. This was another type of angular
momentum problem. Then Lyman Spitzer (1939) calculated that a Jupiter mass of solar material would
have a temperature of about 106 K and would explode into space rather than collapse. Later, other
objections were raised concerning the presence of lithium, beryllium and boron in the Earth's crust, light
elements that are readily consumed by nuclear reactions in the Sun.
Jeans tried to rescue his theory by having a cool extended Sun with the radius of Neptune's orbit, but this
created new problems — not least that the newly formed planets in a diffuse form would be ploughing
through the Sun. He finally conceded that “the theory is beset with difficulties and in some respects appears
to be definitely unsatisfactory”.
The Laplace and Jeans theories were scientifically based but finally succumbed to scientific criticism. They
both had angular momentum problems although of different kinds. Nevertheless all the modern theories
described here involve ideas that they introduced. They also illustrate important problems that theories must
address to be considered as plausible.

The accretion theory

In 1944, Soviet planetary scientist Otto Schmidt suggested a new kind of dualistic theory. It was known
from telescopic observations that cool dense clouds occur in the galaxy and Schmidt argued that a star
passing through one of these clouds would acquire a dusty-gas envelope. Schmidt believed from energy
considerations that, for two isolated bodies, material from one body could not be captured by the other and
so he introduced a third body nearby, another star, to remove some energy. The need for a third body made
the model rather implausible but, as Lyttleton showed in 1961, Schmidt's argument was invalid since the
cloud was of large extent and the star-plus-cloud behaved like a manybody system. Lyttleton proposed
capture of material by an accretion mechanism first suggested by Bondi and Hoyle (1944) and illustrated
in figure 3. The cloud material moves relative to the star at speed V, greater than the escape speed.
Deflected interacting streams, such as at point G, lose their component of velocity perpendicular to the
original direction of motion and the residual speed can then be less than the escape speed.

Lyttleton used parameters for the model that gave the mass and angular momentum of captured material
compatible with that of the planets, although no process was suggested for producing planets from the
diffuse envelope. However, Lyttleton's parameters were implausible. The temperature of the cloud was 3.18
K, in equilibrium with galactic radiation, and the relative velocity of cloud and star was 0.2 kms-1. A cloud
temperature of 10–20 K or even greater is more consistent with observation, and the relative speed is more
likely to be of order 20 kms-1. The proposed mechanism does no more than suggest a source of planetary
material. It cannot be regarded as a convincing theory, especially as planet formation from diffuse material
presents additional difficulties, as we shall see later.

The floccule/protoplanet theory

In 1960, McCrea suggested a theory that linked planetary formation with the production of a stellar cluster
and also explained the slow rotation of the Sun. McCrea's starting point was a cloud of gas and dust that
was to form a galactic cluster. Due to turbulence, gas streams collided and produced regions of higher-than-
average density. The high-density regions, referred to as “floccules”, moved through the cloud and
combined whenever they collided. When a large aggregation formed, it attracted other floccules in its
region so producing a protostar. Since floccules joined the accreting protostar from random directions, the
net angular momentum of the protostar was small; for a particular set of parameters it would be only a few
times the present angular momentum of the Sun and the excess can be removed after formation by various
physical processes.

It was assumed that star-forming regions were isolated and McCrea showed that the angular momentum
contained in a region due to the original floccules was much greater than that residing in the protostar. The
missing angular momentum was assumed to be taken by smaller aggregations of floccules that were
captured by the protostar to form a set of planets.

In the original form of the theory, each floccule had about three times the mass of the Earth so many of
them had to combine to form the giant planets. The resultant planetary aggregations contained much more
angular momentum than the present planets. McCrea turned this apparent problem into an asset. As the
protoplanet collapsed it would have become rotationally unstable and behaved as described by Lyttleton
(1960) and shown in figure 4. The protoplanet would have broken into two parts with a mass ratio of about
8:1. The smaller part, moving faster relative to the centre of mass, could escape from the solar system, with
most of the angular momentum. In a neck between the two separating parts, small condensations would
form and be retained by the larger part as a satellite family. To explain the terrestrial planets, McCrea had to
assume that the fission process took place in a dense core of the protoplanet. In the inner part of the solar
system, with higher escape speeds, both parts were retained and formed the pairs Earth-Mars and Venus-
Mercury.

With some parameters deduced from the present solar system and others chosen to give the best possible
results, the Sun plus planets and satellites system could be explained. Nevertheless the theory has severe
problems. First, the floccules were unstable, with lifetimes much less than the time between floccule
collisions. In response, McCrea (1988) produced a modified form of the theory where the initial
condensations, now called “protoplanets”, were of Saturn's mass and stable. The initial system would not
have been coplanar and indeed there could have been retrograde orbits although, with motion in a resisting
medium and collisions to remove a minority population of retrograde objects, the system could have
evolved to the present state. However, what is highly suspect is the idea that the angular momentum not
present in the protostar must necessarily reside in a planetary system. It is much more likely that the
“missing” angular momentum would reside in relative motions of protostars than in planetary systems.

The Solar Nebula Theory

Over the past 30 years a paradigm has arisen — a model that has wide acceptance and is the basis of
thinking about contingent matters. This is the Solar Nebula Theory (SNT).

In the 1960s it became clear that many features of meteorites were interpretable in terms of condensation
from a hot vapour, encouraging the view that early solar system material had been in a hot gaseous form. In
addition, in the 1960s Victor Safronov was working on planet formation from diffuse material and in a
seminal paper translated into English (Safronov 1972) he summarized this work. Driven by these twin
developments a new Solar Nebula Theory (SNT) quickly took off as a major research activity. It was
believed that new knowledge and approaches should enable the original problems of Laplace's nebula
theory to be solved.

An early worker on the SNT concluded quite quickly: “At no time, anywhere in the solar nebula, anywhere
outwards from the orbit of Mercury, is the temperature in the unperturbed solar nebula ever high enough to
evaporate completely the solid materials contained in interstellar grains,” (Cameron 1978). Although this
undermined an important raison d'être for the revival of nebula ideas, by this time the work was in full flow
and proceeded without interruption.

Work on the redistribution of angular momentum has been central in the development of the SNT. Lynden-
Bell and Pringle (1974) described a mechanism in which, given turbulence and energy dissipation in a disk,
the disk would evolve to conserve angular momentum by inner material moving inwards while outer
material moved outwards. This is tantamount to the outward transfer of angular momentum. However, it
does not solve the basic angular momentum problem. Material joining the central condensation gradually
spirals inwards so that it is always in a near-Keplerian orbit around the central mass. A useful way of
thinking about the spin angular momentum of the Sun is to equate it to onequarter of a Jupiter mass orbiting
at the Sun's equator. If the Sun could form in its present condensed configuration by material spiralling
inwards, which it could not, then it would still have hundreds of times its present angular momentum.
Realistically, without having much less angular momentum it could not form at all. Various mechanisms
have been suggested for transferring angular momentum (Larson 1989). An example is by gravitational
torques due to spiral arms in the disk (figure 5). To be effective this requires a massive nebula, which is
undesirable for other reasons, but any mechanism giving a spiralling motion for material does not solve the
problem.

An effective mechanism for removing angular momentum from a pre-existing star involves a loss of ionized
material from the star plus a strong stellar magnetic field, both likely in a young active star. Ionized material
moves outwards locked to a magnetic field line. The field rotates with the star so the ionized matter moves
outwards with constant angular speed; the increased angular momentum it acquires is removed from the
star. It remains attached to the field line until the kinetic pressure of the ion flow exceeds the magnetic
pressure that, in the case of a dipole field, varies asr-6. Analysis shows that, with plausible stellar winds and
fields, some 90% or so of the original angular momentum can be removed in this way.

T-Tauri emission, at the deduced rate of 10-7 M⊙ year-1 for a period of 106 years, is often cited as a model for
mass loss. However, spectroscopic evidence shows that T-Tauri emitted material is only lightly ionized and
hence would be feebly coupled to the field. In addition, low-mass stars, for which no T-Tauri emission
occurs, also spin slowly so a second mechanism would be needed for these stars.

Forming the Sun requires inward movement of material while the magnetic field mechanism for removing
angular momentum requires outwardmovement. If a way could be found whereby the nebula core would
grow and simultaneously lose highly ionized material which coupled to a strong stellar magnetic field
(∼105 times as strong as the present solar field) then the angular momentum problem would be solved. For
example, one could envisage a bipolar inflow of neutral material adding to the mass of the star with an
equatorial loss of ionized material to remove angular momentum — although it seems unlikely that such a
pattern would arise naturally. To summarize, while it is not possible to say that the angular momentum
problem cannot be solved, it has certainly not been convincingly solved as yet although general papers on
the evolution of disks appear from time to time (e.g. Pickett and Durisen 1997).

The capture theory

The Capture Theory (CT) (Woolfson 1964) actually predated the advent of the SNT by several years but its
arrival was largely unnoticed. The basis of the CT, as first presented, is illustrated in figure 6 which shows a
point-mass model, an early one of its kind, in which interpoint forces simulated the effects of gravity, gas
pressure and viscosity. It depicts a tidal interaction between the Sun and a diffuse cool protostar, of mass
0.15 M⊙ and radius 15 AU. As Jeans had deduced, the protostar distorts and eventually a filament of
material escapes from the tidal tip. The model was too coarse to show filament fragmentation, but
individual mass points were captured by the Sun. This model, which involved mechanisms analysed by
Jeans, was free of all the criticism that had been raised against the original tidal model. The angular
momentum of the planetary orbits comes from the protostar-Sun orbit and the range of perihelia given by
the model, up to 38 AU, matches that of planetary orbital radii. Since the material is cold it satisfies the
chemical constraints. The orbital planes are close to the Sun-protostar orbital plane although, due to
protostar spin throwing material slightly out of the plane, there would be some variation of inclinations.
It was seven years before the next CT paper was published. This paper (Dormand and Woolfson 1971)
improved the original model by exploiting the dramatic increase in available computer power. The paper
confirmed the validity of the capture process and showed, from several simulations, that the calculated
radial distributions of planetary material agreed reasonably well with that in the solar system (figure 7).
From the properties of the filament it seemed that six or so protoplanet condensations would be expected.
Much later, by the use of a smoothed particle hydrodynamics (SPH) approach, Dormand and Woolfson
(1988)modelled filament fragmentation that was found to take place much as Jeans had described.
The modelling showed that the protoplanets began moving towards the aphelia of very eccentric orbits. If
the collapse time of a protoplanet was substantially less than its orbital periods (>100 years) then this would
enable it to condense before being subjected to disruptive tidal forces at perihelion. The collapse of a
Jupiter-like protoplanet, under the conditions of CT formation, was modelled in detail by Schofield and
Woolfson (1982). This indicated planetary collapse time as short as 20 years with reasonable model
parameters.

1. Henry van Dyke

“Literature consists of those writing which interpret the meanings of nature and life, in words of
charm and power, touched with the personality of the author, in artistic forms of permanent
interest.”

2. Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq (Muslim Scholar and Philosopher)

“Literature is the garment which one puts on what he says or writes so that it may appear more
attractive.”

3. Roman Jakobson (Russian Formalist)

“Literature is organized violence committed on ordinary speech”

4. Ezra Pound

“Great literature is simply language charged with meaning to the utmost possible degree.”

5. Salman Rushdie

"Literature is where I go to explore the highest and lowest places in human society and in the human
spirit, where I hope to find not absolute truth but the truth of the tale, of the imagination and of the
heart."

6. G. K. Chesterton

“Literature is a luxury; fiction is a necessity."

7. C. S. Lewis

"Literature adds to reality, it does not simply describe it. It enriches the necessary competencies that
daily life requires and provides; and in this respect, it irrigates the deserts that our lives have already
become."

8. Henry Miller

“Develop interest in life as you see it; in people, things, literature, music - the world is so rich, simply
throbbing with rich treasures, beautiful souls and interesting people. Forget yourself.”

9. Alfred North Whitehead

"It is in literature that the concrete outlook of humanity receives its expression."

10. E.M. Forster

"What is wonderful about great literature is that it transforms the man who reads it towards the
condition of the man who wrote."