Rival Theories of Cosmology (Rare, 1960)

A symposium and discussion of modern theories of the structure of the universe.

The following is a review of this book from Am. J. Phys. 29, 554 (1961)

“Rival Theories of Cosmology. H. BONDI, W. B. BONNOR, R. A. LYTTLETON, AND G. J. WHITROW. Pp. 64. Oxford University Press, New York, 1960. Price $2.25.

Here is an account of a debate on the BBC between three British scientists, Bonnor, Bondi, and Lyttleton, in which each presents his point of view in one talk, and then all three meet for a discussion session under the chairmanship of Whitrow. Bonnor begins with an account of the cosmology of general relativity which is based on the idea that the laws of physics as we know them can also be used to interpret the universe as a whole. The assumption that the universe is uniform is introduced as a simplifying mathematical device. Bonnor points out that in certain models of the universe so derived, this idealized situation may make it appear that the expansion of the universe began from a state in which all the matter in the universe was concentrated at a single mathematical point. This is the origin of the “big bang” interpretations for the start of the expansion. Bondi then describes the steady-state theory of the universe in which every observer, wherever he may be located in space and whenever in time he makes his observations, must see the same world picture as we do now from earth. The theory entails the assumption that matter is being created out of nothing so as to keep the average density of matter in the universe constant. Lyttleton’s contribution is an account of a variant of the steady-state theory in which a small excess of the positive charge on a proton over what is needed to compensate for the electron’s negative charge, is postulated. This theory was disproved experimentally almost as soon as it was published. The reader should keep in mind that this book is the record of a debate in which each author is stating his case. The discussion session is particularly interesting, for in it Whitrow tries to obtain from each participant his view of the effect that observational tests might have on the validity of his theory.

G. C. McVittie, University of Illinois Observatory”