Chapter XII
The Astronomical Universe

The consideration of the question of the origin of life and the various
theories formed on that question has led us into astronomical considerations,
so that it may be worth while to examine the astronomical aspects to our
thery of the reversibility of the universe. An we may well, after dealing
both with objects of ordinary size and with very small and even ultimate
particle, turn to the consideration of objects of a different, a larger scale
of magnitude; the heavenly bodies. We shall therefore consider our theory in
connection with such objects. Astronomy deals not only with individual
planets in our solar system as a whole, but also with the almost
inconcievable vast extents of space with stand between the various stars and
their special systems, and finally, with the theory of that general group of
all stars which is known to astronomers as the steallar universe, or simply as
the universe. Accordingly one of the first things we should investigate
should be the astronomical theories of the universe, especially since our
theory of reversibility is essentially a theory of the universe.
When we come to examine the astronomical theories of the universe, we
find that they divide themselves into two groups. Just as the biological
theories of the nature of life are, generally speaking, to be divided into
the mecahnistic and the vitalistic, so the astronomical theories of the
nature of the universe may be divided into the theories of the finite
universe and the theories of the infinite universe. And, as our theory
effects a compromise between the two kinds of theories of life, we may try to
see whether our theory cannot also reconcile the two kinds of theories of the
universe. Let us, therefore, examine in more detail each of the two kinds of
astronomical theories of the universe and the various arguments that can be
adduced in support of both kind of theories.
Let us take the theories of an infinite universe. The general idea of
these theories is, that space is infinite, and there is no special reason why
matter should be confined to one portion-and, at that, only an infinitesimal
portion compared to the infinity of space. Thus we get the picture of an
infinite geometrical space filled with stars, here to a somewhat greater
density, there somewhat less densely, but, on the whole, with a certain
average density. This reasoning on the basis of the theory of probability is
a perfectly good one, and it is, furthermore, not the only argument in favor
of an infinite universe. There are arguments that are based not on theory but
on actual observation.
The most important of these is the gravitational consideration. If the
universe is infinite, and matter approximitely uniformly distributed
throughout the universe, then, on the average, the gravitational pulls on a
given stellar system should, on the whole, completely balance each other, so
that gravitation would not tend to pull any stellar system in any particular
direction, and the proper motion of any star should be, in accordance with
the law of inertia, a uniform motion in a straight line. But, on the
contrary, if there were in the universe a center of density, and especially
if there were a finite universe, then all stellar systems would tend to be
pulled on towards that center of density and, in general, revolve round that
center. The facts indicate that the proper motion of stars is actually
uniform motion in a straight line, and that there is no center about which
all stars move; so that this argument would point most distinctly to an
infinite universe, with matter distributed throughout space approximately
uniformly. One part of space being in this respect no different from another.
But there is one outstanding objection to this theory that the stellar
universe is infinite. There may be supposed to be no reason why the average
brightness of stars should be any different in one part of space from what is
is in any other part; multiplying this average brightness by the average
number of stars per unit volume (the average star-density that we suppose for
the infinite universe), we will get the average amount of light issuing from
a unit volume anywhere in space; let us call this product I. Now as the
apparent brightness of any source of light is inversely proportional to the
square of the distance between that source and the observer, then, if we call
that distance d, the average apparent brightness of a unit of volume at
distance d from the observer could be represented as I/d². If we divide space
into an infinite number of concentric spherical shells, with the observer at
the center, each with equal thickness, let us say the unit of distance
divided by 4 p, then, especially when the sphere is very large, the volume of
each shell is approximately d². Multiplying the average apparent brightness
of each such shell is a constant, I. Since the stellar universe consists of
an infinite number of such shells, each of which has the same apparent
brightness, it follows that the brightness of the sky, or indeed of the
smallest part of it, must be altogether infinite. The consequence of the
theory of an infinite universe is obviously contradicted by facts.
On account of this objection to the universe being infinite, there arose
the theories of the finite universe, which seem to depend mainly on the
observed distribution of light in the sky (outside of the light from the sun,
moon, and other members of the solar system). These theories of the finite
universe started with the great observer, Sir William Herschel (one of the
three originators of the Nebular Hypothesis), whose theory is that of the
so-called "drum universe." According to Herschel's theory, the universe is in
the hape of a very flat circular drum, or, in other words, a thin, wide
circular slab, with possibly another secondary slab at a plane inclined a few
degrees at first, the two slabs being concentric, and the center being-the
sun! It seems that even Herschel had the idea that our solar system is the
center of all things, which is somewhat a survival of the ancient doctrine
that the earthis the center of the universe. In fact, we may say that
Herschel's theory of the universe is a modernized version of the ancient
doctrine that the earth is the center of the universe. In fact, we may say
that the version of the ancient primum mobine containing the stars and having
the earth for a center. However, the drum (or double-drum) shape of the
universe is intended to explain the distribution of light; for, in a plane of
the drum, we should have to look through such an immensely greater amount of
stars that in a direction with any considerable inclination to the plane, so
that we should have the appearance of a white streak running all around the
sky, which we actually have under the name of the Milky Way; the double-drum
shape would require a bifurcation of this white streak at two opposite part;
which again is stricty in accord with observed facts. Herschel was perfectly
willing to believe that there are other similair drum-shaped universes, two
of which, according to him, are visible to us, and known the Magellanic
Clouds. These "clouds" were first discovered by the famous explorer Magellan,
and are circular patches in the sky of the southern hemisphere which look
like detached portions of the Milky Way, though at a considerable distance
from the Milky Way.
The modern theories of the finite universe, though not accepting
Herschl's explanation as to the Magellanic Clouds (rather tending o suppose
that those objects are within our own stellar universe), are very similair to
Herschel's drum theory in general ouline, and all have the same
characteristic of being attempted explanations of the distribution of light
actually found in the sky. The tendency, however, is not to suppose that the
solar system is at the center of the universe, but rater to suppose that the
solar system is considerably south of the center, being amost on the southern
side of the drum, and much nearer the southern part of the drum edge than it
is to the northern. There is, further, a tendency to suppose that this
stellar universe is the result of a collision of two semi-universes, which is
what we have seen would be the result of pushing the second law of
thermodynamics to its logical conclusion, it being an observed fact that the
stars seem to move in two general currents. However, just as the theory of
the infinite universe cannot be supported on the grounds of the distribution
of light, so similairly the theories of the finite universe cannot be
supported on the grounds of the consideration of gravitational attraction.
We thus find that considerations of gravitational attraction lead us to
suppose an infinite universe with stars approximately uniformly distributed
throughout space; similairly with considerations of probability, which lead
us to the same conclusion. But, on the contrary, the observed distribution of
light in the sky leads us to the directly opposite conclusion, that our
stellar universe is finite, though there may be stray stars outside that
universe that occasionally come in, and though similarly some stars may
occasionally stray out of the limits of the universe. There may be other such
finite universes, in which case we may concieve of things in such a series as
the following:
Electrons are the particles that make up atoms;
Atoms are the particles that make up molecules;
Molecules are the particles that make up masses;
Masses are the particles that make up planets, etc;
Planets, etc., are the particles that make up stellar systems;
Stellar systems are the particles that make up the universes;
Universes are the particles that make up existence.
All of which sounds perfectly reasonable; but the gravitational
consideration spoils this simple series; and it is a consideration that
cannot easily be disposed of. It would seem, then, as if there was
gravitationally an infinite universe, while in relation to light the shape of
the universe is something like Herschel's drum. In other words, stars are
uniformly distributed throughout the whole of infinite space, so that the
gravitational phrenomena will be like those of an infinite universe; while
somehow or other, beyond Herschel's drum, stars do not give out light. This
phenomenon cannot be explained by a partial opaqueness of ether; for then the
apparent shape of the universe would be spherical, with ourselvs at the
center, instead of double-drum-shaped, with ourselves on the southern side.
Hence there must be some other explanation, especially since this same
question of probability indicates that ether is likely to be uniformly
distributed through infinite space.
Some other explanations, then, must be found. Beyond the boundaries of
Herschel's drum, for some unknown reason or other, stars fail to give out
light. Either they are all cold or they are hot but not bright. And
furthermore, stars must be constantly entering and leaving the limits of this
Herschel drum. We may easily suppose that a star, after having passed all the
way across this part of space, has cooled down so much as to give no light;
but on entering, they are much hotter than later on, because stars constantly
lose heat to the surrounding ether; hence, if these stars were cold before
entering the Herschel drum, something must have happened to them near the
boundary to heat them up suddenly. If there is, another boundary of the drum,
any material which would heat up a star by collision, friction, or contact,
then it would follow that colod stars leaving the drum would be similairly
affected; which is hardly in accordance with the theory, as deduced from
observation. Hence we conclude that the stars which enter the Herschel drum
are, to a great extent at least, hot, but give out no radiant energy (light).
Thus, outside the limits of the Herschel drum, as far as we can judge, stars
exist, and many of them are even hottenr than the stors within our
observation, and it would seem that the ether is there to receive radiant
energy from them, but no radiant energy is forthcoming.
The result, then, is, that we do indeed have an infinite stellar
universe, but that Herschel's drum has the peculiarity that, within it,
stellar heat is converted into radiant energy, while no such conversion takes
place outside the Herschel drum. There may, furthermore, be other Herschel
drums in other parts of space having similair peculiarities. In order to
understand the special peculiarity of these Herschek drums, let us examine
why stellar heat is converted into radiant energy at all.
In the first place, the ether of Interstellar space is at a very low
temperature, while, in general, a star is at an extremely high temperature,
many stars being much hotter than our sun. According to the second law of
thermodynamics, the energy should tend to run down towards a common level;
that is, the star's heat energy would radiate into the surrounding space and
appear in the form of ether-vibrations, that is, in the form of radiant
energy, under which heading is included light. If, then, outside Herschel's
drums, there are many hot stars, hot enough to give out light of all
vibration-periods (white hot), but which do not issue any radiant energy, it
follows that somehow the second law of thermodynamics applies only within the
Herschel drums but is somehow suspended or even reversed outside them. In
other words, the actual stellar universe, as manifested by gravitational
phenomena, is infinite, and stars are approximately uniformly distributed
throughout infinite space; but we can only see the stars in that section of
space where the second law of thermodynamics prevails, and therefore the
section of the stellar universe that is visible is, after all, only finite.
We thus come to the conclusion that the boundary of the Herschel drum is
really the limiting surface between positive and negative sections of the
universe. And now we come to the question whether, starting with our theory
of the positive of the negative tendency prevailing in different parts of
space and time according to the theory of probability, we can draw any more
detailed conclusions in respect to the exact appearance of the stellar
universe.
In the first place, we have come to the conclusion that, taking any given
moment of time, the positive and the negative parts of the universe should be
approximately equal, as a matter of probability; in fact that, if we take the
whole of space and time, the positive and negative sections bear towards one
another a ratio of exactly 1. Since we are dealingj with only the present
time (or times near the present) in dealing with the present appearance of
the universe, we may confine ourselves to the statement that, in a given
portion of time, there should be approximately equal positive and negative
sections of space; and if matter is approximately uniformly distributed
throughout space, that the volumes of the two kinds of sections should be
approximately equal. The next question is, in what way the negative section
of space can be distinguished from the positive section.
Our previous consideration on the production of radiant energy from the
stars indicates that such production of radiant energy is only possible where
the second law of thermodynamics is followed, that is, in a positive section
of the universe. In a negative section of the universe the reverse process
must take place; namely, space is full of raidant energy, presumably produced
in the positive section of space, and the stars use this radiant energy to
build up a higher level of heat. All radiant energy in that section of space
would tend to be absorbed by the stars, which would thus constitute perfectly
black bodies; and very little radiant energy would be produced in that
section of space, but would mostly come from beyond the boundary surface.
What little radiant energy would be produced in the negative section of space
would be pseudo-teleologically directed only towards stars which have enough
activity to absorb it, and no radiant enery, or almost none, would actually
leave the negative section of space. The peculiarity of the boundary surface
between the positive and negative sections of space, then, is, that
practically all light that crosses it, crosses it in one direction, namely,
from the positive side to the negative side. If we were on the positive side,
as seems to be the case, then we could not see beyond such surface, though we
might easily have gravitational or other evidence of bodies existing beyond
that surface.
Furthermore, just as in the positive section of space, light is given out
uniformly in all directions, so, in the negative section, light must be
absorbed by a star equally from all directions. Thus, to any star in the
negative section, light must come in about the same amount from all
directions; and, since most of this light comes from the positive sections,
it follows that the negative sections must be completely surrounded by
positive sections and must therefore be finite in all directions. By reversng
this (since we have seen that all physical laws are reversible), it follows
that any positive section must also be finite in all directions, and be
completely surrounded by negative sections. We thus find the universe to be
made up of a number of what we may call bricks, alternately positive and
negative, all of approximately the same volume; a sort of three-dimensional
checkerboard, the positive spaces counting as white (giving out light), and
the negative spaces as black (absorbing light).
Thus what we see is simply the white space that we are in. The
surrounding black spaces are invisible, and in addition, absorb the light
from the white spaces beyond, so that even those cannot be seen, and, if we
judge from the distribution of light in the sky, we get an idea merely of the
size and shape of our special white space.
Let us try, now, to get a theoretical idea as to approximateli what
should be the shape of these white and black spaces, so that it can be
compared with observation. For developing the theory in this direction, we
must remember that the proportion of positive matter be about 50%, but that
there should be a discrepancy becoming increasingly improbably the greater
the discrepancy is. Accordingly we may suppose that there are surfaces where
there are other special proportions, while, in the middle of the positive
"bricks," there will be a maximum percentage point, and in the middle of the
negative "bricks" there will be a minimum percentage point. Around these
maximum and minimum points our white and black spaces will be built, the
fundamental variation of the percentage away from these points being
presumably based on three principal directions or dimensions, of which the
variation in other directions will be compounded.
Proceeding from, let us say, one of the maximum points (center of a
positive section of the universe) in any direction, the discrepancy from the
normal of 50% should become first positive, then negative, in a sort of
vibratory form. This vibration should be irregular, according to the theory
of error, though with a certain average; but in the three principal
directions, approximately perpendicular to each other, we should expect to
find them more uniformly periodic.
If these "vibrations" were regular and perfectly periodic in these three
directions, the boundary surfaces would be planes midway between the maximum
and minimum points, and the section of the universe would take the shape of
rectangular parallelopipeds. With such shape, the sections of the universe
would indeed be "bricks." But such regular uniform vibrations are hardly to
be expected. The theory of error would lead us to expect irregularities from
even that; but the volume of the sections should remain unaltered.
Furthermore, a positive section must touch another positive section along an
edge, or else at that edge two negative sections will form a continuous
section, and we are thus liable to get a continuous line of negative space to
perhaps an infinite extent, which is contrary to anything that we should
expect. Hence we must expect that, in the irregularities, both the edges and
the volume would be but slightly changed.
The faces of the parallelopiped, however, may, even under these
conditions, be considerably changed. We may, for instance, expect that the
vibrations of the percentage, instead of being the simple-harmonic vibrations
which would produce plane boudnary surfaces midway between the maximum and
minimum points, may be compounded with its "harmonics," that is, may be
compounded with vibrations of multiple frequency, of which the double
frequency is the most important. The double frequency would be likely to make
a whole face of the parallelopiped either cave in or bulge out, the higher
frequencies will simply introduce further irregularities. Since there is to
be little alteration of volume of the sections, two of the opposite pairs of
surfaces must be changed in one direction, and the third in the other. The
longer dimensions of the parallelopiped are those in which more irregularity
is likely to show itself, so that the biggest alteration would show itself on
one of the two smaller pairs of opposite faces. The other two pairs of faces
will then have to be altered in the opposite way to make up for this;
presumably the largest and the smallest, the medium pairs of faces showing
the greatest irregularity. The irregularity may thus be of two varieties;
either the medium pair of faces is caved in, and the largest and smallest
bulged out somewhat less; or the largest and smallest pairs of faces are
caved in slightly, and the medium pair of faces extremely bulged out.
Taking each of those two shaped (and they are liable to alternate to some
extent, some sections of the universe being of one kind of shap, and some of
the other), we can suppose of each one that it represented a positive section
of the universe, and attempt to predict the distribution of light in the sky
as seen from somewhere near the maximum point. If the parallelopipeds are
comparitively flat (as they are likely to be, the three dimensions of these
figures probably being widely different), it follows that in the sky, the
plane parallel to the largest pair of faces would seem to be filled with a
thick white strip. According to which of the forms of irregularities we
suppose, the shape of the strip will vary. If the largest and smallest faces
are bulged out, this white strip would be much less conspicious, there being
in other directions a good distribution of stars visible, but the strip would
still be visible, and the hollow in one pair of faces would mean that, in one
place on the strip, as well as in the opposite part, there would be a
widening (due to the medium pair of faces being nearer than the smallest, and
consequently, appearing wider) with a dark space in the middle of this
widening. Midway between these dark spaces the strip becomes narrow, due to
the fact that there the surface bounding the section of the universe recedes
to a great distance. If the other shape of the positive section were adopted,
we should have something similar, except that the strip would tend more to be
of uniform width, and, if anything, the "coal-sacks" would be in the narrow
part of the strip. We may represent the two forms of the strip somewhat as
follows:
[Image]
These "coal-sacks" would tend to be oval in shape, instead of pointed at the
ends, as Herschel's double drum would lead us to suppose. If we are on the
southern side of the positive section, then on the southern side more
irregularities would be seen, such as striations of the strip, occasionally
small "coal-sacks" in other parts than where expected, while some of the
irregular wavy variations on the largest face of the "brick" on the sourth
side would result in our seeing, near this strip, apparently detached
sections, presumably approximately circular. As a matter of fact, the
so-called Galaxy or Milky Way has the shape indicated in the first of the two
about diagrams, with exactly such irregularities as we have predicted. The
shape of the coal-sacks is indeed approximately oval, and not pointed, as
Herschel's theory would lead us to expect. Furthermore, such circular
detached sections of the Milky Way actually do appear in the sourthern
hemisphere, and have been phenomena which have always been dificult to
explain; they are called the Magellanic Clounds, and we can see that,
according to our theory, they are exactly what they look like: detached
sections of the Milky Way. And, if they result from what we suppose, namely,
the largest of the three southern faces of the "brick" becoming wavy and
extending suddenly a great distance out, it follows that the neighboring
regions, which are the opposite phase of the same waves, should be so near us
that there should theoretically, around the Megallanic Clouds, be very few
stars visible. This is indeed the case; the Magellenic Clouds are found in a
region of the sky that is almost completely devoid of stars.
We thus find that not only does our theory of a reversible universe
actually reconcile the theories of the infinite universe with the theories of
the finite universe, but it actually enables us to predict the distribution
of light in the sky much more accurately than any theory has yet been able to
do. We thus see that the universe is infinite, but divided into alternately
equal volume, and that the apparent stellar universe is merely the positive
section in which we are. The Galaxy consists merely of the distant sides of
the irregular "brick" that constitutes this positive section.
To get an approximate idea of the size of this "brick:" The temporary
star, Nova Persei, which appeared in 1902, was in the Milky Way, and was
probably as distant. Its distance has been estimated at about 3400
light-years, so that this gives us the length of the "brick" as about 7000
light-years. The Milky Way near the coal-sacks being about twice as wide as
there, the width of the "brick" would be about 4000 light-years. And, the
greatest width of the Milky Way being about 15 degrees, that gives the
thickness of the brick at about 1000 light-years. In reducing to ordinary
measurement, we may notice that a light-year is about 8 trillion miles.