• Related from the archive
• From αβγ to precision cosmology: The amazing legacy of a wrong paper

• Free this month
• Photoacoustics for molecular imaging and therapy
• Science representatives seek to ease tensions in Middle East
• Obituaries
• New Books
• New Products
• Letters

• Most popular articles
• Gedanken experiment: Levitate a physics sitcom?
  Points of View
• Nanoplasmonics: The physics behind the applications
  February 2011
• Half-quantum vortices
  Physics Update
• Quantum criticality
  February 2011

αβγ, Hoyle, and the history of nucleosynthesis

We wish to clarify the first part of Michael Turner’s Reference Frame (PHYSICS TODAY, December 2008, page 8), which dealt with the early history of nucleosynthesis.

Turner states that “[George] Gamow’s Big Bang model spurred Fred Hoyle to think more creatively about the stellar nucleosynthesis to keep his steady-state model competitive and in 1957, with Geoffrey Burbidge, Margaret Burbidge, and William Fowler, he worked out the correct theory of how the bulk of the elements were made in stars.” That timing is wrong: Nucleosynthesis (1946) came before cosmology (1948). The correct story adds weight to Turner’s theme of the positive influence of a wrong paper.

The Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow (αβγ) paper was wrong about nucleosynthesis but embedded it in what we believe to be the correct cosmological framework. A second wrong idea, the steady-state cosmology, was enormously influential because it gave definite predictions for observers to aim for and so was a key step along the way to developing precision cosmology. The steady-state theory was motivated by the success of the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, which preceded it.

Stellar nucleosynthesis was mostly worked out by Hoyle in two papers¹ in which he identified the processes that synthesized the elements from carbon to nickel and identified supernovae as the sites. The rarer elements beyond nickel (actually beyond zinc, the heaviest species produced in the quasi-equilibrium of the iron peak) were produced in neutron-capture processes both rapid and slow. The synthesis of many of the rare heavy elements was first understood by Alastair Cameron, who explained the presence of the unstable element technetium in evolved stars. His papers on the s-process² came out before the 1957 reviews by Hoyle and company and by Cameron.³

Although some isotopes of the light elements lithium, beryllium, and boron might be made in stars (or cosmic-ray spallation), the origins of helium-4 are not so straightforward. Stars do produce ⁴He, but observational estimates of the yield are less than about 0.08 by mass, much less than the cosmological yield of 0.24, requiring a more prolific source for ⁴He production, such as the Big Bang.

Cosmological nucleosynthesis was coming into disfavor in the late 1940s. Enrico Fermi and Anthony Turkevich realized that only hydrogen-1, hydrogen-2, ³He, and ⁴He could be made in significant amounts. (See reference 4; we now know ³He is rapidly destroyed also, but ⁷Li may be produced.) Unlike the stellar case, there were no “seed” heavy nuclei to capture neutrons, which made the cosmological neutron capture theory irrelevant. It was natural that the success of stellar nucleosynthesis started Hoyle questioning the necessity for a Big Bang cosmology, which was failing as a general theory of nucleosynthesis.

The steady-state theory was formulated in 1948.⁵ Probably one of its attractions is the generalization to time of the Copernican notion that we are not in a special place in space. One thing the theory did was to make the spectacular prediction that on average the universe did not change, a testable idea.

With the deep-field images from the Hubble Space Telescope,⁶ astronomers can see back to a redshift corresponding to 7% of the age of the universe in the Big Bang cosmology. That the fainter and more distant images look different from the nearer ones is a striking indication that we live in an evolutionary cosmology.

Even incorrect theories may be helpful, if they are well posed and can be falsified. Both αβγ and the steady state were important steps along the way to precision cosmology.

References

1. 1. F. Hoyle, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 106, 343 (1946) [CAS]; F. Hoyle, Astrophys. J., Suppl. 1, 121 (1954) .
2. 2. See, for example, A. G. W. Cameron, Astrophys. J. 121, 144 (1955) [CAS].
3. 3. See E. M. Burbidge, G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, F. Hoyle, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 547 (1957) [SPIN]; A. G. W. Cameron, Stellar Evolution, Nuclear Astrophysics, and Nucleogenesis, (CRL-41) Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (1957).
4. 4. See figure 20 in R. A. Alpher, R. C. Herman, Rev. Mod. Phys. 22, 153 (1950) [SPIN].
5. 5. H. Bondi, T. Gold, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 108, 252 (1948); F. Hoyle, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 108, 372 (1948); F. Hoyle, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 109, 365 (1949).
6. 6. See [LINK].

Michael Turner’s Reference Frame incorrectly states that “[George] Gamow’s Big Bang model spurred Fred Hoyle to think more creatively about the stellar nucleosynthesis to keep his steady-state model competitive.”

“That’s absolute rubbish,” said Hoyle, whom I interviewed in 1993 for my book The Alchemy of the Heavens: Searching for Meaning in the Milky Way (Anchor, 1995). “The one thing you’ve got to get right is this [work on nucleosynthesis] had nothing to do with cosmology at all. It was [J. Robert] Oppenheimer, with whom I never got on very well, who spread the canard that the reason I got onto this theory was to support the steady-state cosmology. Anybody who looked at the dates in the literature could see it was rubbish: My first paper on the synthesis of the elements came in 1946, whereas the steady-state cosmology didn’t come till 1948.”

Turner replies: The history of ideas is rarely just about equations and error bars; people and their interactions are equally important. Additional perspectives add to the picture, and I thank my colleagues for taking time to write. I add this to their insights.

In recounting the standard lore that the steady-state theory motivated the seminal 1957 paper by Geoffrey Burbidge, Margaret Burbidge, William Fowler, and Fred Hoyle (BBFH), which I learned from Helge Kragh’s Cosmology and Controversy (Princeton University Press, 1999), I did not mean to imply that Hoyle came to nucleosynthesis through cosmology. The origin of the elements was the problem du jour in the 1940s, and many of the leading nuclear and astrotheorists worked on it, including Hoyle. However, BBFH has 995 citations versus 91 for his 1946 paper for a reason: The theory is laid out in full detail in BBFH, while Hoyle’s initial foray covers one small aspect of it.

There is no doubt that nucleosynthesis motivated George Gamow’s thinking about cosmology; however, a similar case is hard to make for the steady state. A re-read of the papers in David Arnett and George Wallerstein’s reference 5 shows that the driving ideas are the perfect cosmological principle and continuous creation of matter, with no mention of the problem of the origin of the elements (or Hoyle’s 1946 paper).

I regret not having the space to discuss the missed opportunity for Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman to benefit from the insightful criticism they received and to get Big Bang nucleosynthesis right. In their last paper on the subject, they set up the correct equations for the neutron abundance and were one step away from predicting the large amount of helium-4 produced in the Big Bang, but they didn’t;¹ they stuck with their neutron-capture model to the end.

Finally, other than the fact that the steady state helped to stir early interest in cosmology, I find little to connect it with precision cosmology. True, it is a strong theory in the sense of Karl Popper—it is easy to falsify. For that reason it was falsified quickly, and interest in cosmology died down again until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background.

Reference

1. 1. R. A. Alpher, J. W. Follin Jr, R. C. Herman, Phys. Rev. 92, 1347 (1953) [SPIN].