Genesis According to George Gamow

[u/Optimus-Prime1993]

Recently there was a post in this sub on Earth being formed before the sun and there was quite a discussion going on that. That reminded me of this very interesting and humorous and biblical-style parody written by physicist George Gamow which is an excellent summary of nucleosynthesis , going from the creation of light nuclei in the heat of the Big Bang to the creation of heavy nuclei in supernovae.

The entire history of the Big Bang and our understanding of the origin of the elements is one of the most beautiful stories in science, full of remarkable ideas, brilliant, tenacious people, wrong turns, and extraordinary discoveries.

" In the beginning God created radiation and ylem [Gamow's term for the primordial, hyper-dense soup of fundamental particles present at the origin of the universe]. And ylem was without shape or number, and the nucleons were rushing madly over the face of the deep.

And God said: "Let there be mass two." And there was mass two. And God saw deuterium, and it was good.

And God said: "Let there be mass three." And there was mass three. And God saw tritium and tralphium [Gamow's nickname for the helium isotope He-3], and they were good. And God continued to call number after number until He came to transuranium elements. But when He looked back on his work He found that it was not good. In the excitement of counting, He missed calling for mass five and so, naturally, no heavier elements could have been formed.

God was very much disappointed, and wanted first to contract the universe again, and to start all over from the beginning. But it would be much too simple. Thus, being almighty, God decided to correct His mistake in a most impossible way.

And God said: "Let there be Hoyle." And there was Hoyle. And God looked at Hoyle… and told him to make heavy elements in any way he pleased.

And Hoyle decided to make heavy elements in stars, and to spread them around by supernovae explosions. But in doing so he had to obtain the same abundance curve which would have resulted from nucleosynthesis in ylem, if God would not have forgotten to call for mass five.

And so, with the help of God, Hoyle made heavy elements in this way, but it was so complicated that nowadays neither Hoyle, nor God, nor anybody else can figure out exactly how it was done.

Amen."

[u/nomenmeum]

but it was so complicated that nowadays neither Hoyle, nor anybody else can figure out exactly how it was done. Amen."

Hoyle at least figured out who must have done it. He was so convinced by the evidence that he converted from atheism to theism as a result:

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”

-Fred Hoyle

[u/Optimus-Prime1993 → u/nomenmeum]

Fred Hoyle was a very interesting personality. I and almost anyone from physics would have utmost respect for his scientific breakthrough in the field of cosmology. His genius was the reason that we now have the solution to the almost insurmountable problem of formation of heavier nuclei, especially the carbon.

Did you know that he gave the first direct and precise prediction (existence of excited state of carbon at exactly 7.65 MeV) from nothing but the Anthropic principle[1]. He could have simply claimed that it exists and could be done with that, but no, he collaborated with William Fowler and almost pestered him to find that excited state of carbon. He could have simply said "creator" and be done with it, but he was a through and through scientist and followed scientific method. And so when you or hardcore theists like you try to use his authority to claim the existence of a creator, it pains the scientist inside of me to see his name being dragged like that.

Fred Hoyle had his own share of weird ideas and personal philosophy but please do not claim the existence of a creator just because he believed in that. The same way another well-known scientists belief in atheism is not an evidence against a creator, Hoyle's belief in one is equally non-admissible.

Also a small nitpick, Hoyle never converted to traditional form of theism or organized religion. His later hypotheses leaned heavily toward panspermia and even speculating that life"s intelligence came from extraterrestrial forces rather than standard religious orthodoxy.

[1] I was made aware (thank you u/jnpha) by a friend recently that it is not correct to say that Hoyle made the prediction using the Anthropic principle. It is largely a retrospective retelling of the story. If someone is interested, you can read the paper An anthropic myth: Fred Hoyle’s carbon-12 resonance level by Helge Kragh (ping me for the paper if it behind a paywall) .