Origins of the Expanding Universe: 1912-1932 ASP Conference Series, Vol. 471 Michael J. Way and Deidre Hunter, eds. c 2013 Astronomical Society of the Pacific Henry Norris Russell and the Expanding Universe David DeVorkin Senior Curator, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., USA Abstract. Henry Norris Russell, one of the most influential American astronomers of the first half of the 20th Century, had a special place in his heart for the Lowell Observatory. Although privately critical of the founder for his pronouncements about life on Mars and the superiority of the Mars Hill observing site, he always supported the Observatory in public and professional circles. He staunchly supported Tombaugh’s detection of a planet as leading from Lowell’s prediction, and always promoted V. M. Slipher’s spectroscopic investigations of planetary and stellar phenomena. But how did he react to Slipher’s puzzling detection of the extreme radial velocities of spiral nebulae starting in 1912, and how did he regard the extension and interpretation of those observations by Hubble and others in following decades? Here we describe the arc of Russell’s reactions, dating from Slipher’s first detection, as an indicator of how mainstream stellar astronomers reacted to the concept of an expanding universe. 1. Introduction Henry Norris Russell was one of the most influential American astronomers of the first half of the 20th Century (DeVorkin 2000). During his most active years, dating roughly from the eve of the first World War and lasting till the eve of the second, his influence was deeply felt not only as a frequent referee and arbiter of standards for American pro- fessional journals relating to astronomy, but as a spokesman for the profession, reaching popular and technically informed audiences in a monthly astronomy column for Scien- tific American. His column provided news of upcoming celestial events surrounding a simple star map, but it also became a bully pulpit for promoting the deeds and discover- ies of astronomers worldwide, as did his two-volume textbook that was an introduction to the profession for over a generation of astronomers (Russell et al. 1938). Russell’s career spanned what Peter van de Kamp, Richard Berendzen and others arXiv:1302.0240v1 [physics.hist-ph] 1 Feb 2013 have called, first, the “Galactocentric Revolution” and then the “Acentric Revolution” (van de Kamp 1965; Berendzen 1975). History will remember the 20th Century as the period when these revolutions in the human comprehension of the universe, in con- junction with the establishment of relativistic cosmology by Einstein and others, were discovered, elaborated and reinforced.1 Today, these concepts are in place, but how did those who were born and raised in a static stellar universe react at the time? Observational astronomers rose to the chal- 1An excellent summation of present historical knowledge, with an extensive bibliography, can be found in Smith (2009). 1 2 DeVorkin lenge, pragmatically conducting observational tests suggested by Einstein or inferred from his theories.2 Those without the means to make the delicate observations, or without the inclination, however, had fewer options to participate: among them, either ignore the implications and continue on studying the stellar universe, or incorporate the implications when they might be useful. Russell was in the last category. The Astrophysics Data System suggests that Russell invoked the term “expanding universe” only twice in refereed publications from 1931 - 1940, less frequently than de Sitter, C. A. Chant, W. H. McCrea and G. C. McVittie (9 times each), Eddington (4 times) and Hubble (3 times).3 And distinct from the others (save Chant, who was acting in his capacity as editor of the Journal of The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada), Russell did not try to contribute to the new dynamics other than to speculate on its implications for the formation of planetary systems. For these reasons, recounting how Russell reacted first to V. M. Slipher’s obser- vations of the extreme velocities of the spiral nebulae and then to their elaboration and correlation with distance by Hubble and others, will offer insight into how “normal” astronomers engaged the new framework. Of course, following Russell alone will not provide a full historical picture, but considering his influence, his example is a good place to start, on the occasion of this celebration of the centennial of Slipher’s initial detection of what ultimately was interpreted as the expansion of the Universe. 2. First Reactions In April 1920, the Dearborn Observatory astronomer Philip Fox wrote his friend V. M. Slipher, congratulating him on receiving the 1919 Lalande Prize of the Paris Academy for his nebular work. Fox also took the occasion to recall for Slipher how astronomers reacted when, at the 16th meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) in Atlanta in December 1913, he read one of Slipher’s first announcements of the great radial velocities of a few bright spiral nebulae. “It has been a matter of very great gratification to me to see the recognition which your splendid work has been receiving,” Fox (1920) began, but then pointedly recalled: I believe you remember that at the time of the Atlanta meeting of the Astro- nomical Society I presented your paper on the high velocity of the nebulae, and it was greeted with some expression of incredulity, especially on the part of Professor Russell, to which I made a heated rejoinder... I note that he makes a confident reference to your work, however, in “Some Problems of Sidereal Astronomy,” published by the National Research Council. In the some four years between Russell’s initial reaction to Slipher’s work and when he prepared his influential essay “Some Problems of Sidereal Astronomy,” he came to accept the velocities as measured quantities. As his essay was intended to be a referendum on the state of astronomy, pointing to work that had to be done, he clearly 2There is an extensive literature, from, for instance, Wright (1966) to Crelinsten (2006). 3There were 224 hits total using the Astrophysics Data System’s full-text search (Beta version), searching on refereed papers with synonyms disabled. Henry Norris Russell and the Expanding Universe 3 identified the velocities of the spirals as a problem that needed to be addressed in the context of the “Sidereal Problem.” He, along with J. C. Kapteyn, A. Eddington and most mainstream astronomers, regarded the defining problem of sidereal astronomy as the spatial and kinematic arrangement of stars in the visible universe. The Sidereal Problem was then the search for order, trying to understand Kapteyn’s two star streams as the motions of particles in a spiraling vortex (Paul 1993). What of the spirals then? Were they part of the stellar system, or external to it? Russell was aware of the problem, but to appreciate where they (or any unexpected observation) fit in his larger scheme of things, we need to appreciate the state of the profession of astronomy at the time. This was a time of war, and for some, including Russell, there were questions of what was critical for the future of the profession after the war. The most contentious issue for the National Research Council (NRC)4, was what would be the nature of science after the Great War. In George Ellery Hale’s view, would international relations be re-established? Who was in, and who was out?5 Hale organized the deliberations around disciplines, and asked Russell to take the lead for astronomers, concentrating on what the nature of the discipline should be like. As Russell (1917b) explained his position to Harvard’s E. C. Pickering in November 1917, [T]here are two sides of astronomical research, one of which has to do with the collections of facts, and the other with their interpretation. The former was routine; the latter was not, and this was why, Russell (1917a) claimed, none of Pickering’s Harvard staff had been asked to write reviews for the NRC. Pickering’s own earlier reports, he pointed out to his old patron, had already covered the routine aspects. Now the other side needed airing: [I]t is upon studies of this sort that the future advances of any science must very largely depend. Considering that it had been Pickering who made the vast holdings of Harvard spectra and magnitudes available to Russell in past years, which led to his landmark study of the relations between the characteristics of the stars, Russell’s views could be thought of as insensitive. Russell indeed gave highest marks to interpretation, but he was always very defer- ential to those who collected the most interesting and useful observations, like Picker- ing, and indeed like Slipher, for it was upon their work that his career was based. His patronage of Slipher and Lowell Observatory needs to be understood in this way (as does his patronage of other observatories like Mount Wilson). Russell’s essay (Russell 1920c) had to wait till war’s end, and there he expressed his opinion very forcibly: The main object of astronomy, as of all science, is not the collection of facts, but the development, on the basis of collected facts, of satisfactory theories regarding the nature, mutual relations, and probable history and evolution of the objects of study. 4Of the National Academy of Sciences 5See Kevles (1995, 1971, 1968). 4 DeVorkin Figure 1. Starting in the late 1920s, Roger Lowell Putnam, the Observatory Trustee (r), was receptive to Russell’s (l) advice and intellectual patronage. Photo- graph by Clyde Fisher, circa late 1920s, Neg. #280362,courtesy Department Library Services, American Museum of Natural History. When those facts were collected properly, and presented clinically, they had to be dealt with.