Edwin Hubble
Published on Nov 20, 2006 at 5:32 pm.
12 Comments.
Filed under astronomers.
One of the most recognized names in Twentieth Century astronomy is Edwin Hubble. Astronomers and astronomy students recognize the name, of course. Even many people from the public recognized the name. Now, anyone who is even a little aware of world events knows the name through the Hubble Space Telescope, which was named after Edwin Hubble.
I picked today to write about him, because Edwin Hubble was born November 20, 1889. As a boy in school, he made good grades, but he was most widely known by his peers and community for his athletic abilities, even setting a high jump record in high school for the state of Illinois in 1906.
In 1910, he received his BS degree from the University of Chicago. He was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship, and studied for three years at Oxford, where he studied law. Throughout his studies, he also studied his true passion: astronomy. But, upon returning to the United States, he began practicing law. He soon realized that he did not have much of a taste for law, and returned to the University of Chicago to pursue a PhD in astronomy. He was awarded his PhD in 1917, and was immediately offered a position at Yerkes Observatory. However, he turned down that appointment in order to enlist in the United States Army in order to serve his nation during the Great War (World War I). Though he enlisted as a private, within months he had been made made a captain. He was soon promoted to major and shipped to Europe. He served in combat, where he was injured (he never again would be able to completely straighten his right elbow).  When he returned to the United States, he was sent to the Presidio in California, where he received his discharge papers.Â
Upon leaving the Army, Hubble reported immediately to the Mount Wilson Observatory, still in uniform, to work for George Ellery Hale. On his way there, he stopped at Lick Observatory, where he was a commanding presense in uniform. From that day forward, astronomers at Lick always refered to Hubble as “the Major.” In fact, he seemed to always regard himself that way, often observing in coat and tie. Most of his career, though, was spent using the 100 inch Hooker telescope at Mount Wilson.  After the 200 inch Hale telescope was completed at Mount Palomar, Hubble was the first to get to use it. The first photograph that he took with the Hale telescope was of the variable nebula NGC 2261. This nebula had been a focus of his PhD dissertation, the first object that he had viewed at Lick Observatory, and the first thing that he photographed from the Mount Wilson observatory. On September 28, 1953, Hubble was walking home from his office when his wife Grace drove by on her way home from running errands. She stopped and picked him up, and then drove home.  She said that as she pulled into the driveway, he got a puzzled expression on his face, and began to breathe oddly.  She parked the car and then called for the maid to help her get her husband upstairs as he wasn’t feeling well. When she turned back to the car, he was slumped over, dead. He had died of a cerebral thrombosis. So ended the life of a great astronomer.
Edwin Hubble is most famous for his studies of the galaxies. He was the first to show that the spiral nebulae that astronomers were so puzzled about were in fact entire galaxies (or island universes, as he called them at first). This startling finding came through studies of M31, the Great Spiral Nebula of Andromeda 
(what we now call the Andromeda Galaxy). He showed that this body was well over two million lightyears distant, and larger than our own Milky Way. He then studied other “extragalactic nebulae” and developed a classification scheme still in use today based upon the morphology of the galaxies.Â
Even if these had been all the things that he’d done, Edwin Hubble would have earned a name for himself as a great astronomer. But, he did more. Edwin Hubble is perhaps best known for his work in 1929 showing that the farther away a galaxy is from us (except for the galaxies of the Local Group), the faster it is receding. Hubble was not the first to discover that these “extragalactic nebulae” were receding. That was done by Vesto Slipher of Lowell Observatory and James Keeler of Lick Observatory. But, Hubble combined his results with their results and produced a linear relationship between distance and recessional velocity that we know as the Hubble Law. This finding of an expanding universe could best be explained by understanding that the universe is expanding. This result had been predicted by Alexander Friedmann in 1922 by solving Einstein’s equations of general relativity.  But many cosmologists had resisted the notion of an expanding universe, because it implied that the universe must have had a beginning point, and idea strongly supported by Georges Lemaitre in a model for the origin of the universe that eventually became known as the Big Bang.  Einstein himself, assuming that the universe must be static and unchanging forever, had even gone so far as to put an extra term in his equations that would keep the universe from expanding. Hubble’s findings so shook Einstein that he made the journey all the way from Germany to California just to examine the data. It is this work that led NASA to choose to honor Edwin Hubble when it came time to name the Space Telescope.   Â
Interestingly, Hubble may have been in line for an Nobel Prize had he not died when he did.  Hubble had been part of a push for many years to get astronomy recognized internationally as a branch of physics rather than its own science. This makes sense, because astronomer take all the same courses as physicists. In fact, an astronomy degree is generally a physics degree with an astronomy emphasis. Most colleges and universities have physics and astronomy in the same department.  But, one of Hubble’s reasons for pushing to get astronomy as a branch of physics was that as a separate science, there was no Nobel Prize for available for astronomy. But, in 1953, shortly after Hubble’s death, astronomy was, in fact, declared a branch of physics, and several Nobel prizes since that time have been awarded to astronomers and cosmologists. The Nobel Prize is not awarded posthumously, though, so Hubble was not eligible. Â
-Astroprof
(Images courtesy of Mount Wilson Observatory and NASA)Â Â Â
AndromedaM31 on April 30, 2007 at 8:29 am: 1
Astroprof,
Thank you for this wonderful website.
I enjoyed the write up on Edwin Hubble.
I am interested in the Andromeda Galaxy. I admire E. Hbble. I am new to astromony and wish to prusue it in College. Any good college’s you recommend either in the USA or UK. I have a Chemistry degree.
Thank you!
May His Force be with you,
Astroprof on April 30, 2007 at 2:57 pm: 2
When people ask me about \”good\” colleges, my first thoughts go to the big names: Arizona, Texas, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Cambridge, etc. But, really, the best college is one that you fit in with. A small institution, with only one or two astronomers, if it is a comfortable fit, and if they treat their students well, is probably best for most people. You get the most attention and don\’t get lost in the crowd.
Bill on June 6, 2007 at 3:25 am: 3
Like most sources, you incorrectly credit Hubble with the “discovery” that the universe is expanding. In fact, Hubble correlated cosmic red shift with distance, not motion, and in several papers stated that his data best supported a non-expanding universe. The “apparent” Doppler shift, he wrote, was more likely the product of an “unknown principle.”
Astroprof on June 6, 2007 at 6:24 am: 4
The process of a “discovery” takes time. In fact, I didn’t actually credit Hubble with that discovery. Rather, I said that Slipher and Keeler discovered the distance-redshift relation, but Hubble was the one to quantify it. Hubble, like most others at first, didn’t appreciate what he had found. But, later he did come around to realizing that the distance-redshift relation was consistent with an expanding universe. But, he had to be convinced of the consequence of his own findings.
Wardell Lindsay on March 18, 2008 at 10:34 pm: 5
Hubble was right in assuming redshift was an “hitherto unknown principle of nature”. Newton and Einstein Law of Gravity left out the vector energy and missed that the Universe is in equilibrium with the centripetal force of gravity being balanced by the centrifugal force of moving masses: E=-mu/r + mcv
mg=mcDel.v = mcH=mcfcos(g) where H is Hubbles Constant. The red shift is cos(g)=v/c=z.
The Universe is in Equilibrium, with size R=158E24m, Mass=2.133E53kg, and Cycletime=16.5E9yrs. The density is 23E-27kg/m^3.
What is being called dark energy is the centrifugal energy mcv not included in Newton’s and Einstein’s Real energy Gravity Theories. Gravitational energy is a quaternion energy consisting of real energy -mu/r + vector energy mcv!
Conservation of energy gives equilibrium and g=cDel.v.
Mark J. Dinkel on October 31, 2009 at 10:59 am: 6
My daughter is a sophomore in high school and is working on a science investigation where the teacher provided her a link to NASA’s extragalactic database as a research tool. I suggested the topic of her research could be a study of how gravitational interaction may affect redshift in irregular galaxies and, as a corolloary, a study of redshift in non-interacting spiral and elliptical galaxies. Can anyone cite me to some scholarly articles or research papers that may shed some red-shifted light on this subject matter???
Thanks,
Li Kong on August 15, 2011 at 10:22 pm: 7
The following are the explanations why the discovery of Edwin Hubble does not provide a good evidence that our universe would be expanding currently:
a)Despite many red shifts through telescope from astronomers, it does not provide the proof that this universe could be expanding for the following reasons:
1) The possibility that our universe could be very huge that it would take more than trillion of years to reach the opposite end of the unverse (sphere). The assumption is based upon the following factors: This universe is assumed to be as a shape of sphere with external boundary and all galaxies are assumed to move within the boundary of this universe.
Let’s imagine you stand at one end of the sphere (the universe) to have a full view of all the surrounding movement of galaxies. As all the galaxies were advancing at a high speed from your end to the edge of the sphere that is right opposite from you that form a half complete round, you certainly would visualize that all the galaxies are advancing as if that they are leaving away from you since their movement in speed is a few time faster than your galaxy. As this universe is very huge so much so that it would take a very long time, let’s say, more than a trillion years to reach the point that is right opposite to the point so as to make a half complete turn of this universe. Despite many galaxies have been moving towards the point that is right opposite to the point where you are viewing through telescope, the result would turn up to be many red shifts to have appeared in the universe. As universe is too huge for galaxies to travel from one end to another and only a few have completed a half turn to move than to the starting point of the sphere where you are to the edge of the sphere that is right opposite from you, it turns up that they are many red shifts than blue shifts.
2) The second possibility is that many galaxies might have advanced faster than us and yet many galaxies might have made a complete half turn within the sphere (the universe) and yet the galaxies might not as what we think that they would keep on rotating themselves in a circle. Instead, they might not return to the previous track where they have passed through. These could result that they do not turn back to us.
3) The third possibility is that all the clusters of galaxies could be advancing in the same place and same direction just that most of the galaxies are advancing faster than us as if that their galaxies are moving further away from us. As we are in this tiny world and cannot have the full sight of this universe, we could not reject this possibility since it might be so without our full view of this universe since the astronomers just looked at the sky with a telescope that comes to their conclusion without viewing the universe as a whole. No matter how advance is the technology, it could never be possible to build an advice that could capture the whole view of universe from one end (the earth).
4) The fourth possibility is that majoirty of the galaxies might have made a full complete turn in this universe within the boundary of the universe in many years ago, such as, more than a few thousand years ago. Or in other words, there might be a time in the past in which there were many blue shifts than red. What the astonomers that have seen right now with many red shifts do not reflect the universe might be expanding since there might be a period of times in many years ago that almost all the galaxies have made a complete full turn and it turns up that many galaxies have turned up to be red shifts currently. Or in other words, it would take many years later, such as more than a few thousand years later, in order to have many blue shifts instead of red shifts at that time.
5) The fifth possibility is that universe was created in infinity and that all galaxies are advancing ever since the past. If that is so, it is erroneous to use many red shifts as discovered by astronomers to conclude that the universe is expanding.
There might be other possibilities that you could think of why there are more red shifts than blue shifts and yet it does not come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. As there are many alternative possibilities, to jump into conclusion that the universe is expanding through many red shifts being discovered is rather a little speculation.
Li Kong on August 23, 2011 at 1:14 am: 8
Some might mention that they have photos of stuff occurring about 14 billion years ago to support Edwin Hubble’s theory that there were many red-shift in the galaxies in the past. However, there are two possibilities that many red shifts that have appeared about 14 billion light years might not give the proof that this universe could be expanding:
a)There could be a possibility that the universe itself is not expanding. The original size of the universe could be so huge that it might take more than a few trillion light years for galaxies to travel pass from one end of the universe to another. As the size of the universe might be very huge so much so it would take more than a few trillion years for galaxies could be very huge, it turns up that the galaxies would take about 14 billion years to travel and yet they have not yet reach nearly the end of the galaxies in order to make a turn for their return in advancing towards us. As a result, there shows more red-shifts than blue currently. Or in other words, there would be a time in which there could be more blue shifts than red and it should be at more than a number of billions of light years later in which most of the galaxies have completed their half round of travelling in turning to us for advancing.
b)There could be a possibility that the universe could be advancing as supported by Edwin Hubble.
c)There could be a possibility that the universe could be lasted until infinity. If there is no boundary or space limit for this universe, many red-shifts that have discovered in the past would not give us the information that the universe could be expanding due to our universe could be lasted until infinity and there is no space limit at all.
As there are two out of three possibilities that could not come to the conclusion that many red shifts in the galaxies that had been discovered by Edwin Hubble could come to the conclusion that this galaxies could be expanding, to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding is rather speculative.
Some might comment that we could compute the size of the universe in miles from the age dimension to conclude that the size of the universe could be measured. However, by tracing the years backward in which red shifts have been advancing would not tell the size of the universe since it only could tell the number of years from now to then. It could not tell whether there could be size from the galaxies and that is beyond. For instance, if the universe could be lasted to infinity, the method that has been adopted to compute the size of universe would not turn up to be accurate.
Li Kong on August 25, 2011 at 7:44 pm: 9
The following is the website in which the calculation of the size of universe has been mentioned:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=151
The following are the verses quoted from the above websites:
My bright teenage son, after considerable calculation, has concluded that the universe is approximately 68 sextillion miles wide. He based his calculation on the basic 186K mi/sec speed of light x the estimated 15 billion year age of the universe.
There are a few shortfalls in above computation of the size of the universe:
a)It is a clear cut from the explanation above that the computation of the size of the universe is subjected to the travelling speed of 184 mi/sec speed of light for the movement of the galaxies. However, there is a limitation in the computation of the size of the universe and that is the computation does not take into consideration whether there could be a possibility that this universe could be in infinity and there could be no space limit after its formation. For instance, if size of our universe that has been formed could be in infinity and there would be no space boundary and space limit, the computation of the size of the universe would turn up to be speculative. This is due to we could not use the speed of the advancement of the galaxies farthest away from us to monitor the size of the universe due to the universe could have already been formed in infinity ever since its creation and there could be no reason for the universe to extend further since there could be no space limit in the first place.
b)It is irrational to use the estimated age of the universe as a guideline to determine the size of the universe since there could be a possibility that the size of the universe could have been formed initially with its extension to infinity. If the size of the universe could have been formed initially with infinity, there should not be any boundary or space limit for this universe to extend further since the initial size of this universe could have already been extended to infinity. To fix the age of the universe in the computation of the size of the universe, would not determine the exact size of the universe since the size of it could have been lasted until infinity initially.
Despite Edwin Hubble could produce the photos to prove that many red shifts in the galaxies ever since the commencement of the universe, to jump into the conclusion that the universe could be expanding is rather speculative for the following reasons:
a)One possibility is that this universe might have been created initially with boundary and yet the size of the universe might be so immense that it might take more than a trillion years for the galaxies to travel from one end of the universe to another. As the size of the universe could be so immense that galaxies would take more than a trillion years to travel from one end to another, it turns up that most of the galaxies are advancing further away from this galaxy due to they would take many more years to complete their half turn in order that these galaxies would turn back to us in rotation to show majority to be in blue shift in the future. That could be the reason why there are many red shifts than blue. This possibility is there since nobody ever really sees that there could be a boundary in the galaxies.
As nobody has ever seen the boundary of the universe, we could not deny that there could be a possibility that the universe could be so huge that it would take more than a trillion of years for galaxies to travel from one end of the universe to the other end.
As nobody has ever seen the boundary of the universe, there is no support that the size of the universe could not be so immense that it might take a few trillion light years to travel from one end of the universe to another.
If this universe could be so in reality, many red shifts in the galaxies do not reflect the universe could be expanding since the galaxies would take more than a few trillion of years to travel farthest away from our galaxy before they could make a u-turn so that we could have the view of many blue shifts since then.
b)Second possibility is that this universe might have been created initially with infinite space. Or in other words, there could be no boundary or space limit in the universe ever since its creation. As there could be no space limit in this universe, the observation that there have been many red shifts than blue ever since 15 billion light years ago would not give us the information that this universe could be expanding.
As nobody has ever seen there could be a boundary of the universe, there is no support that there could be any boundary in this universe. Or in other words, we could not deny that there could be a possibility that the universe could have been created in infinity and that this universe could be without space limit initially.
If this universe could be so in reality, many red shifts in the galaxies do not reflect the universe could be expanding since the universe itself could be in infinity and there could be no space limit.
c)Third possibility could be as what was described by Edwin Hubble that the universe could be expanding.
As there are two out of three possibilities that could not come to the conclusion that the universe could be expanding, to jump into the conclusion through many red shifts in the galaxies is a little speculative.
The reason why Fred Hoyle defended steady stage and yet later supported the expansion was merely due to many red shifts in the galaxies. However, there are other possibilities that might not come to the conclusion that the universe could be expanding simply by observing many red shifts in the galaxies ever since the creation of the universe.
Wardell Lindsay on August 27, 2011 at 10:10 pm: 10
Hubble believed that the red shft was an “hither to unrecognized principle of nature” and the did not indicate the Universe is expanding. In this Hubble was correct, the Universe is not expanding. Hubble had other evidence like the population of galaxies counted as the space regions extended, indicated the Universe is closed.
The red shift is misunderstood. The red shift indicates that there is a centrifugal force balancing the centripetal force of gravity or electric fields. Thus there is quantum red shift in atoms. The centrifugal force is due to the vector energy mcV of the orbiting body m. The fundamental problem is that
Gravitational energy is quaternion energy , E= -mGM/r + mcV = m[-u/r, cV].
The vector energy is the so-called “dark Energy” that opposes gravity. It is the equivalent of Einstein’s “Cosmological Constant”, but not a constant. The redshift is the v/c=cos(V) of the velocity V and comes from
-mcDiv.V= -mcv/r cos(V). The minus sign indicates the force is away from the center, a divergence.
Edwin Hubble « fluffyducks on November 3, 2011 at 4:49 pm: 11
[…] http://astroprofspage.com/archives/450 Advertisement Eco World Content From Across The Internet. Featured on EcoPressed Solar incentives to fall amid uncertain global economy Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Comments RSS feed […]
Edwin Powell Hubble:Founder Of Big Bang Theory And Universe Is Infinite | winmydreams.com on December 31, 2011 at 5:09 am: 12
[…] (November 20, 2006). “Edwin Hubble”. Astroprofspage.com. Retrieved May 29, […]