Formal Opening by Sir Mark Oliopant

Formal Opening by Sir Mark Oliphant^*

^*Twenty-five years ago, Sir Mark Oliphant then Foundation President of the Australian Academy of Science, opened the Hobart Symposium on Continental Drift, convened by Professor Carey.

I gather that we are here for this symposium to bring together what evidence there is to support the concept of an expanding Earth, which could explain changes, over geological time, in the distribution of land and sea. For the dedicated, the exercise will be, with W. S. Gilbert, "Merely corroborative detail, to add artistic verisimilitude to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative." For those who accept the very recently orthodox version of continental drift, the idea conjures up sympathy with Alice in "Through the Looking Glass". Let me quote:

'I can't believe that' said Alice. 'Can't you? the queen said in a pitying tone. 'Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes'. Alice Laughed. 'There's no use trying', she said: 'one can't believe impossible things'. 'I dare say you haven't had much practice', said the queen. 'When I was your age I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast'.

The impressive list of contributors to the discussions makes it clear that there are believers outside the Tasmanian Apple Isle, though one Tasmanian, who skilfully argued, with logic and mathematics, that the Moon was but a ball of gaseous plasma, must have been discomforted when men landed on that satellite:

It was from Paul Dirac, in Cambridge, that I first heard put seriously the idea that the physical constants might change with time. In today's context, we learnt that it was possible to construct a logical theory of the Universe, in which the constant of gravitation, G, decreased with time. All things held together by the mutual force of gravitation, must then expand with time. However, only a miniscule portion of the force between the atoms of solid or liquid is gravitational, so that in order to obtain an appreciable increase in the radius of the Earth, the electrical constants, responsible for interatomic forces, must also decrease. If nothing is constant, on a geological time scale, it becomes necessary to believe that the number of particles in the Universe is not about 10⁸⁰ or thereabouts, but is increasing or decreasing with time. I understand that Professor Carey wants continuous creation of fresh matter, Hoyle's concept in a new guise. This implies very fundamental changes in the present theories of the origin of the Universe and of its Hubble expansion.

If the Earth expands with time, like an inflating balloon, the relative positions of all parts remain the same. Other forces must be involved to explain the established motions of the continents and their parts. In addition to sea-floor spreading, there must be continental spreading unless, for some subtle reason, new matter is created only in the liquid interior. It becomes necessary to assume that new matter is always exactly the same material as existing matter, that fresh atoms of silicon and oxygen are created within a crystal of quartz, for instance, retaining the existing geometry.

In some philosophical manner, I am attracted, irrationally I suppose, by concepts such as infinity, in space and time, forward and backward. I do not find continuous creation of matter repugnant, provided that there is an equivalent continuous disappearance. I was hopeful, when I first read of modern theories predicting the instability of the proton, that this might make expansion plausible. However, the calculated, and now also the measured half-life for such decay, greater than 10³² years, is almost infinitely longer than the age of the Universe. In his review of a book by Wesson, dealing with "Gravity, Particles, and Astrophysics" in Nature for 22 January, 1981, Davies comments on the attraction of 'variable G' theories, and says:

This book is written in a style that leads one to believe there is a sort of grand, coherent theory of unconventional physics and cosmology existing alongside the more publicized one. It gives the impression of two sciences: the one to which most professionals subscribe, and another, almost the same in its predictions, but with subtle differences.

I must admit that I also am a rebel, attracted by the boldly unorthodox, and that I have a sneaking wish that the pundits of present-day accepted cosmology be proven at least partially wrong. I remember in the 1920's, as a student in Adelaide, hearing a debate between Sir Douglas Mawson, Professor of Geology, and Wood-Jones, the Professor of Anatomy, concerning Wegener's ideas of continental drift. Wood-Jones wanted it to be true, for it helped explain the distribution of animals, plants, and their fossil remains. Mawson, the celebrated geological expert, thought it an absurd idea that rigid rocks could flow in that strange manner. Even then, I felt that Wood-Jones had the better of the argument: I was equally attracted by the continuous creation theory of Fred Hoyle, and I remain hopeful that, in some form it will be revived, despite the cogent objections.

It is for this reason that I am behind Sam Carey in his determination to keep alive the concept of an expanding Earth. While the causes and the mechanism of expansion remain obscure, the idea explains everything geologists and geophysicists observe, and all that they theorize, except, perhaps, subduction. So, it is with great pleasure that I open this seminar.

NOTE: Owing to an airline strike Sir Mark was prevented from delivering this speech in person (Ed.)

Return