Willem de Sitter Quotes

Our own galaxy system is only one of a great many, and observations made from any of the others would show exactly the same thing: all systems are receding, not from any particular centre, but from each other: the whole system of galaxies is expanding.

Let the universe have only two dimensions, and let it be the surface of an india rubber ball. It is only the surface that is the universe, not the ball itself. ...Let there be specks of dust fixed to the surface to represent the different galactic systems. If the ball is inflated, the universe expands, and these specks of dust will recede from each other, their mutual distances, measured along the surface, will increase in the same rate as the radius of the ball. An observer in any one of the specks will see all the others receding from himself, but it does not follow that he is the centre of the universe. The universe (which is the surface of the ball, not the ball itself) has no centre.

Observations give us two data, viz. the rate of expansion and the average density, and there are three unknowns: the value of λ, the sign of the curvature, and the scale of the figure, i.e. the units of R and of the time. The problem is indeterminate.

Gradually, during the eighteenth century, physicists and philosophers had become so accustomed to Newton's law of gravitation, and to the equality of gravitational and inertial mass, that the miraculousness of it was forgotten and only an acute mind like Bessel's perceived the necessity of repeating those experiments. By the experiments of Bessel about 1830 and of Eötvös in 1909 the equality of gravitational and inertial mass has become one of the best ascertained empirical facts in physics.

In the "static" universe expansion is impossible, the "empty" universe does expand. Therefore we may be tempted to consider the empty universe as the most likely approximation; and we can proceed to compute the radius of curvature of the universe, supposing it to be of the empty type, from the observed rate of expansion.

These... are the two observational facts about our neighbourhood, which have to be accounted for by the theory: there is a finite density of matter, and there is expansion, i.e. the mutual distances are increasing, and therefore the density is decreasing.

Gravitation is entirely independent of everything that influences other natural phenomena. It is not subject to absorption or refraction, no velocity of propagation has been observed. You can do whatever you please with a body, you can electrify or magnetise it, you can heat it, melt or evaporate it, decompose it chemically, its behaviour with respect to gravitation is not affected. Gravitation acts on all bodies in the same way, everywhere and always we find it in the same rigorous and simple form, which frustrates all our attempts to penetrate into its internal mechanism.

How does it come about that we have been able to find satisfactory hypotheses to explain electricity and magnetism, light and heat, in short all other physical phenomena, but have been unsuccessful in the case of gravitation?

In both the solutions A and B the curvature is positive, in both three-dimensional space is finite: the universe has a definite size, we can speak of its radius, and, in the case A, of its total mass. In the case A... the density is proportional to the curvature... Thus, if we wish to have a finite density in a static universe, we must have a finite positive curvature.

There is no direct observational evidence for the curvature [of space], the only directly observed data being the mean density and the expansion, which latter proves that the actual universe corresponds to the non-statical case. It is therefore clear that from the direct data of observation we can derive neither the sign nor that value of the curvature, and the question arises whether it is possible to represent the observed facts without introducing the curvature at all. Historically the term containing the 'cosmological constant λ' was introduced into the field equations in order to enable us to account theoretically for the existence of a finite mean density in a static universe. It now appears that in the dynamical case this end can be reached without the introduction of λ.

The "universe" is an hypothesis, like the atom, and must be allowed the freedom to have properties and to do things which would be contradictory and impossible for a finite material structure. What we observe are the stars and nebulae constituting "our neighbourhood." All that goes beyond that, in time or in space, or both, is pure extrapolation.The conclusions derived about the expanding universe depend on the assumed homogeneity and isotropy, i.e. on the hypothesis that the observed finite material density and expansion of our neighbourhood are not local phenomena, but properties of the "universe." It is not inconceivable that this hypothesis may at some future stage of the development of science have to be given up, or modified, or at least differently interpreted.

Matter is actually distributed very unevenly... conglomerated into stars and galactic systems. The average density is the density that we should get if all... could be evaporated into atoms of hydrogen, or protons, and... distributed evenly over the whole of space. ...three or four protons in every cubic foot. ...a million million times less than that of the most perfect vacuum that we can produce... The universe thus consists mostly of emptiness... consider a universe without any matter at all, an empty universe, as a good approximation. But we may also take as our first approximation a universe containing... three or four protons per cubic foot. The local deviations from the average, caused by the conglomeration of matter into stars and stellar systems, are then disregarded in the grand scale model, and are only taken into account when we come to study details.

Purely mathematical symbols have no meaning by themselves; it is the privilege of pure mathematicians, to quote Bertrand Russell, not to know what they are talking about. ...It is the physicist, and not the mathematician, who must know what he is talking about.

The manner in which time and space are bound up with each other in the four-dimensional continuum is variable. It is difficult to express this variability of the cross-connections between space and time in simple language, and different interpretations of it are possible, corresponding to different mathematical transformations of the fundamental line-element, e.g. a different choice of the variable which we interpret as "time." Perhaps the best way we can express it is by saying that the solution of the field-equations of the theory of relativity shows that there is in the universe a tendency to change its scale, which at the present time results in an expansion, but may perhaps at other times become, or have been, a shrinking. This is true of the grand scale model of the universe.

Both the law of inertia and the law of gravitation contain a numerical factor or a constant belonging to matter, which is called mass. We have thus two definitions of mass; one by the law of inertia: mass is the ratio between force and acceleration. We may call the mass thus defined the inertial or passive mass, as it is a measure of the resistance offered by matter to a force acting on it. The second is defined by the law of gravitation, and might be called the gravitational or active mass, being a measure of the force exerted by one material body on another. The fact that these two constants or coefficients are the same is, in Newton's system, to be considered as a most remarkable accidental coincidence and was decidedly felt as such by Newton himself. He made experiments to determine the equality of the two masses by swinging a pendulum, of which the bob was hollow and could be filled up with different materials. The force acting on the pendulum is proportional to its active mass, its inertia is proportional to its passive mass, so that the period will depend on the ratio of the passive and the active mass. Consequently the fact that the period of all these different pendulums was the same, proves that this ratio is a constant, and can be made equal to unity by a suitable choice of units, i.e., the inertial and the gravitational mass are the same. These experiments have been repeated in the nineteenth century by Bessel, and in our own times by Eötvös and Zeeman, and the identity of the inertial and the gravitational mass is one of the best ascertained empirical facts in physics-perhaps the best. It follows that the so-called fictitious forces introduced by a motion of the body of reference, such as a rotation, are indistinguishable from real forces. ...In Einstein's general theory of relativity there is also no formal theoretical difference, as there was in Newton's system. ...the equality of inertial and gravitational mass is no longer an accidental coincidence, but a necessity.