Origin of nucleosynthesis Hoyle authored the first two research papers ever published on synthesis of chemical elements heavier than helium by stellar nuclear reactions. The first of these in 1946 showed that cores of stars will evolve to temperatures of billions of degrees, much hotter than temperatures considered for thermonuclear origin of stellar power in main-sequence stars. Hoyle showed that at such high temperatures the element iron can become much more abundant than other heavy elements owing to thermal equilibrium among nuclear particles, explaining the high natural abundance of iron. This idea would later be called the
eProcess. Hoyle's second foundational nucleosynthesis publication, published in 1954, showed that the elements between carbon and iron cannot be synthesised by such equilibrium processes. He attributed those elements to specific
nuclear fusion reactions between abundant constituents in concentric shells of evolved massive, pre-supernova stars. This startlingly modern picture is the accepted paradigm today for the
supernova nucleosynthesis of these primary elements. In the mid-1950s, Hoyle became the leader of a group of talented experimental and theoretical physicists who met in Cambridge:
William Alfred Fowler,
Margaret Burbidge, and
Geoffrey Burbidge. This group systematised basic ideas of how all the chemical elements in our universe were created, with this now being a field called
nucleosynthesis. Famously, in 1957, this group produced the
B2FH paper (known for the initials of the four authors) in which the field of nucleosynthesis was organised into complementary nuclear processes. They added much new material on the synthesis of heavy elements by neutron-capture reactions, the so-called
s process and the
r process. So influential did the B2FH paper become that for the remainder of the twentieth century it became the default citation of almost all researchers wishing to cite an accepted origin for nucleosynthesis theory, and as a result, the path-breaking Hoyle 1954 paper fell into obscurity. Historical research in the 21st century has brought Hoyle's 1954 paper back to scientific prominence. Those historical arguments were first presented to a gathering of nucleosynthesis experts attending a 2007 conference at Caltech organised after the deaths of both Fowler and Hoyle to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of B2FH. Ironically the B2FH paper did not review Hoyle's 1954 supernova-shells attribution of the origin of elements between silicon and iron despite Hoyle's co-authorship of B2FH. Based on his many personal discussions with Hoyle
Donald D. Clayton has attributed this seemingly inexplicable oversight in B2FH to the lack of proofreading by Hoyle of the draft composed at Caltech in 1956 by G. R. Burbidge and E. M. Burbidge. The second of Hoyle's nucleosynthesis papers also introduced an interesting use of the
anthropic principle, which was not then known by that name. In trying to work out the steps of
stellar nucleosynthesis, Hoyle calculated that one particular nuclear reaction, the
triple-alpha process, which generates
carbon from helium, would require the carbon nucleus to have a very specific resonance energy and spin for it to work. The large amount of carbon in the universe, which makes it possible for
carbon-based life-forms of any kind to exist, demonstrated to Hoyle that this nuclear reaction must work. Based on this notion, Hoyle therefore predicted the values of the energy, the nuclear spin and the parity of the compound state in the carbon nucleus formed by three alpha particles (helium nuclei), which was later borne out by experiment. This energy level, while needed to produce carbon in large quantities, was statistically very unlikely to fall where it does in the scheme of carbon energy levels. Hoyle later wrote: His co-worker
William Alfred Fowler eventually won the
Nobel Prize for Physics in 1983 (with
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar), but Hoyle's original contribution was overlooked by the electors, and many were surprised that such a notable astronomer missed out. Fowler himself in an autobiographical sketch affirmed Hoyle's pioneering efforts:
Rejection of the Big Bang While having no argument with the
Lemaître theory (later confirmed by
Edwin Hubble's observations) that the universe was expanding, Hoyle disagreed on its interpretation. He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be
pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" (see
Kalam cosmological argument). Instead, Hoyle, along with
Thomas Gold and
Hermann Bondi (with whom he had worked on
radar in the
Second World War), in 1948 began to argue for the universe as being in a "steady state" and formulated their
Steady State theory. The theory tried to explain how the universe could be eternal and essentially unchanging while still having the galaxies we observe moving away from each other. The theory hinged on the creation of matter between galaxies over time, so that even though galaxies get further apart, new ones that develop between them fill the space they leave. The resulting universe is in a "steady state" in the same manner that a flowing river is—the individual water molecules are moving away but the overall river remains the same. The theory was one alternative to the
Big Bang which, like the Big Bang, agreed with key observations of the day, namely Hubble's
red shift observations, and Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He coined the term "Big Bang" on
BBC radio's
Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949. It was said by
George Gamow and his opponents that Hoyle intended to be pejorative, and the script from which he read aloud was interpreted by his opponents to be "vain, one-sided, insulting, not worthy of the BBC". Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasise the difference between the two theories for the radio audience. In another BBC interview, he said, "The reason why scientists like the "Big Bang" is because they are overshadowed by the Book of Genesis. It is deep within the psyche of most scientists to believe in the first page of Genesis". Hoyle had a famously heated argument with
Martin Ryle of the
Cavendish Radio Astronomy Group about Hoyle's steady state theory, which somewhat restricted collaboration between the Cavendish group and the
Cambridge Institute of Astronomy during the 1960s. Hoyle, unlike Gold and Bondi, offered an explanation for the appearance of new matter by postulating the existence of what he dubbed the "creation field", or just the "C-field", which had negative pressure in order to be consistent with the
conservation of energy and drive the expansion of the universe. This C-field is the same as the later "de Sitter solution" for
cosmic inflation, but the C-field model acts much slower than the de Sitter inflation model. They jointly argued that continuous creation was no more inexplicable than the appearance of the entire universe from nothing, although it had to be done on a regular basis. In the end, mounting observational evidence convinced most cosmologists that the steady-state model was incorrect and that the Big Bang theory agreed better with observations, although Hoyle continued to support and develop his theory. In 1993, in an attempt to explain some of the evidence against the steady-state theory, he presented a modified version called "
quasi-steady state cosmology" (QSS), but the theory is not widely accepted. The evidence that resulted in the Big Bang's victory over the steady-state model included discovery of
cosmic microwave background radiation in the 1960s, and the distribution of "young galaxies" and
quasars throughout the
Universe in the 1980s indicate a more consistent age estimate of the universe. Hoyle died in 2001 having never accepted the validity of the Big Bang theory.
Theory of gravity Together with
Narlikar, Hoyle developed a particle theory in the 1960s, the
Hoyle–Narlikar theory of gravity. It made predictions that were roughly the same as Einstein's
general relativity, but it incorporated
Mach's Principle, which Einstein had tried but failed to incorporate in his theory. The Hoyle-Narlikar theory fails several tests, including consistency with the microwave background. It was motivated by their belief in the steady-state model of the universe.
Rejection of Earth-based abiogenesis In his later years, Hoyle became a staunch critic of theories of
abiogenesis to explain the
origin of life on Earth. With
Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle promoted the
hypothesis that the first life on Earth began in space, spreading through the universe via
panspermia, and that
evolution on Earth is influenced by a steady influx of
viruses arriving via
comets. His belief that comets had a significant percentage of
organic compounds was well ahead of his time, as the dominant views in the 1970s and 1980s were that comets largely consisted of water-ice, and the presence of organic compounds was then highly controversial. Wickramasinghe wrote in 2003: "In the highly polarized polemic between
Darwinism and
creationism, our position is unique. Although we do not align ourselves with either side, both sides treat us as opponents. Thus we are outsiders with an unusual perspective—and our suggestion for a way out of the crisis has not yet been considered." Hoyle and Wickramasinghe advanced several instances where they say outbreaks of illnesses on Earth are of extraterrestrial origins, including the
1918 flu pandemic, and certain outbreaks of
polio and
mad cow disease. For the 1918 flu pandemic, they hypothesized that cometary dust brought the virus to Earth simultaneously at multiple locations—a view almost universally dismissed by experts on this pandemic. In 1982, Hoyle presented
Evolution from Space for the Royal Institution's Omni Lecture. After considering what he thought of as a very remote possibility of Earth-based abiogenesis he concluded: Published in his 1982/1984 books
Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of
enzymes for even the simplest living cell without
panspermia was one in 1040,000. Since the number of
atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (1080), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed: Though Hoyle declared himself an atheist, this apparent suggestion of a guiding hand led him to the conclusion that "a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and ... there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature." He would go on to compare the random emergence of even the simplest cell without panspermia to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a
Boeing 747 from the materials therein" and to compare the chance of obtaining even a single functioning
protein by chance combination of
amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving
Rubik's Cubes simultaneously. This is known as "the
junkyard tornado", or "Hoyle's Fallacy". Those who advocate the
intelligent design (ID) philosophy sometimes cite Hoyle's work in this area to support the claim that the universe was
fine tuned to allow intelligent life to be possible.
Other opinions While Hoyle was well-regarded for his works on nucleosynthesis and science popularisation, he held positions on a wide range of scientific issues that were in direct opposition to the prevailing theories of the scientific community. Hoyle often expressed anger against the labyrinthine and petty politics at Cambridge and frequently feuded with members and institutions of all levels of the British astronomy community, leading to his resignation from Cambridge in September 1971 over the way he thought
Donald Lynden-Bell was chosen to replace retiring professor
Roderick Oliver Redman behind his back. According to biographer
Simon Mitton, Hoyle was crestfallen because he felt that his colleagues at Cambridge were unsupportive. • Two
fossil Archaeopteryx were man-made fakes. • The theory of
abiogenic petroleum, held by Hoyle and by
Thomas Gold, where natural hydrocarbons (oil and natural gas) are explained as the result of deep carbon deposits, instead of fossilised organic material. This theory is dismissed by the mainstream petroleum geochemistry community. • In his 1977 book
On Stonehenge, Hoyle supported Gerald Hawkins's proposal that the fifty-six
Aubrey holes at
Stonehenge were used as a system for
Neolithic Britons
to predict eclipses, using them in the daily positioning of marker stones. Using the Aubrey holes for predicting lunar eclipses was originally proposed by Gerald Hawkins in his book of the subject
Stonehenge Decoded (1965).
Nobel Prize for Physics Hoyle was also at the centre of two unrelated controversies involving the politics for selecting recipients of the
Nobel Prize for Physics. The first arose when the 1974 prize went in part to
Antony Hewish for his leading role in the discovery of pulsars. Hoyle made an off-the-cuff remark to a reporter in Montreal that "Yes,
Jocelyn Bell was the actual discoverer, not Hewish, who was her supervisor, so she should have been included." This remark received widespread international coverage. Worried about being misunderstood, Hoyle carefully composed a letter of explanation to
The Times. published shortly after WWII. So some suspicion arose that Hoyle was denied the third share of this prize because of his earlier public disagreement with the 1974 award. British scientist
Harry Kroto later said that the Nobel Prize is not just an award for a piece of work, but a recognition of a scientist's overall reputation and Hoyle's championing many disreputable and disproven ideas may have invalidated him. In his obituary,
Nature editor and fellow Briton
John Maddox called it "shameful" that Fowler had been rewarded with a Nobel prize and Hoyle had not.
Donald D. Clayton wrote that "He made himself look like a sorehead who only cared about the steady state universe and life from outer space. … He made himself look foolish." ==Media appearances==