Michael Stump
161-64-3289
9-12-00
The “Great Debate,” as held by Heber Curtis and Harlow Shapley in 1920
(though misstated by some to have occurred the following year) centered around
perhaps one of the most important questions that can be posed in the field of
cosmology—the distance scale of the universe. The size of the universe would
hold a direct relation on our place in the universe, the age of the universe, and
theories of how the universe came to be in the first place.
Curtis and Shapley both came from professional backgrounds.
Harlow Shapley worked at the Mount Wilson Solar Observatory under William
Ellery Hale I, the founder of the observatory. Heber Curtis was employed at the
Lick Observatory, also in California. Curtis had been doing astronomy
professionally for eighteen years, after having taught classical languages. Curtis,
however, had only six years of experience at Lick. Of the two, Shapley is the one
that apparently had a longer interest in astronomy, however. His first degree was
in astronomy, granted from the University of Missouri. Shapley’s later Ph.D. was
conferred upon him from Princeton—not an easy task to accomplish! Curtis,
thirteen years Shapley’s senior, studied the classics at the University of
Michigan.
“The Great Debate” is a bit of a misnomer. Before the meeting at which
the discussion was held, Curtis and Shapley communicated their positions to
each other, and mutually agreed that they would give their own individual
presentations, responding to each others’ points within said presentations. Later,
at a commemorative event, participants opted for an actual debate format.
Many soon-to-be prominent scientists of many fields were present at this
meeting, the most notable of which are Millikan and Robert Goddard. Talks on
numerous topics that would later prove to be primitive or profound were given.
Curtis, who was known to vehemently disagree with Einstein’s theories
and to be just a general eccentric, spent most of his time at the Lick Observatory
photographing spiral nebulae, which is what brought him to this “debate” in the
first place.
The size of the galaxy had been undergoing constant updating from the
time of Herschel until (and beyond) the Great Debate. The most recent
development previous to the Debate was Arthur Eddington’s estimate of the
Sun’s position at sixty light years above the galactic plane, presumably assuming
a spiral-shaped galaxy as proposed earlier by Cornelius Easton.
Shapley’s universe was estimated at little larger than his galaxy, which he
estimated to be greater than sixty kiloparsecs in diameter. Shapley supported the
idea that the Sun was not at the center of the galaxy, but purported that spiral
galaxies were a part of our Milky Way, and that the Milky Way as seen in the
night sky was a conglomerate of spiral galaxies, much like the Coma-Virgo cloud
of galaxies. Curtis’s galaxy was only ten kiloparsecs in diameter, with the Sun at
three kiloparsecs from galactic center. In this case, Shapley was more accurate,
as his size more closely approximates the actual size of the galaxy.
Shapley and Curtis disagreed on quite a few issues, aside from the size
and shape of the galaxy as well. Shapley believed that RR Lyrae type Cepheid
variables should not be used as distance indicators, but other types of Cepheids
are valid for that purpose. Curtis didn’t believe that any Cepheids were reliable
for distance approximations, and that “more data are needed.” Today, Shapley
would have been applauded. Cepheids of all types are used as distance
indicators, quite confidently.
Similarly, for distance measurements, Shapley trusted spectroscopic
parallaxes. Curtis would not trust any parallax that would indicate a distance
greater than 100 parsecs. Again, Shapley would be considered correct.
A large velocity was observed for spiral nebulae. Both participants in the
discussion had an opinion on the reason for this. Shapley proposed a radiation
pressure repulsion from the Milky Way that would push away these nebulae.
Curtis thought that perhaps these were just intrinsic qualities of the nebulae, and
that beyond that he put on no pretenses of knowing the nature of the velocities.
Here, we would have to credit Curtis with the victory, since it took the combined
efforts of a number of great physicists and astronomers to determine the
expanding nature of the universe.
Curtis noted that spiral nebulae have colors and line spectra similar to
those of star clusters. He thus postulated that these spiral nebulae were large
assemblages of stars. Shapley had no view on this matter. Score another point
for Curtis.
Judging on only the points that I’ve enumerated here (and there are
more), it would appear that both sides made reasonable and accurate points, but
Shapley possessed more points that were later found to be accurate. I would
declare Shapley to be the winner of this debate, but I think the true winner of the
discussion is the scientific community, as one of the best things that can happen
in the scientific field occurred that day—a free exchange of ideas, with eyes on
the available data.
Trimbley, V. 1995, PASP, 107, 1133
