Stephen Hawking's Universe

Episode 3:  Cosmic Alchemy

This episode was much more rewarding than the first one, perhaps because it dealt with chemistry, my field.  Although some of the hoaky special effects were still present, the pictures of and descriptions of the actual experimental equipment used by Curie and Rutherford were informative.
	The Big Bang (previous episode) described how the universe began.  However,   "how did all the variety in the universe come from a single point?"  This episode answered that question by giving a history of chemistry and subatomic physics, starting with the alchemists.  The alchemists were characterized as searching for how to make gold.  They sought to obtain a primal substance, and transmutate it.  They renewed belief in the Greek elements (earth, water, fire, air).  An interesting comment about the alchemists was that they considered the process as important as the goal.  So this episode went beyond the stereotypical view of alchemists.  Then Hawking's comment reverted back to the stereotype.
 "Mystic beliefs and greed for gold are not good for science," said Hawking.  But transmutation from primal matter was, "perhaps accidentally, a step in the right direction."  He ignored the complex interaction between religion, mysticism and science in the Renaissance.  Many of the early scientists participated in all three systems.1
A face is put on the father of the periodic table, Dmitri Mendeleev (1834-1907) with a description of his family's glass factory, which burned down.  Proceeding through his education and work, we are told that, at that time, chemists set out to "deconstruct" matter into its basic units-atoms (indivisible particles).  In 1869, Mendeleev shuffled cards of the elements to find a pattern.  This was an accurate and refreshing view of how science works-sometimes with simple pieces of paper (also Watson and Crick with paper cutouts of DNA base pairs; Smalley built a fullerene model out of paper).
	He believed matter had to have an underlying order.  We are not given any clues as to why he believed that.  Perhaps there were religious motivations. "And while he believed it to be 'the glory of God to conceal a thing,' he was firmly convinced that it was 'the honor of kings to search it out.'"2  That belief is obviously a Biblical reference (Pr 25:2).  So he founded the Periodic Table, and suggested people study Uranium.  Which led to...
Marie Curie (1867-1934), quantifier of radiation and discoverer of Polonium and Radium.  As I mentioned above, there are some good shots of a scientific apparatus, complete with a description of the experiment and the clues it gave to the existence of the other radioactive elements.  But the nature of radiation wasn't understood yet.
Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937) determined that the radiation from Ra was not Ra vapor, but another element, He.  "the impossible had happened...the miracle that eluded the alchemists"-transmutation of the elements.  Rutherford was described as the original atom smasher, an experimentalist who used glass and wire to prove Einstein's special relativity (1905): E = mc2.  He set out to study "the inner sanctum of matter", and discovered the nucleus: atoms are divisible into subatomic particles.
	Lawrence and Livingstone were briefly introduced as inventors of the cyclotron, which allowed them to accelerate particles faster.  Then to Paul Dirac, who stated that when matter is produced from energy, antimatter should also be produced.  Since the Big Bang was essentially energy producing matter, there should be a lot of antimatter hanging around the universe.  In 1932, Carl Anderson discovered anti-electrons (positrons) in cosmic radiation.  A description of cloud chambers is given, with some actual shots of wispy, short-lived vapor trails from cosmic radiation.  A modern atom smasher described a detailed, recorded cloud chamber track from a current experiment, where high energy photons produced electrons and positrons.
A professor from Dartmouth stated that scientists "trust in the laws of physics."
Why should we believe the scientists' pictures are true?  "Look at technology," he said.  A Christian might respond that science can understand the truth because God created both the universe and the human mind. 
Then this professor described how the universe is slightly asymmetric, with more matter produced in the Big Bang than antimatter.  If not, the universe would just be energy.  "That's the ultimate reason for us to be here."  But what is the reason for the asymmetry in the universe?  Wouldn't that be the ultimate reason for our existence? Hugh Ross, among others, has addressed how the fine-tuning of the universe points to a Designer who had human life in mind.3
The story of the universe is summarized, from the Big Bang, to nuclei forming after 1 sec, atoms forming after 1,000 years (H), clouds forming, then galaxies, then stars, then planets, then life.  Stephen Hawking finished with, "a remarkable story" "from the white hot Big Bang to planets and people".  "It may be difficult to believe...but that is the way the universe seems to be."  Essentially, he told us that the physicists have the whole story figured out and that we should believe them, no matter how strange the story sounds.
1 Brooke, J. H.  "Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives," Cambridge U. Press: New York (1991), pp. 52-81.
2 Jaffe, B. "Crucibles:  The Story of Chemistry," Dover: New York (1976), p. 155.
3 Ross, H. in "The Creation Hypothesis," InterVarsity: Downers Grove, IL (1994), pp. 141-172.