The 20th century witnessed an astonishing revolution in physics.
From unlocking the secrets of the atom...
..to working out the origins of the universe...
..physics took us places we'd never dreamt possible.
This was also a century when we were for the first time
able to see and hear scientists in their own words.
I began to notice there was something slightly curious on the records.
I didn't take it in, because I was probably daydreaming, and...
I can't stop! I mean, I could talk forever.
So we began to learn not just about the science,
but the men and women behind it.
And the more we learnt about these scientists,
the more it became clear
that their personalities...
eccentricities...
and rivalries...
It was that he was too sure too quickly.
..were all fundamental to their discoveries.
In fact, it's impossible truly to understand
the 20th century revolution in physics
without first knowing who these men and women really were.
I see. And your idea is to find out what nature COULD be.
8:15am.
The 6th August 1945.
Hiroshima.
And the world witnessed the power of physics.
A catastrophic explosion
sent a shock wave that flattened the city...
sparked a huge firestorm
and bathed every living thing in deadly radiation.
Over 60,000 people died immediately.
The atomic bomb shocked the world,
causing a scale of destruction never before witnessed.
It also broke the heart of the world's most famous scientist -
the man who had launched the 20th century revolution in physics,
and dedicated his life to world peace and equality.
Hiroshima devastated Albert Einstein -
not only because it tested his ideals,
but also because he felt he had played a role
in the development of the bomb.
What weighed heaviest on Einstein's conscience
was a letter he had signed in 1939.
It was addressed to the US President, Roosevelt,
and written to encourage the Americans to build the bomb
to deter the Nazis.
Einstein knew that his signature
would have carried more weight than any other.
After all, by then he was the most famous
scientist in the world - a scientific superstar.
Einstein never worked on the Manhattan Project
that built the bomb,
but from the moment he learnt about the death
of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima,
he deeply regretted ever having signed the letter.
Yet there was also another, more fundamental way
in which Hiroshima lay on Einstein's conscience.
Because the equation that made him famous,
the equation that symbolised the scientific revolution he created,
was the very same equation that underpinned the atomic bomb -
E = mc2.
In this simple and beautiful equation,
Einstein had rewritten the laws of physics.
But he had also unwittingly handed the world
the key to the atomic bomb.
It was an outcome he could never have foreseen
when he began his scientific studies at the start of the 20th century.
Einstein had crafted E = mc2 when he was in his 20s.
At the time, he was just a young man working in obscurity
in a patent office in Bern, Switzerland.
But he had a fascination for light, space and time.
He read a lot while he was at the patent office.
He read a lot in the evening and weekends,
and there was an informal group of scientists in Bern.
He was very much engaged in discussion about science,
even though he was spending his time at work assessing patents.
Despite the group, Einstein did his best work alone.
His method was to create thought experiments
that asked some simple, profound questions.
Questions like, "If I'm travelling on a tram,
"does time run differently for me
"inside the tram compared to people standing on the street outside?"
And, "If I was travelling away from a clock tower on a beam of light,
"would my wristwatch and the clock read the same time?"
Whichever area he was looking at,
he would find the little inconsistencies,
the things that didn't quite make sense,
the things that in retrospect seem like a bit of a fudge
when you got different explanations for the same phenomenon.
And he would focus in on those little rough corners
and completely cut them away and bring in something new,
and bring clarity to the situation.
And that was very characteristic, I think,
of the way he operated in all those different fields.
Einstein spent time deep in concentration
considering the outcomes of his thought experiments...
..which would culminate in two ground-breaking theories
that would lay the foundations for modern physics.
First there was his special theory of relativity.
This proposed a radical new concept of space and time,
suggesting that neither are absolutes,
but can change depending on the relative motion
of objects and observers.
A set of ideas that also led to E = mc2.
And then his general theory of relativity,
which gave physicists a new understanding of gravity.
Rather than being a force,
it was now a property of the curvature of space and time.
They were ground-breaking new theories,
products of Einstein's vivid imagination, creativity
and ambition.
The freedom and independence he enjoyed in Bern,
away from the formality of academia, allowed him the space
to formulate some of the most original ideas in science.
And as other scientists began to provide support for these theories,
Einstein was rocketed into world fame.
Einstein had the reputation, before all these results were announced,
of being very mild-mannered, of being shy -
but he absolutely rose to the occasion.
He just basked in the glory, and he really loved it.
And he went on tours and he talked to audiences.
His lectures weren't always very good,
and there's a report from Oxford by a student,
and he said, when Professor Einstein came in,
he was shuffling along and he looked quite dejected and low-spirited,
and then the audience rose to its feet and clapped,
and suddenly Einstein came alive and his whole face lit up -
and he obviously really needed that public adulation.
MAN: Can you kill the lights, fellas?
Can you kill the lights?
Shake hands with me...
The public latched on to Einstein's playful image,
rather than trying to understand his complicated theories.
The intellectual elite treated him like a god.
LAUGHTER
After Einstein,
the story of 20th-century physics
became the story of men and women who either built on Einstein's work,
attacked it, or filled in the gaps of what it could not explain.
And the first big development after relativity
concerned the one part of the universe that seemed to defy it.
The world of the subatomic particle.
This was a strange new world,
and it led to an entirely new branch of physics.
It was called quantum theory,
and became characterised by both bizarre ideas
and rather bizarre people.
Few were more strange than British mathematician Paul Dirac.
His intellect rivalled that of Albert Einstein,
but in character Dirac could not have been more different.
Talking about the history of quantum mechanics,
the English physicist Paul Dirac.
Quantum mechanics was discovered 40 years ago by Heisenberg.
Shortly afterwards it was discovered again,
independently, in a rather different form by Schrodinger.
Heisenberg and Schrodinger gave us a very wonderful theory.
Many people took it up and proceeded to develop it.
I was one of them.
Well, he was certainly a very strange man.
He was very quiet - people call him shy.
I guess he was shy.
He took things very literally.
Also, it might be something that seemed a bit rude.
I know that somebody asked him
whether he had seen any good films recently, or something -
sitting next to him, probably, at High Table,
at St John's College, Cambridge,
and he said, "Well, why do you want to know?"
Dirac would later attribute his silence
to being bullied as a child by his father.
he was brought up by this very strict father
who insisted that at dinner time - or at home, I think -
his son should only speak in French.
And Dirac didn't like to speak in French,
and so, the preferable option, he just didn't speak at all.
Others claimed Dirac's social awkwardness
was because he was autistic.
Whatever the reason,
it didn't hold him back in the pursuit of a career
in mathematics at Cambridge.
Professor Dirac, we heard before from Professor Heisenberg
about his visit to the Kapitza Club in Cambridge.
Can you tell us something about that club?
Kapitza was a young Russian physicist who came to Cambridge
to work with Rutherford.
He organised a club, about 20 members, physicists,
who would meet every Tuesday evening,
and someone would then read a paper on some question of physics,
and there would be a lot of discussion afterwards.
There was a minute book that was kept of this club,
which is very fortunate, and we can look in the records of that
and see just the subject that Heisenberg talked on.
I don't remember whether he spoke about his new theory at that time.
I... If he did, I didn't take it in, because...
I was probably daydreaming,
and I don't take in everything a lecturer says.
Despite his daydreaming,
Dirac was singled out as a brilliant and fresh new talent
in the new field of quantum theory.
He was invited to speak
at the most prestigious international physics event -
the Solvay Conference.
Only a few months later, he published an equation
which would solve one of the biggest problems in physics
and become his most seminal work.
I suppose the thing that Dirac's best known for
is the Dirac equation.
And I remember going to lectures where people would say,
"Well, the Dirac equation
"is the most accurate equation known in science."
I don't know if you'd say that now,
but it's the equation of the electron.
It was partly to solve a problem which people found
that they couldn't describe particles
in accordance with relativity.
Dirac had done what no-one else could.
He had crafted an equation to describe how electrons behave
that was consistent with both quantum theory
and special relativity.
A union that had yet to be proved possible.
It was certainly highly original,
but I think this was driven, maybe,
by the fact that there was a barrier between him and the outside world,
and that he was internally driven
and therefore found that this was the way he understood things,
and he would quite often, therefore, understand things in a different way
from the way other people did, and it might be a better way,
because he'd thought it all through in his own terms.
As well as explaining how electrons behave,
he developed a theory of quantum electrodynamics
which described the interactions between electrons and light.
Dirac's unique understanding of subatomic particles
won him a Nobel prize
and led to a series of breakthroughs in quantum physics.
But despite all of his successes,
Dirac would never become a household name.
Unlike Einstein, attention made him uncomfortable,
so he avoided the limelight whenever he could.
He was interested in other things than science,
but a little bit surprising -
for instance he was interested in cartoon movies,
Mickey Mouse, and things like that.
He was interested in things
where the emotional content was not a major part of it.
But then there was also this story about either a play or a book,
I can't quite remember which now,
by a Russian author - maybe Dostoevsky.
In it, somebody asks him, "Well, what did you make of it?
"Did you enjoy it?"
And he said, "Well, at one point the author made a mistake
"and he said the sun rose twice in the same day."
HE CHUCKLES
So this is the sort of thing he would point out
about some literary classic,
rather than commenting on its emotional impact.
Dirac only ever let a few people into his world.
His wife was the sister of a very distinguish quantum physicist -
or a mathematical physicist, Eugene Wigner,
who was a very important figure, also, in the early days
of quantum mechanics,
and so she must have known that community
and known how Dirac was respected within that community,
which I expect had something to do with their getting together.
And she probably felt that he was somebody who needed protection,
needed attention,
and somebody who would be very worthwhile
and interesting to be with.
While Dirac was developing the foundations of quantum mechanics,
explaining the world of the very small,
other scientists were working at the opposite scale,
exploring the boundaries of the known universe.
General relativity had led to the idea
that we live in an expanding universe,
and observations had confirmed it.
But this led to a fundamental question.
Did the universe have a beginning?
It was a question that would cause
one of the bitterest rivalries in science -
a conflict that consumed two brilliant physicists,
but would ultimately lead us
to a deeper understanding of the universe.
As you probably know, there are two forms of cosmology -
what has been spoken of as the Big Bang, and the Steady State.
The one that I've been associated with...
..the galaxies must be forming the whole time.
Fred Hoyle was the son of a wool merchant,
and brusque Yorkshireman,
who believed that the universe had no beginning and has no end.
In the explosion theory,
we suppose that the matter
in the universe was originally in a highly condensed state
which then expanded.
And the galaxies which we now see are fragments of this explosion.
Martin Ryle was a volatile yet sensitive man
who, unlike Hoyle, believed the universe did have a beginning.
Both worked at Cambridge University.
And in the 1950s, neither man had enough evidence to prove
one way or the other who was right.
PROFESSOR MARTIN REES: I only got to know Fred Hoyle after 1965,
when I was a student,
but I already became aware that he had been a great figure
in the history of the subject.
Indeed between 1945 and 1965 it's fair to say that he contributed more
to astronomy on the theoretical side than anyone else in the world.
He was an extraordinarily inventive and versatile person.
And his greatest achievement, in retrospect, was to realise
that all the atoms that we are made of were forged inside stars.
Hoyle was a confident man whose great achievements were,
in part, because he wasn't afraid to go it alone
FRED HOYLE: One of the things that one has to, um, think about
is you have to have a sense of obstinacy in science.
Because if you don't, you're not going to go against the crowd.
And if you don't go against the crowd,
you're not going to have any real successes.
But the question then is, can it interfere with one's judgment?
Well, um, let me make it absolutely clear
that a sense of obstinacy is only of value
insofar as it allows you to discount the opinions of other humans.
At the time, Hoyle was an atheist.
So perhaps it wasn't surprising
that his Steady State theory avoided any hint of a genesis.
He said that the universe had always looked the same,
that new galaxies formed
in the spaces made by the universe's expansion.
And as a practised populariser of science,
Hoyle took to the airwaves to promote his point of view.
The BBC presents The Nature Of The Universe.
'The speaker is Fred Hoyle -
'a Cambridge mathematician and Fellow of St John's College.'
'Perhaps like me, you grew up with a notion
'that the whole of the matter in the universe
'was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.
'What I'm now going to tell you is that this is wrong.'
EXPLOSION
Hoyle was the first person to refer to the explosion theory
as a "big bang".
EXPLOSIVE RUMBLING
And although he didn't intend it to, the phrase
captured the public's imagination
and became a brilliant marketing tool for his opponents.
Perhaps his greatest opponent was Ryle -
different in almost every way.
Unlike Hoyle he was a practical scientist, an engineer,
who sought to observe the secrets of the universe,
mapping the faintest, furthest things in the universe
with a radio telescope -
the newest and most exciting instrument in astronomy.
MUSIC: Raymond Baxter Reports Theme
RAYMOND BAXTER: 'This is Martin Ryle, Fellow of The Royal Society,
'Professor of Radio Astronomy at Cambridge University.'
'We're receiving a naturally emitted radiation,
'just like the light from a star.'
And if we listen to these radio waves,
as in the case of the distant source, in Cygnus,
what we hear is a rushing noise.
WHOOSHING
PROFESSOR REES: Martin Ryle was above all a brilliant technician
and engineer, but also he combined that
with being someone who understood the theory of what he was doing
and the importance of it.
And it's important to realise
that having invested many years of effort
in developing a pioneering new telescope,
and actually built it
and made the effort to get the money for it et cetera,
then, clearly, he had a huge stake
in ensuring that it did important work
and was naturally rather sensitive at criticism of the output.
So when theorist Fred Hoyle publically questioned the accuracy
of the first data set produced by his telescope,
Ryle was devastated.
I think he took criticism rather deeply.
It's partly because of his personality.
Unlike Fred Hoyle, he was not robust in argument -
he got genuinely upset -
and he didn't really like taking part in debate.
He didn't go to many conferences - he didn't enjoy them.
And so he therefore took very deeply any criticism -
it meant a lot to him.
In front of the media,
Ryle was very self-controlled and diplomatic.
But those who knew him well often saw a different side to him.
PROFESSOR CRAIG MACKAY: Martin Ryle did have
a bit of a temper, there's no doubt about it.
He would very easily fly into a rage about something.
And I ended up getting on extremely
well with him by writing down
what my argument was and giving it to him.
I would then get that back after a day or two,
with Biro markings which were often
so fierce as to go right through the paper.
And that would be his view of the whole thing and I would reply.
So we had this correspondence
and it's my great regret that I've kept none of that.
Many of those bits of paper were pretty transparent
after he'd had a go at them.
Ryle's fury with Hoyle fuelled his determination
to use his radio telescope to destroy the Steady State theory.
Can you explain exactly what you've been doing?
Well, I think we'd better have a diagram here.
And perhaps we could look at the board.
According to the theory of continuous creation,
the density of galaxies would be the same
in the neighbourhood of the Earth, here,
right out to the edges of the observable universe.
One way in which one could test the two theories is to make a measurement
of the variation of the density of
galaxies with distance from us.
If the Steady State theory was right then the more distant galaxies,
which are older, would be distributed just as they are now,
because it says the universe has always been the same.
EXPLOSION
If the Big Bang theory was right,
then the more distant galaxies
would be more densely packed,
because the early universe would have been crammed full of matter
before expanding and evolving.
It's very easy for someone in the public to look at this
and think, "It's two astronomers arguing about something."
They're not. They're very different.
A mathematician and an engineer are really rather different animals,
they do look at the universe in a completely different way,
they see different things - that was the fundamental problem, I think.
There was very little attempt on either side,
I believe, to understand the other -
how they worked, how they ticked.
Unlike Ryle, Hoyle was a performer
and wasn't one to keep his opinions to himself.
Do you reject this Big Bang theory?
This concept of a beginning, an evolution and a going on?
Well, I do and I always have done.
One doesn't impress on the universe its properties in the start.
I think my objection to Ryle was he was too sure too quickly.
PROFESSOR MACKAY: Martin Ryle also found it very difficult
with Fred Hoyle being
extremely negative about the work of the group,
but it's also true that Martin Ryle really made
no serious attempt to build bridges with Hoyle and his people.
And I think that that was very unfortunate.
The two groups were working maybe as far as 200yds apart
in the same town - an easy walk from one to the other -
and the contact between the two groups was minimal.
Collecting radio telescope data was a slow process.
But in 1961, Martin Ryle presented a comprehensive catalogue
that showed the furthest observable galaxies
were more densely distributed.
Finally he could settle the matter.
RYLE ON TAPE: 'The first and most remarkable result of all,
'as you proceed outwards
'from the most intense
'and presumably nearest sources,
'we find a great excess of fainter ones.
'The universe must have changed radically within the time span
'accessible to our radio telescopes.
'This result seems to show quite clearly that the Steady State -
'the continuous creation -
'theory of the universe cannot be correct.
'The results imply that the universe is changing with time.'
The rivalry between these two men had finally yielded a result -
evidence for the Big Bang theory.
Most of it comes from a body much larger...
For most astronomers, the proof was now stacked against
Hoyle and his theory.
Although Hoyle himself wouldn't accept it.
You have here in Cambridge Professor Ryle,
who is a radio astronomer and, as I understand it,
he made a study of the radio stars and claims to have proved
your Steady State theory wrong.
I still take the same view today.
I think we cannot know whether there is a contradiction with the theory
until we know exactly what these radio sources are.
BIRDSONG
Even when the rest of the scientific community
embraced the Big Bang theory,
Hoyle refused to join them.
In the early 1970s, Hoyle felt forced out of Cambridge.
He moved to the Cumbrian countryside,
where he pursued his love for science fiction writing.
Tea's ready.
Here, he also had more time to spend with friends.
Including a man who was revolutionising
the other great branch of 20th-century physics -
the quantum world of subatomic particles.
Despite their very different specialisms,
they found they had a lot in common.
'Have you had a moment in a complicated problem,'
where quite suddenly the thing comes into your head
and you're almost sure you've got to be right?
Oh, yes. That's...
This is great. Oh, God, yeah.
Richard Feynman was the ultimate showman,
an American who became everybody's favourite physicist.
# In a spell That old black magic
# That you weave so well... #
He was a brilliant mathematician...
enamoured by the smallest,
most fundamental building blocks of the universe.
# ..Always glad when your eyes meet mine
# That same old tingle That I feel inside... #
Suppose little things behave very differently
than ANYTHING that was big.
The behaviour of things on a small scale is so fantastic,
it's so wonderfully...different.
I get a kick out of thinking...
about these things.
Uh, I can't stop. I mean, I could talk for ever.
He was charismatic, engaging and enthusiastic.
A bongo-playing prankster who approached both life
and science with a sense of playfulness.
Atoms do not behave like weights hanging on a spring
and oscillating,
nor do they behave like miniature representations
of the solar system with little planets going around in orbit.
It behaves like nothing
that you've seen before.
Well, there's one simplification.
At least electrons behave
exactly the same in this respect as photons,
that is they are both screwy - but in exactly the same way.
As a quantum man, Feynman was inspired by the great Paul Dirac.
PROFESSOR ROGER PENROSE: There's this wonderful picture
at the Warsaw conference of Feynman talking to Dirac -
Dirac leaning back and Feynman being very...
very demonstrative. They were very different characters,
completely different characters.
Dirac being this introverted...
afraid to say things
unless they're absolutely right.
Feynman saying anything that comes to his mind -
they usually were right nevertheless.
Despite the differences in their characters,
they were both fascinated by the same things.
In fact Feynman was especially interested in unlocking
a riddle that lay at heart of
Dirac's own work on quantum electrodynamics.
I read Dirac's book and he had these
problems that nobody knew how to solve that were described there.
I couldn't understand the book very well because I wasn't up to it.
But there in the last paragraph
at the end of the book it said,
"Some new ideas are here needed."
And so there I was, "Some new ideas are needed? OK."
So I started to think of new ideas.
Although Dirac's mathematical description
of how electrons and photons interact
was undeniably correct, the equations themselves
confused physicists
because they sometimes produced crazy answers like infinity.
PROFESSOR PENROSE: Feynman went his own route
and he said, "Look we don't have to have all this complicated stuff,
"all these formulas and fancy mathematics.
"Let's get right down to the root of what we're trying to do."
Feynman's confidence, creativity and direct approach led to
a radical solution to Dirac's riddle.
It's like building those houses of cards,
and each of the cards is shaky.
If you forget one of them,
the whole thing collapses again. and you have to build them up again.
Feynman's answer came in the form of diagrams.
Little pictures that represented each step of the equations.
They could be manipulated,
used to simplify the complicated calculations, remove the infinities,
and produce useful answers
to make accurate predictions about the world.
Physicists all over the world started using the diagrams.
Feynman had unlocked the potential of Dirac's electrodynamics.
FANFARE PLAYS
In 1965, Feynman was given the Nobel prize to recognise the impact
of his diagrams, although he wasn't the most grateful receiver of it.
I don't like honours.
I'm appreciated for the work that I did
and the people who appreciate it,
and I notice that other physicists use my work.
I don't NEED anything else,
I don't think there's any sense to anything else.
I don't see that it makes any point that someone in the Swedish Academy
decides that this work is noble enough to receive a prize.
I've already got the prize,
the prize is the pleasure of finding the thing out,
the kick in the discovery,
the observation that other people use it.
Those are the REAL things.
The honours are unreal to me.
For Feynman, the real reward
was communicating his passion
to others, and he was very good at it.
The things that are solid are made of atoms,
which, although they're jiggling, they never get out of place.
If you took one away, the others in the right place pull them back.
You see, it's a perpetual...
check with your friend. "Are you OK?" "Yes."
It's like people marching in a...
It's like the high school band march, OK?
Nobody really knows what they're doing.
They're going like this. It's OK, it holds together.
Students flocked to his lectures and would seek out his company
whenever they could.
I don't want to take this stuff seriously, I think
we should have fun imagining it and not worry about it.
There's no teacher going to ask you questions at the end.
Otherwise it's a horrible subject.
# You gotta have my... #
Feynman's informal approach to science,
and his brilliant creativity, were instrumental in the development
and accessibility of quantum theory in the late-20th century.
YELLS
MUSIC: Spinning Wheel by Blood Sweat & Tears
At the same time as the revolution in quantum physics,
scientists were also making great astronomical finds.
Observations that would provide robust proof of Einstein's theories.
One the most significant discoveries was made in the late '60s,
by an extremely determined young woman
embarking on a career in the field of radio astronomy.
'The new instrument was perhaps the least glamorous telescope
'ever built and it was to be operated full-time by one person,
'a girl.'
Jocelyn Bell Burnell however was not just a girl, she was
a talented scientist who had a lifelong passion for the night sky.
JOCELYN: I went away to boarding school at 13.
My physics teacher that I had, Mr Tillet, was a super teacher.
I could well have had a physics teacher
who took the view that girls couldn't do physics
and what's the point of trying kind of thing.
I'm not sure where I'd have gone then, what I'd have done
but Mr Tillet was quite the opposite.
I went to Glasgow and I was the only woman doing physics
and every time I entered the lecture theatre, as was the tradition,
the guys whistled,
stamped, catcalled, banged their desks.
There was a them and me.
I was rather on my own the whole time.
MUSIC: Come On Everybody by Eddie Cochran
In the early 1960s, Bell Burnell started her PhD as part
of Martin Ryle's radio astronomy group at Cambridge University.
She had found her spiritual home.
It was here that Mr Tillet's inspirational teaching
and Glasgow University's trial by ordeal would start to bear fruit.
The Cambridge Radio Astronomy Group had an interest in distant objects
because they were interested in general
in how the universe had evolved.
But first we had to build the radio telescope, and actually
I spent two of my three years constructing a radio telescope.
She was outside in this muddy field,
literally building things that looked like a very large fence,
with wooden poles and wires strung between them,
and it was quite a hard business.
I think she must have become very, very fit because of all that,
but it was a difficult, physically demanding life that she led
when the telescope was being built.
But it was only once the last cables were connected
that the real work started.
Bell Burnell was in charge of searching
for tiny bright objects far out in the cosmos.
We were actually using this telescope to look for quasars,
because they twinkle, and this thing is specially designed to pick out
twinkling things.
And after we'd been running I suppose about a few months
I began to notice there was something slightly curious on the records.
They came out as paper charts,
and of course on these charts you could see radio sources
and unfortunately you could also see man-made interference.
But there was also something that didn't quite fit either bill -
it wasn't exactly a twinkling radio source
and it wasn't exactly interference either.
Everybody's first reactions were that it must be man-made.
Including Bell Burnell's supervisor Antony Hewish,
who was convinced there had to be a terrestrial explanation
for the anomaly on the paper chart.
We wrote round to all the astronomical observatories in Britain
saying, "Have you had any programme going
"which might possibly cause radio interference?"
But the observatories wrote back with the all clear.
There was nothing obviously interfering with her telescope.
It's very easy when doing research, to try and
brush over those things that don't quite fit into your view of things.
It's much easier and much more convenient
if it sort of fulfils your prejudices.
She didn't do that - she found this thing that didn't really make sense,
and she kept at it and was concerned
as it became more and more obvious
that it wasn't making any conventional sense.
So I think that approach was very important.
Bell Burnell enlisted the help of another radio telescope,
to prove to all her doubters that the signal
was in fact coming from the cosmos.
She finally convinced Hewish
that this was something to pay attention to.
The big mystery was:
what in the universe could be producing this signal?
It looked like a series of equally spaced pulses.
I don't know what I had expected
but I certainly didn't expect regular pulsations.
Stars and galaxies don't pulse like that.
Hewish ruled out the possibility that it was
coming from an object,
because it pulsed too regularly and quickly
for any known star or galaxy.
Which led them to consider another explanation.
Second reactions not really voiced very loud were:
perhaps it's little green men?
While the leaders of the radio astronomy group
started considering their response to alien communication,
Bell Burnell remained unconvinced, and returned to her telescope.
She was very self-contained, very self-motivated,
somebody who kept herself to herself.
Wasn't really a great socialite in the group.
Not that my memory is that it was particularly a social group,
there were people who would get together -
but she was somebody who tended to be and preferred to be on her own.
Sometimes in research you can know too much,
and it's the youngster who's ignorant
or somebody coming in from outside
that says, you know, the emperor has no clothes on,
that actually is telling the truth, can see the truth.
I think in order to make scientific discoveries,
you really have to be open to the possibility of something
quite unexpected.
Jocelyn was somebody who WAS open to that,
and she found something quite unexpected.
Bell Burnell was rigorous, keeping meticulous records
and analysing them in painstaking detail.
She was dogged in her pursuit of an explanation.
I was analysing chart from another piece of sky,
and thought I saw a piece of this scruffy kind of signal.
Looked exactly like what I was seeing before
but from a totally different bit of the sky.
Right. I thought, "I'm not going to bed tonight,
"I'm going out to the observatory."
And I switched on the high speed recorder,
in came, blip, blip, blip, blip, blip.
Clearly the same family, the same sort of stuff.
And that was great, that was really sweet.
Now, the people here say that
if they got three signals as exactly spaced as that,
it would be very unusual.
If they got four, it would be phenomenal.
Well, they've had pulses as exactly spaced as that 24 hours of the day
since November.
It was easier with the second one,
and that was a great relief in many ways
because it removed this possibility of it being little green men.
Highly unlikely that several lots of little green men would be
all signalling to us,
all at the same frequency, all at the same time.
With little green men ruled out,
this had to be a brand-new type of cosmological object,
behaving in a way that astronomers had never expected.
The faint blips from space so nearly dismissed as error
took the world by storm.
The new objects were called pulsars, because they pulsed so regularly.
For Bell Burnell, it was a personal vindication
for her years of struggle.
Seeing the article in print was tremendous,
and I remember sending a copy of the paper to my physics teacher.
INTERVIEWER: And that's your physics teacher at The Mount?
At The Mount, yes. My physics teacher at The Mount.
And how did he react to it?
He had actually alerted the school.
There was a lot of publicity.
Mr Tillet had seen this, and told the school.
There aren't so many people that take up physics as a profession,
and certainly relatively few women of my generation,
so Mr Tillet followed with some interest my career.
And I was really pleased that he was still around
at the time of the discovery.
Further investigation showed
that pulsars are the dense remains of rapidly spinning dead stars
that emit beams of radiation.
With each rotation, the beam sweeps
in and out of the Earth's line of sight.
And when they're found in pairs,
they gradually move closer to each other.
This behaviour indicated the existence of gravitational waves -
distortions in space-time produced by massive objects.
It's a phenomenon predicted
by Einstein's theory of general relativity.
It was the strongest evidence yet for the theory
that Einstein had developed
using just the power of maths and abstract thought.
APPLAUSE
'Professor Antony Hewish...'
Antony Hewish won the 1974 Nobel prize
for his role in the discovery of pulsars.
Controversially, Bell Burnell was not included.
But she has remained remarkably philosophical about it.
You can actually do extremely well out of not getting a Nobel prize.
And I have had so many prizes and so many honours
and so many awards,
that actually I think I've had far more fun
than if I'd got a Nobel prize, which is a bit flash in the pan -
you get it, you have a fun week and it's all over,
and nobody gives you anything else after that
cos they feel they can't match it.
But Bell Burnell's discovery not only advanced
our understanding of the universe,
it also forced physicists around the world
to think twice before they dismissed the unconventional.
The scene was now set for other novel ideas in cosmology
to be taken a little more seriously than before.
Good news for another Cambridge PhD student
who was not only pursing an idea rejected by other physicists,
but was also facing his own personal struggle.
In the early 1960s, Stephen Hawking was a normal, beer-swilling student,
living life to the full while his physics studies took a back seat.
However, his life would change for ever
when at the age of 21
Hawking was diagnosed with motor neurone disease.
I was given two and a half years to live.
I have always wondered how they could be so precise about the half.
Its first effect was to depress me.
I seemed to be getting worse fairly rapidly.
There didn't seem any point in doing anything
or working on my PhD,
because I didn't know I would live long enough to finish it.
While he struggled to adjust to the diagnosis,
Hawking fell in love and married a family friend, Jane Wilde.
I certainly wouldn't have managed it without her.
Being engaged to her lifted me out of the slough of despond I was in.
But then things started to improve -
the condition developed more slowly
and I began to make progress in my work.
His spirits were buoyed,
but Hawking believed he didn't have long to live.
Motivated by a sense of his own mortality,
he was determined to complete his PhD at Cambridge.
In it, he applied general relativity to what we see in the universe,
and showed that at the big bang
there had to be what's known as a singularity -
a infinitely small and dense point in space-time.
In the 1960s, it was a thing that most physicists
didn't believe existed.
Roger Penrose was one of his examiners.
He was very good at picking up ideas.
When he came down to London when I was giving a talk -
this was on some cosmological thing -
I remember him particularly asking very awkward questions!
So er...
OK, good questions. I had to think a bit before giving the answer.
So a bit of an awkward cuss, you would say.
Not afraid to bring out issues which
a young student might be a little shy of bringing up,
so he wasn't shy at all in that way.
Hawking remained at Cambridge University,
and his career in astrophysics went from strength to strength.
Although he had outlived his original diagnosis,
his health was inevitably deteriorating.
He could speak for quite a while,
but largely only in ways that
his close colleagues could understand him.
HAWKING SPEAKS INDISTINCTLY
Now, it just so happens that we have the universe here...
INDISTINCT CONTRIBUTION FROM AUDIENCE
LAUGHTER Sorry.
I'd speak to him for a while, and...
A fair amount of to and fro, and I could understand what he was saying
more or less and he could understand what I was saying.
But then he'd say something that... I couldn't understand a word of it.
And he'd spell it out letter by letter.
And it would either be a joke,
or an invitation to dinner. HE LAUGHS
Something which was on a personal nature not technical at all,
so technical things were much easier to understand.
Despite his ailing physical health,
Hawking's mind was sharp and his will strong.
HAWKING SPEAKS INDISTINCTLY
Stephen's lucky in that he chose one of the few fields
in which his disability is not a serious handicap.
HE SPEAKS INDISTINCTLY
Cos most of his work is really just thinking.
HE SPEAKS INDISTINCTLY
And his disabilities don't stop him doing that.
HE SPEAKS INDISTINCTLY
In a way, they give him more TIME to think.
I think probably THE most determined person
I've ever known.
I remember staying at his house
in Little Clarendon Street, wherever it was -
there was a three-storey, little narrow house,
much higher than it was wide.
And when it came to the time when he wanted to go to bed
he would crawl up the stairs -
he refused to have anybody help him in any way -
he would crawl up the stairs, it would
take him about a quarter of an hour to get up the stairs,
put himself to bed, do everything he could for himself.
Hawking's determination was also evident in his science.
Not only had his PhD shown singularities
WERE present in the universe...
..along with Penrose, he proved that they also lay
at the heart of another curiosity - black holes.
Hawking was now used to pushing the boundaries of cosmology.
But his greatest discovery came in 1974,
when he showed that black holes aren't entirely black,
but emit SOME light.
Radiation created by the strange quantum effects
that occur at the edge of the black hole.
Where Dirac had previously managed to unite special relativity
and quantum theory,
Hawking was the first to use both general relativity and quantum
in the same explanation.
Where I have had success,
it has been because I have approached problems from a different angle.
I rely on intuition a great deal.
I try to guess a result.
But I then have to prove it.
That is how I found black holes aren't completely black.
I was trying to prove something else.
There's nothing like the eureka moment
of discovering something that no-one knew before.
I won't compare it to sex - but it lasts longer.
Hawking's unifying idea was revelatory, yet complex.
And having had a family of his own,
he had a burning ambition now to popularize his science.
In 1988, he published A Brief History Of Time,
which aimed to explain the mysteries of the universe
to non-scientists.
It became an international bestseller.
The contrast between his imprisoned body
and a mind roaming the cosmos fascinated the public.
All my life I have been fascinated by the big questions that face us,
and have tried to find scientific answers to them.
Perhaps that's why I have sold more books on physics
than Madonna has on sex.
He was catapulted into celebrity,
and became the most famous living scientist.
He clearly likes his fame -
one can see that this is something
he does get a lot of enjoyment out of,
having big crowds and...
So there's an element of showmanship about it all.
Hawking's strength as a communicator of science
has opened a window onto the cosmos,
and enabled us all to marvel at its glory.
Throughout the 20th century,
the secrets of the universe
have been unravelled by extraordinary individuals.
Inspirational men and women,
who have discovered fundamental new truths...
..about everything from the subatomic
to the extremely massive.
But today, science has changed.
Many of the most exciting frontiers of physics are being explored
not by individuals, but by large groups of scientists,
working together in collaborative units.
The subject now is much more sophisticated,
in that whether you're a space astronomer,
an optical astronomer or a particle theorist,
you depend on very large instruments, at CERN for instance.
You have the designers of the instruments,
the operators of the instruments,
those who analyse the data, the phenomenologists
and the theorists who try to make sense of it at a deeper level.
So the story of physics in the 21st century
is more about collective endeavour.
And although we may miss the individual personalities,
it is a price we may have to pay
if we are to stand a chance of solving
the remaining secrets of the universe.