Editing Fred Hoyle (section)

==Views and contributions==
===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<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hoyle|first1=F.|title=The Synthesis of the Elements from Hydrogen|journal=Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society|volume=106|issue=5|year=1946|pages=343–383|issn=0035-8711|doi=10.1093/mnras/106.5.343|bibcode=1946MNRAS.106..343H|doi-access=free}}</ref> 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 ''e''{{&nbsp}}Process.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Burbidge|first1=E. Margaret|last2=Burbidge|first2=G. R.|last3=Fowler|first3=William A.|last4=Hoyle|first4=F.|title=Synthesis of the Elements in Stars|journal=Reviews of Modern Physics|publisher=American Physical Society (APS)|volume=29|issue=4|date=1 October 1957|issn=0034-6861|doi=10.1103/revmodphys.29.547|pages=547–650|bibcode=1957RvMP...29..547B|doi-access=free}}</ref> Hoyle's second foundational nucleosynthesis publication,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hoyle|first1=F.|title=On Nuclear Reactions Occurring in Very Hot STARS. I. the Synthesis of Elements from Carbon to Nickel.|journal=The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series|volume=1|year=1954|pages=121–146|issn=0067-0049|doi=10.1086/190005|bibcode=1954ApJS....1..121H}}</ref> published in 1954, showed that the elements between carbon and iron cannot be synthesized by such equilibrium processes. He attributed those elements to specific [[nuclear fusion reaction]]s 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 systematized 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|B<sup>2</sup>FH paper]] (known for the initials of the four authors) in which the field of nucleosynthesis was organized 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 B<sup>2</sup>FH 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<ref>Clayton, Donald D. "Hoyle's Equation", ''Science'' 318, 1876 (2007)</ref><ref>Clayton, Donald D. "Fred Hoyle, primary nucleosynthesis and radioactivity", ''New Astronomy Reviews'' 52, 360–363 (2008)</ref> 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 organized after the deaths of both Fowler and Hoyle to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of B<sup>2</sup>FH. Ironically the B<sup>2</sup>FH 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 B<sup>2</sup>FH. Based on his many personal discussions with Hoyle<ref>"Fred Hoyle, primary nucleosynthesis and radioactivity" ''New Astronomy Reviews'' 52, 360–363 (2008), p. 363, footnote 1</ref> [[Donald D. Clayton]] has attributed this seemingly inexplicable oversight in B<sup>2</sup>FH to the lack of proofreading by Hoyle of the draft composed at Caltech in 1956 by G.&nbsp;R. Burbidge and E.&nbsp;M. Burbidge.<ref>"Hoyle's Equation" ''Science'' 318, 1876 (2007)</ref>

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.<ref>Cook, Fowler, Lauritsen and Lauritsen, Phys. Rev. 107, 508 (1957)</ref>

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:

{{Blockquote|Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."|Fred Hoyle<ref>Hoyle, Fred "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." ''Engineering and Science'', November 1981. pp.&nbsp;8–12</ref>}}

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.<ref name="GuardianObit">{{cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/oct/03/fred-hoyle-nobel-prize|title=Fred Hoyle: the scientist whose rudeness cost him a Nobel prize|first=Robin|last=McKie|date=2 October 2010|newspaper=The Guardian}}</ref> Fowler himself in an autobiographical sketch affirmed Hoyle's pioneering efforts:

{{blockquote|The concept of nucleosynthesis in stars was first established by Hoyle in 1946. This provided a way to explain the existence of elements heavier than [[helium]] in the universe, basically by showing that critical elements such as carbon could be generated in stars and then incorporated in other stars and planets when that star "[[stellar death|dies]]". The new stars formed now start off with these heavier elements and even heavier elements are formed from them. Hoyle theorized that other rarer elements could be explained by [[supernova]]s, the giant explosions which occasionally occur throughout the universe, whose temperatures and pressures would be required to create such elements.|William Fowler<ref>{{cite web|url=http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1983/fowler-autobio.html|title=William A. Fowler – Autobiography|publisher=Nobel Prize Committee|date=14 March 1995|access-date=15 September 2011}}</ref>}}

===Rejection of the Big Bang===
While having no argument with the [[Georges Lemaître|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]]).<ref>Smith, Quentin [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/bigbang.html A Big Bang Cosmological Argument For God's Nonexistence]. ''Faith and Philosophy''. April 1992. Volume 9, No. 2, pp.&nbsp;217–237</ref> Instead, Hoyle, along with [[Thomas Gold]] and [[Hermann Bondi]] (with whom he had worked on [[radar]] in the [[World War II|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 [[Hubble's law|red shift observations]], and Hoyle was a strong critic of the Big Bang. He coined the term "Big Bang" on [[British Broadcasting Corporation|BBC]] radio's ''Third Programme'' broadcast on 28 March 1949.<ref>{{cite magazine|title=Continuous Creation|url=https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/69b1544319ce4bda81a9aa3fca177450|magazine=Radio Times|publisher=BBC|date=27 March 1949|issue=1328}}</ref> 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".<ref>Mitton, Simon, ''Fred Hoyle - a life in science'', p.&nbsp;129, Cambridge University Press, 2011.</ref> Hoyle explicitly denied that he was being insulting and said it was just a striking image meant to emphasize the difference between the two theories for the radio audience.<ref>Croswell, Ken, ''The Alchemy of the Heavens'', chapter 9, Anchor Books, 1995.</ref> 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".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/a_mile_or_two_off_yarmouth|title=A Mile or Two Off Yarmouth|date=24 February 2012|access-date=4 August 2014|website =BBC|last=Curtis|first=Adam}}</ref>

Hoyle had a famously heated argument with [[Martin Ryle]] of the [[Cavendish Astrophysics Group|Cavendish Radio Astronomy Group]] about Hoyle's steady state theory, which somewhat restricted collaboration between the Cavendish group and the [[Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge|Cambridge Institute of Astronomy]] during the 1960s.<ref>Mitton, Simon, ''Fred Hoyle a life in science'', Chapter 7, Cambridge University Press, 2011.</ref>

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 [[law of conservation of energy|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.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Coles|first1=P.|title=Inflationary Universe|url=https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/Essay_inun.html|website=NED|publisher=NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database|access-date=22 March 2020}}</ref> 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 "[[steady-state model|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 [[quasar]]s 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.<ref name="Telegraph obit">{{cite news|title=Professor Sir Fred Hoyle|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1338125/Professor-Sir-Fred-Hoyle.html|work=[[The Telegraph (UK)]]|date=22 August 2001}}</ref>

{{blockquote|How, in the big-bang cosmology, is the microwave background explained? Despite what supporters of big-bang cosmology claim, it is not explained. The supposed explanation is nothing but an entry in the gardener's catalogue of hypothesis that constitutes the theory. Had observation given 27 Kelvins instead of 2.7 Kelvins for the temperature, then 27 kelvins would have been entered in the catalogue. Or 0.27 Kelvins. Or anything at all.|Hoyle, 1994<ref>Hoyle, Fred ''Home Is Where the Wind Blows: Chapters from a Cosmologist's Life'' (autobiography) Oxford University Press 1994, 1997, p. 413, {{ISBN|0198500602}}</ref>}}

===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===<!-- This section is linked from [[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 [[virus]]es arriving via [[comet]]s. His belief that comets had a significant percentage of [[organic compound]]s 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."<ref>[http://www.panspermia.org/thirdalt.htm ''Creationism versus Darwinism'']. Published in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education (2003)</ref>

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:

{{blockquote|If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of [[intelligent design]]. No other possibility I have been able to think of... |Fred Hoyle<ref>Hoyle, Fred, ''Evolution from Space'', Omni Lecture, Royal Institution, London, 12 January 1982; ''Evolution from Space'' (1982) pp.&nbsp;27–28 {{ISBN|0894900838}}; ''Evolution from Space: A Theory of Cosmic Creationism'' (1984) {{ISBN|0671492632}}</ref>}}

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 [[enzyme]]s for even the simplest living cell without [[panspermia]] was one in 10<sup>40,000</sup>. Since the number of [[atom]]s in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10<sup>80</sup>), he argued that Earth as life's place of origin could be ruled out. He claimed:

{{blockquote|The notion that not only the [[biopolymer]] but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.}}

Though Hoyle declared himself an atheist,<ref>{{cite book|title=Fred Hoyle's Universe|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/fredhoylesuniver0000greg|chapter-url-access=registration|date=2005|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0191578465|page=[https://archive.org/details/fredhoylesuniver0000greg/page/143 143]|first=Jane |last=Gregory|chapter=Fighting for space|quote=According to Hoyle: "I am an atheist, but as far as blowing up the world in a nuclear war goes, I tell them not to worry."}}</ref> 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."<ref>Hoyle, Fred (November 1981). "The Universe: Past and Present Reflections", ''Engineering and Science'', Volume 45:2, pp. 8–12</ref> 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 acid]]s to a solar system full of blind men solving [[Rubik's Cube]]s simultaneously.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hoyle|first=Fred|title=The Intelligent Universe|publisher=Holt, Rinehart, and Winston|date=1984|isbn=978-0030700835}}</ref> This is known as "the [[junkyard tornado]]",<ref name="Abiogenesis Calculations">{{cite web|url=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html|title=Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations|work=[[TalkOrigins Archive]]|first=Ian|last=Musgrave|date=21 December 1998}}</ref> 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 universe|fine tuned]] to allow intelligent life to be possible.

===Other opinions===
While Hoyle was well-regarded for his works on nucleosynthesis and science popularization, he held positions on a wide range of scientific issues that were in direct opposition to the prevailing theories of the scientific community.<ref name=Mitton12/> [[Paul Davies]] describes how he "loved his maverick personality and contempt for orthodoxy", quoting Hoyle as saying "I don't care what they think" about his theories on discrepant redshift, and "it is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right".<ref>{{cite book|first=Paul|last=Davies|author-link=Paul Davies|chapter=Foreword|orig-year=2005|editor-first=Simon|editor-last=Mitton|editor-link=Simon Mitton|title=Fred Hoyle: A Life in Science|year=2011|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{cite book|first=Simon|last=Mitton|author-link=Simon Mitton|chapter=Chapter 11: The Watershed|title=Fred Hoyle: A Life in Science|year=2011|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref> According to biographer [[Simon Mitton]], Hoyle was crestfallen because he felt that his colleagues at Cambridge were unsupportive.<ref name=Mitton12/>

In addition to his views on [[steady state theory]] and panspermia, Hoyle also supported the following controversial hypotheses and speculations:
* The correlation of [[Influenza|flu]] epidemics with the [[sunspot cycle]], with epidemics occurring at the minimum of the cycle. The idea was that flu contagion was scattered in the interstellar medium and reached Earth only when the [[solar wind]] had minimum power.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hoyle|first1=Fred|last2=Wickramasinghe|first2=Chandra|author-link=Chandra Wickramasinghe|date=1979|title=Diseases From Space|location=London|publisher=J.M. Dent|isbn=978-0460043571}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Hoyle|first1=Fred|last2=Wickramasinghe|first2=Chandra|date=1981|title=Space Travellers|location=Cardiff|publisher=University College Cardiff Press|isbn=978-0906449271}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Hoyle|first1=Fred|last2=Wickramasinghe|first2=Chandra|last3=Watkins|first3=John|date=1986|title=Viruses From Space|location=Cardiff|publisher=University College Cardiff Press|isbn=0906449936}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Hoyle|first1=F.|last2=Wickramasinghe|first2=N.|date=1990|title=Sunspots and Influenza|journal=Nature|volume=343|issue=25 January 1990|page=304|doi=10.1038/343304a0|pmid=2300183|bibcode=1990Natur.343..304H |s2cid=4253908|doi-access=free}}</ref>
* Two [[fossil]] ''[[Archaeopteryx]]'' were man-made fakes.<ref>Shipman, Pat, [https://books.google.com/books?id=DMjD962DhssC&q=Hoyle ''Taking Wing: Archaeopteryx and the Evolution of Bird Flight''], pp. 141–145, Simon and Schuster, 1998.</ref>
* The theory of [[Abiogenic petroleum origin|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 fossilized organic material. This theory is dismissed by the mainstream petroleum geochemistry community.<ref>{{cite book|title=Introduction to Petroleum Exploration and Engineering|first=Andrew|last=Palmer|page=38|publisher=[[World Scientific]]|year=2016|oclc=961006638|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Sk8tDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA38|isbn=978-9813147805}}</ref>
* 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 [[Aubrey holes#Archaeoastronomy and the Aubrey Holes|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 ''[[Archaeoastronomy and Stonehenge#Gerald Hawkins' work|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 Burnell|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<ref>{{cite web|url=https://astro.sites.clemson.edu/NucleoArchive/PhotoList/1970s/75letterHC.html|title=Photo Archive in Nuclear Astrophysics|website=astro.sites.clemson.edu|accessdate=8 May 2014}}</ref> composed a letter of explanation to ''[[The Times]]''.<ref name="GuardianObit"/>

The 1983 prize went in part to [[William Alfred Fowler]] "for his theoretical and experimental studies of the nuclear reactions of importance in the formation of the chemical elements in the universe" despite Hoyle having been the inventor of the theory of [[nucleosynthesis]] in the stars with two research papers<ref>"The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen" MNRAS 106, 343 (1946); "The synthesis of the elements from carbon to nickel" ''Astrophys. J. Suppl''. 1, 121–146 (1954)</ref> 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.<ref>Mitton, Simon, ''Fred Hoyle a life in science'', pp.&nbsp;301–305, Cambridge University Press, 2011</ref> 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.<ref name="GuardianObit"/><ref name="Nature obit">{{cite journal|last=Maddox |first=J.|title=Obituary: Fred Hoyle (1915–2001)|journal=Nature|volume=413|page=270|date=2001|issue=6853|doi=10.1038/35095162|bibcode = 2001Natur.413..270M|s2cid=5053798|doi-access=free}}</ref> In his obituary, ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'' editor and fellow Briton [[John Maddox]] called it "shameful" that Fowler had been rewarded with a Nobel prize and Hoyle had not.<ref name="Nature obit"/>