Nose cells as the key COVID-19 entry point

Sungnak et al. SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nature Medicine, April 2020.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Detection of the virus was first reported in Wuhan, China and has since spread worldwide and emerged as a global pandemic. COVID-19 primarily affects the lungs and airways and has a wide range of symptoms including fever, coughing, and sore throat. One of the scariest aspects of the virus is that some people may not manifest symptoms but can still carry and spread it. In severe cases, the virus causes pneumonia that can ultimately lead to death. Studies suggest that the virus is thought to be spread through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes and appears to be easily transmitted within affected areas. COVID-19 has spread to more than 184 countries and claimed more than 190,000 lives so far. One of the major questions scientists around the world are trying to understand is how the virus spreads, how we can prevent transmission, and how we can develop an effective vaccine. To discover the target cells involved in COVID-19 transmission, scientists analyzed the gene expression profiles of thousands of cells from 20 different human tissues including the lung, nasal cavity, eye, gut, heart, kidney, and liver. They specifically looked for individual cell types that expressed both of two key COVID-19 entry proteins – the receptor protein ACE2 and the TMPRSS2 protease. These analyses revealed that mucus-producing goblet cells and ciliated cells on the inner lining of the nose have the highest level of COVID-19 virus proteins of all cells in the airways. While there are many external and internal factors that contribute to the virus’ transmissibility, these findings are consistent with the rapid infection rates of the virus. The location of these cells on the surface of the inside of the nose makes them highly accessible to the virus and also may assist with transmission to other people. Interestingly, ACE2 and TMPRSS2 were also found in cells in the cornea of the eye and in the lining of the intestine. This suggests another possible route of infection via the eye and tear ducts, and also revealed a potential for fecal-oral transmission. These findings have important implications for understanding viral transmissibility and could have critical translational implications. For example, given that nasal carriage is likely to be a key feature of transmission, drugs and vaccines administered intra-nasally could be highly effective in limiting the spread of the virus.

Neutrinos Could Explain Why the Universe Has So Much More Matter Than Antimatter

The T2K Collaboration. Constraint on the matter–antimatter symmetry-violating phase in neutrino oscillations. Nature, April 2020

The current laws of physics propose that 13.8 billion years ago, at the time of the Big Bang, every particle of matter had been created with a counterpart called antimatter. Antimatter is precisely the same as matter but with an opposite physical property such as an electrical charge. The great mystery for physicists is why there is so much more matter than antimatter in the universe. If there had been equal quantities in the beginning then each particle would have wiped each other out in a blaze of energy and left the universe full of just photons and dark matter. To understand the mystery behind this asymmetry, scientists have utilized an experiment known as “T2K.” T2K is a collaboration between 500 international scientists that employs a proton accelerator in Japan that generates beams of subatomic particles called muon neutrinos and antineutrinos which then travel 295 km to the gigantic Super-Kamiokande detector, located in a tank filled with 50,000 tons of water under a mountain in Kamioka on Japan’s west coast. During this trip, the muon neutrinos and antineutrinos change in flight to electron neutrinos and antineutrinos, demonstrating the phenomenon of neutrino oscillations. The team observed for the first time that there is a significant difference between neutrino and antineutrino oscillations. Neutrinos were found to turn into electron neutrinos at a much higher rate than their antineutrino counterparts and, as a result, would propagate regular matter at a higher rate than antimatter. These results show that although matter and antimatter look so similar to each other, they can behave completely different. Previously, scientists have found some differences in behavior between matter and antimatter versions of other subatomic particles called quarks, but the differences observed did not seem to be large enough to account for the dominance of matter in the universe. This new data indicates that subatomic particle neutrinos might be the very reason the universe is dominated by matter. While the scientific community is very excited about these results, most experts suggest collecting a lot more data in order to get the confidence level of their results up over the current ratio of 95%.

Humans Tend To Go With Our “Gut Feelings” Over Evidence-based Decisions

Konovalov& Krajbich. Mouse tracking reveals structure knowledge in the absence of model-based choice. Nature Communications, April 2020.

A new study showed that when faced with a decision, humans prefer to follow their “gut feeling” or habits instead of taking all facts into account. In the study, participants played a simple computer game in which identifying patterns could make them more money. While following the patterns led to success most of the time, there was still a 10-40% chance that it would not give the best outcome. The researchers observed that 56 of the 57 participants were able to identify the pattern to make the decision that gave them the highest chance of success. However, only about 20% of players consistently went with that choice after it failed them. The other 80% of players diverged and made choices based upon their gut feelings. The researchers suggest that participants decided to go with their gut feelings when making in-game decisions because choosing the best pattern only led to a slightly higher chance of success. This study highlights how decision-making works in real life. People can learn what choices lead to the best outcomes; but putting that knowledge into practice can often be difficult as it likely takes a lot of mental and sometimes physical energy to always make decisions based upon your knowledge of your current environment. Moreover, the rewards of following the best strategy aren’t always obvious in real life. Following a familiar strategy may increase your success by only a small percentage. In our decision making, there is always the dilemma – what we should do from a statistical perspective versus what worked out well recently, typically in an anecdotal manner.

Observing Majorana fermions in the ferromagnetic atomic chains on a superconductor. Nadj-Perge et al. Science, October 2014.

In the universe, matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, they destroy each other in a flash of energy. In 1937, an Italian theoretical physicist named Ettore Majorana had proposed that there can be unique exceptions to this rule: a stable particle could exist in nature that is both matter and antimatter. Scientists have been looking for that indefinable particle, also known as the “Majorana fermion,” for seventy years. A group of researchers recently reported that they were able to detect the Majorana particle which behaves simultaneously like matter and antimatter. Researchers designed an experimental system allowing them to observe an emergent particle inside a material. They first generated an extended chain of pre magnetic iron atoms on a superconductor made of lead. Then, they cooled the material to -272 C, just about one point above absolute zero, and monitored it using a giant two-story-tall scanning-tunneling microscope, which can track electrical signal changes with very high precision. Finally, they were able to capture a glowing image of an electrically neutral particle at the ends of atomically thin iron wires. The Majorana particle was surprisingly stable and the opposing properties make the particle neutral so that it interacts very weakly with its environment. The discovery of the Majorana particle has exciting implications for several areas of modern physics, engineering, and astrophysics. For example, Majorana particles are very similar to neutrinos, as they both have very weak interactions with the matter. Neutrinos are thought to make up most of the dark matter that fill the Cosmos. Perhaps, neutrinos are simply Majorana-like particles and Majorana particles are also a candidate for what dark matter is. As an industrial application, Majorana particles can be utilized in quantum computing which aims to create computers to handle incalculable systems. The current quantum computing technology uses electrons, but they are known to be very unstable due to high interaction rates with surrounding materials. However, since Majorana particles are neutral and highly stable, they can be engineered into a variety of materials to produce more reliable and powerful quantum computing applications.

The Bitter Side of Artificial Sweeteners

Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut’s microbiota. Suez J. et al. Nature, September 2014.

There have been conflicting and confusing findings about the health effects of artificial sweeteners over the past several decades. Some studies found that they cause weight loss and others found the exact opposite. Some studies linked them to diabetes and other studies argued otherwise. A recent study provided a series of experimental evidences that artificial sweeteners disrupt the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar, and thus may cause metabolic diseases and diabetes. Researchers, using animal models and human studies, found that sweeteners significantly alter the gut’s microbiome – the collective name of bacterial colonies living in our intestines. The composition of our gut microflora plays a critical role protecting us from pathogenic bacteria, the metabolism of indigestible components of our diet, and modulating development and regulation of the immune system. Sweeteners – in the form of saccharin, sucralose, or aspartame – are found to alter the mix of microbes in our intestines and consequently change how our bodies metabolize glucose. Constant use of sweeteners in mice and human test groups caused typical glucose intolerance symptoms in which glucose levels rose higher after eating and declined more slowly than expected. Glucose intolerance can ultimately lead to serious illnesses like metabolic syndrome and Type 2 diabetes. Although this study will cause a lot of discussions and headaches in the food industry, the link identified between microbiome and glucose intolerance will definitely inspire novel therapeutic approaches to metabolic disorders such as diabetes.

Brainy Fingertips

Edge-orientation processing in first-order tactile neurons. Pruszynski JA and Johansson RS. Nature Neuroscience, August 2014

A new study found that neurons in human skin are able to perform advanced calculations that scientists thought only the brain was capable of performing. A group of sensory neurons that extend into the skin and record touch are called first-order neurons in the tactile system. Each nerve ending branches in the skin to form about 5mm2 elliptical receptive field, with up to 8 highly sensitive zones that are unevenly distributed within the field. It turns out that these neurons not only transmit information about when and how intensely an object is touched to the brain, but they also send complex information about the touched object’s shape. Researchers found that the sensitivity of individual neurons to the shape of an object depends on the layout of the neuron’s highly-sensitive zones in the skin. Computations that require untangling geometric shape information are classified as feature extraction computations in neuroscience and are typically attributed to the immensely complex circuits of the cerebral cortex. This study showed that neuronal populations localized outside of the brain, such as first-order tactile neurons, can have advanced processing capacity similar to brain neurons. These results can also potentially improve treatments for nerve injury and rehabilitation, as scientists previously assumed that the cerebral cortex was doing all the work.

The existence of antimatter was suggested in 1928 by Paul Dirac and was confirmed experimentally in 1932 by Carl D. Anderson. They state that every elementary particle (matter) has its own anti-particle (antimatter): electrons have anti-electrons (positrons) and protons have anti-protons and so on. Antimatters have the same mass as matter, but they carry an opposite electrical charge [1]. For that reason, if matter and antimatter collide they cancel each other out, resulting in annihilation. This collision produces a tremendous amount of energy. For instance, a collision of 1 kg of matter and antimatter releases the energy equivalent to the explosion of 43 megatons of TNT [2].

However, producing antimatter is not an easy process and requires very energetic collisions in giant accelerators such as CERN, located near Switzerland, and Fermilab, located near Chicago, US. The annual amount produced in these laboratories is 1^-10 nanograms. The typical process is to accelerate protons to almost the speed of light, and then send them into a metal target, which is usually tungsten. Because of the collision, the protons are slowed or stopped by the nuclei of the tungsten atoms. The protons’ kinetic energy is converted into matter that contains subatomic particles, and some of these particles are antiprotons [3].

To avoid annihilation, antimatter must be separated from other subatomic particles. One way to do that is to use the Penning trap in which charged particles of antimatter are confined radially by homogenous magnetic fields and axially by quadropole electric fields. Penn State and NASA scientists have already built such a device capable of holding 10 million antiprotons for a week. Now they are developing a Penning trap with a capacity 100 times greater [3].

Figure 1: Schematic of Penning Trap: Electric fields are blue, Magnetic fields are red, a: end cap, b: ring electrode, c; magnets (www.en.wikipedia.org)

Many of us remember the antimatter engine from the Star Trek series. Interplanetary travel has been humankind’s dream for centuries. Now, scientists are designing a spacecraft propulsion system that will work by expelling the products from the annihilation of protons and antiprotons. Such a propulsion system requires antimatter the size of an aspirin (10 grams) for hundreds of light years of travel. However, this amount of antimatter is not available yet, and with current technologies, it would cost around 100 trillion dollars to produce 1 milligram of antimatter.

One of the discoveries made by scientist at Penn State was that a space propulsion system would need only a small fraction of the antimatter consumed by a beamed core engine. It would work with an antiproton induced micro-fission (ACMF). In this process, Deuterium-Tritium (D-T) pellet and Uranium-238 (U-238) are compressed with a proton beam [1 in Figure 2]. After two nanoseconds, the pellet is subject to antiproton beams [2 in Figure 2]. Uranium U-238 absorbs the antiprotons and the result is a hyper neutronic fission that transfers the heat energy from the uranium core to D-T pellet and ignites it [3 in Figure 2]. Propellant inside the pellet is expanded to produce a pulsed thrust [4 in Figure 2].

Figure 2: Illustration of ACMF reaction chain, in four steps (www.ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu)

Another concept is called Antimatter-initiated micro-fusion (AIM), which was also designed by Penn State scientists. In this mechanism, electromagnetic fields continuously compress a small concentration of antiproton plasma [1 in Figure 3] Than the Deuterium-Tritium droplet injected into the plasma [2 in Figure 3]. Also a small amount of U-238 is allowed to annihilate with the antiprotons, which fully ionizes and heats the plasma. The resulting product is expelled out of a magnetic nozzle to produce thrust [3 in Figure 3]. Finally potential well is relaxed to its original state [4 in Figure 3]

Figure 3: Illustration of AIM reaction chain, in four steps (www.ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu)

Scientists also believe that antimatter has the potential to be applied in medical sciences and one of them is fighting cancer. Currently, scientists at CERN are investigating the antiproton beam therapy as an alternative treatment. Experiments have compared the damage of proton and antiproton beams on hamster cells. The results show that the damage inflicted by antiprotons to cells at the end of the beam path was four times greater than that of proton beams. This means that one antiproton is enough to achieve the same damage as four protons, and moreover, antiprotons have unsurpassed ability to preserve healthy tissue [4].

Image of antimatter cell interaction experiment (www.rsc.com)

It seems that producing large quantities of antimatter is difficult and expensive today, but as long as we are on the right track with the right developments, one day, it could become a reality. If a significant amount of antimatter can be produced and controlled, this could help us obtain more information about nature, and it might become one of the world’s primary energy sources. It can also bring innovative solutions with medical benefits such as cancer therapy. Last but not least, antimatter also offers implications of existence beyond what we can see, thus an infinitely vast area of research to conduct via not only with our minds but also with our hearts.

Mehmet Fatih Yýlmaz is Assistant Professor at the engineering faculty of Mevlana University, Konya, Turkey.

Note: Author would like to thank Margaret Johnson for her useful comments on this article.

References

1. Dirac, Paul. 1928. “The Quantum Theory of the Electron,” from Proceedings of the Royal Society of London: Series A 117 (778): 610–624.

2. www.wikipedia.com

3. www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter

4. www.press.web.cern.ch

We can use electron or tunnel microscopes to extend our observations. Moreover, we discover that the great forces which help to keep together all the parts, from the biggest to the smallest, are active all the time just in order to make the wall stand still. This tells us that the wall has been built according to pre-determined calculations and geometry. So we can extrapolate this and imagine the creation of matter first as a sub-atomic particle, after that as a nucleus,¹ an atom and a molecule and continuing on. This situation clearly shows that at first matter (a kind of raw material) was created in a way that we cannot explain with causes. This matter was then subjected to construction by the Divine Knowledge, Will, and Power in the framework of the relationship of cause and effect in the universe. Today, we know that, starting from the molecule and going into more detail, that in the atomic system there is the atomic nucleus, and in the nucleus there are nucleons (protons and neutrons) and quarks in each nucleon; these tiny particles are kept together by very high forces (strong nuclear force). In other words, as the sizes of things get smaller in this physical world-from the galactic scale to the subatomic scale-the force required to keep things together becomes greater, in inverse proportion to the size. There are four kinds of forces known in the physical world: gravity, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force. Gravity is the weakest of these forces, while strong nuclear force is the strongest. Gravity, the natural force by which all objects are attracted to each other, operates between immense objects like stars, medium-scaled things like planets and small things like apples. Gravity is 1,040 times weaker than the strong nuclear force that is used to keep the sub-atomic particles, such as the proton and quark in the nucleus, together. It is still a matter of debate in quantum physics if sub-atomic particles (those that are smaller than the electron) have a physical entity that we call a “body,” even though their existence has been proven and they have been named.

Can sub-atomic particles give information about the actual nature of matter?

Sub-atomic particles

It has been determined in research that has been carried out since the 1930s, as a result of collisions in particle accelerators, that the quark is the smallest particle. Another, theoretical, way to obtain the quark would be to heat matter to a trillion degrees Celsius and, break the matter down as much as possible. But in today’s conditions this is not possible. Therefore, the theory of Big Bang first came about as an idea that said: “There must have been extremely hot temperatures, or more accurately, there must have been very great and sudden explosions that caused these hot temperatures during the first creation of matter.” This idea has been widely accepted among physicists. At the end of the 20th century, it was realized that the same situation is valid for anti-matter. It was also obvious that matter and the organization and continuity of its mirror image, anti-matter, cannot be explained by mere coincidence.

Studies on matter and anti-matter

Matter can be defined as the intensified condition of energy and which can be converted to energy again (E=mc²). The reactions of fission and fusion² mean the transformation of the one-thousandth or one-ten thousandth of a mass into energy (the rest is transformed into other masses). However it is possible for matter to combine with anti-matter and be transformed into energy with 100% efficiency. So what is anti-matter? In 1931, Paul Dirac started to make predictions about the existence of a strange group of particles that he called anti-matter, as a result of theoretical studies.³ After Carl Anderson of the California Technology Institute carried out studies that supported Dirac’s ideas began to attract attention. But not liking publicity and being a retiring type, Dirac did not encourage the media to become interested in this subject-he had earlier turned down the Nobel Prize. Today, Dirac’s name is known only by those who are expert in the subject, but anti-matter is one of the deepest secrets of modern physics. It is not difficult to understand anti-matter, in spite of the fact that it is often presented as a very complicated subject. In some cases, the particles of anti-matter are the same as those of matter-for example, mass. In anti-matter the situation of properties such as electrical charge,⁴ magnetic moment,⁵ and spin,⁶ which are related to the main particles, is the opposite of the main particles of matter. The greatest difference is that the electrical charges are opposite. The nucleus of anti-matter is negative, not positive. In its orbit there are positrons with positive charges, not negative. The existence of anti-matter has been proven with particle accelerators.

Physicists have been able to obtain very small amounts of anti-matter by breaking down the sub-atomic particles with a speed close to that of the speed of light in CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva) and in the Fermi Laboratories (USA). Just as the system of matter was created from very small sub-atomic particles, anti matter was also created from very small anti-matter particles. The only difference between them is that their charges are opposite. As soon as the very small and very fast main particles of both matter and anti-matter come into existence, they cannot survive long and immediately become energy (in one-billionth of a second) and disappear with the ambiguous physical aspects; this is because they are not suitable structurally or functionally for the conditions of the universe, which has already cooled. In order to determine this, particles without mass or those with very small masses which were obtained after collisions in the particle accelerators were kept in very special conditions; the lightest matter in the universe, that is hydrogen, and the anti-matter of hydrogen (anti-hydrogen atoms) were synthesized (a hydrogen atom is the proton itself). However, all these processes are very expensive. The life of nine anti-hydrogen atoms that were produced in CERN in 1995 was just 40 nanoseconds (one forty-billionth of a second). One million anti-hydrogen atoms were produced in the same laboratories. Their total weight was just one quadrillionth of a kilogram (Weed, 2003). As of 2005, the yearly global production of anti-hydrogen atoms was approximately one hundred billionth of a kilogram and it costs one quadrillion dollars to produce on ounce (28.3 grams) (Berman, 2005). In almost all Big Bang models, it is estimated that equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created in the time-space universe that existed 14 billion years ago. Taking into account the scale of the universe, the fact that everything was created in pairs seems logical. But apart from the anti-matter that “appears and disappears” in particle accelerators, there is no trace or mark of this. All the anti-matter that is thought to have been created with matter at the beginning seems to have disappeared in less than a second, even if the universe came into being with the Big Bang or something else. So where has all this anti-matter gone and how did it happen? The studies to understand this continue. One of them is related to the radioactive beta decay of weak nuclear force, which is accepted as one of the four fundamental forces. During this decay, a neutron in the atomic nucleus becomes a proton, but the time in which it does this is unpredictable. Meanwhile, an electron and a particle called the anti-neutrino⁷ are emitted from the neutron. In some rare isotopes, we see double beta decay. In this process, both neutrons in the nucleus decay at the same time, which means that they are converted to protons, with two electrons and two anti-neutrinos are emitted at the same time. Physicists have been experimentally observing double beta decay for more than 20 years. However, Hans Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and his colleagues from the Max Planck Nuclear Physics Institute (Heidelberg) say that they have been observing a different version of double beta decay and claim that no anti-neutrino appears in this experiment. This process was predicted by the Italian physicist Ettore Majorana in 1937, but he found it impossible to prove it. The Heidelberg team now says that they have succeeded this. The important thing about the matter and anti-matter relationship is this: if one or two anti-neutrinos are emitted from the nucleus during a normal beta or double beta decay, this means that there is a neutrino in each neutron. On the other hand, in double beta decay, in which no anti-neutrino is emitted, an anti-neutrino appears as a result of the decay of the neutron and is absorbed by another neutron without being able to be emitted; this is contrary to well-known laws. Did the Divine Power hide anti-matter in this way? If the results are correct, double-beta decay that does not emit anti-neutrino apparently indicates that the neutrino, which is hidden in the structure of the neutron, has a different place among the fundamental particles of matter.

Physicists state that the interactions and decay of matter and anti-matter are dependent on special laws, such as the preservation of energy and the number of leptons.⁸ These laws say that the duration of the exchange of matter and anti-matter is equal to time dating back to the beginning of the universe (the Big-Bang). When we look at the emission of a neutron, we can see that anti-neutrinos indicate the same number of neutrons that at the beginning each absorbed a neutrino. The results attained by the team in Heidelberg may help us to explain why the universe is full of matter and not anti-matter and why there is no visible anti-matter.

Why matter and anti-matter?

It is difficult to store anti-matter in great quantity and it is also dangerous and costly; if anti-matter comes into contact with matter, both disappear and release a great deal of energy. Dirac thought that anti-matter masses could be hidden in remote places of the universe. At this time this was a reasonable hypothesis, as a galaxy created out of anti-matter could not have been differentiated from a normal galaxy. Spectroscopic analyses at that time did not reveal any differences. But today it has been claimed that anti-matter is infrequently found in outer-space. The contact between electrons and positrons produces gamma rays with an energy equivalent to 511,000 electron volts. If anti-matter were galaxies to exist, they would interact with the usual particles that swim through intergalactic space and would cause gamma ray circles around existing galaxies. These kinds of circles were looked for, but nothing was found. We live in a new universe of matter (Berman, 2005). Marc Lachièze-Rey, the French astrophysicist, says that, “If there were any antimatter asteroids in our galaxy, they would emit x-rays that we would be able to detect as soon as it disappears with its material,” (Poirier & Greffoz, 2001). The current explanation of the physicists about the domination of matter over anti-matter in the universe has the laws of physics arranged in favor of matter. When a team from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (2004) determined a minor but distinctive difference in the behaviors of some matter and anti-matter particles, this explanation was supported. This result implied an arrangement in which the material side overpowered the laws of physics. In terms of the causes operated being dependent on these laws, a universe that includes so much anti-matter would be very dangerous; when matter and anti-matter contact, the result is the transformation of matter into energy (E= mc²). It means a release of energy 143 times greater than a hydrogen bomb. If a marble that weighs an ounce collides with an equivalent anti-marble, 50 billion times a trillion erg of energy is released as a result of this reaction; this is enough to light all the electric bulbs in the US for a day. (Berman, 2005). In fact matter and anti-mater are similar to one another. Nobody has been able to explain why matter is dominant over antimatter instead of the other way round. Today, theoretical and experimental physicists predict that the half of the universe has been lost and the last time that it was seen was at the time of the creation of the universe. Matter and its opposite-charged anti-matter demonstrate that there was a certain predestination at the beginning of Creation, to be more exact before the Creation, in terms of knowledge, power and creating. This means that matter and anti-matter cannot exist by themselves. All the causes from the beginning were gathered to reveal a “universe of matter” (not a “universe of anti-matter”) that we can spiritually and intellectually comprehend. Anti-matter and matter demonstrate that they were created with a knowledge, will and power that existed before the creation. Otherwise, how could the first subatomic particles like hadrons, then the protons and the neutrons, then the atomic nucleus, after that the atomic system and the molecules in the sea of quarks, which are thought to be the most transparent, the most scattered, but at the same time the most fluid state (this is what can be predicted by looking at the results of particle collision experiments) of matter that appeared as the result of the Big Bang and under very great temperatures (trillions of degrees Celsius), have been formed? How could the laws that operate as the causes of this universe, a realm of symmetrical matter and antimatter, and then the structures and functions that became dominant have been formed? Could the sea of quarks (maybe the ether), which is the basis of matter, have been transformed by itself into organizations of new matter in the shape of nucleus, atomic system, and molecule only as a result of a decrease in temperature?⁹ Even if the temperature decreased, the sea of quarks could have remained the same, considering its structure. The cause and effect relationship-which we explain with the present physical laws-about temperature changes or about different states of matter may not have existed. Could the quarks have established this law? If the existence of matter and space¹⁰ occurred as a result of the Big Bang and a heat of trillions of degrees Celsius; how, when, for what reason and in which physical realm did this accumulation of energy happen? If there was no physical realm before the explosion, does physics stem from the metaphysics? Yes! The universe was created from nothing. Even if we search for the answer to this question in terms of the exact sciences, we again arrive at the same answer. The universe was created! These questions are not being asked for the first time. However the “hand of science” cannot grasp metaphysics (or pre-physics). Another interesting point here is this: the events on the large scale of the galaxy or even of the universe are trying to be understood by studies on a small scale (such as with sub-atomic particles) and by collisions in accelerators. We can say that small particles contain the index of the entire universe. Moreover, the studied particles do not individually exist. They were in the conditions of the high temperature. We can also say that, if we go in depth in sub-atomic particle studies, the existence of the particles that have very small mass (one quadrillionth of a kilogram) or those with no mass, are very rapid and have a very short life; this makes us think that matter can be created out of nothing at any moment and can be transformed into larger particles that have a greater mass. Most importantly, if we had not seen the activities in the sub-atomic realm we would not be able to understand that God’s Knowledge, Will and Power have penetrated everywhere at all times. If the sub-atomic realm had been static and inactive, God forbid, we would think that this realm was left to its own devices or that the Divine Power could not reach here. If God had not created such small, quick particles that can come into existence at any moment and be transformed into something else, we would not be able to comprehend the greatness of His Power and the intricacy of His Knowledge and Calculation.

References

• Berman, B., “What’s the Antimatter?” Discover, Vol 26, No 10, October, 2005.
• Weed, W.S., “Startrek,” Discover, Vol 24, No 8, August, 2003.
• Poirier, H. & Greffoz, V., “Asteroïdes: La menace se précise,” Science & Vie, No 1006, July, Paris, 2001.

Notes

1. This before and after relationship is valid; Our Creator, Who created the time, is not bound by time.
2. The slow chain reaction fission (the division of atomic nucleus) is the working principle in nuclear plants and it is the working principle of atomic bomb as a rapid chain reaction.
3. In 1928, Paul Dirac also predicted the existence of the positron, the anti-particle of the electron. This prediction was proven by physicist Carl Anderson at California Technology Institute in 1932.
4. The electrical charge is the application of the force of a matter on another matter, and the unit is the coulomb (C). A body is charged with electricity as a result of friction, induction, or chemical change. The charge itself shows an electron unit on the body (negative charge) or loss of electron (positive charge). The static electricity that we see when putting on an acrylic sweater or combing our hair is the result of the loss or gain of an electron from surface atoms. A charge flow, such as the passing of electrons from a copper wire, is electrical current and its unit is the ampere (A).
5. Magnetic momentum is the effect that happens dependent on the length and force of the magnet.
6. Spin is the natural angular momentum of a sub-atomic particle, such as a proton or neutron, of an atomic nucleus, an atom or a molecule; spin continues to exist even if the particle becomes inactive. A particle, in a certain state of energy, has a spin peculiar to itself as well as having an electrical charge and mass.
7. The neutrino is one of the three uncharged main particles (and one of the three uncharged anti-particles) belonged to leptons and it has a very small mass (almost zero). The three types are electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino. The anti-particle of an electron neutrino is the anti-neutrino that is emitted during the beta decay of a nucleus.
8. Being one of the fundamental particle types that are not affected by strong nuclear forces, leptons correspond to the electron, muon, tau and the neutrinos of these three particles and also to the six anti-particles of these. In July 2000, direct proof of the tau lepton was obtained in the Fermi Laboratories. The muon, on the other hand, is a fundamental particle similar to the electron except for its mass. It is 207 times greater in mass than the electron. Its half-life is two millionthof a second. It is transformed into electrons and neutrinos at the end of this period of time. Although it is thought that the muon is a meson in origin, it has not been classified as a lepton yet. Meson is an unstable sub-atomic particle group consisting of a quark and anti-quark. Its existence was determined by cosmic radiation and it is emitted by a nucleus that has been exposed to the bombardment of very high-energy particles. The sub-class of hadrons, mesons, includes kaons and pions. Their existence was predicted by the Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa in 1935.
9. It seems that the existence of matter and anti-matter causes the high temperature present at the beginning to drop and the combination of the sub-atomic particles (nuclear synthesis). The encounter of matter and anti-matter causes high energy. Therefore, we can understand that a very large explosion (the Big Bang) and very high temperatures were the conditions at the beginning of time.
10. Today physicists accept that matter was created out of nothing and in the space in which it was embedded.