Kalam Cosmological Arguments of Huduth and Imkan in light of Modern Scientific Discoveries

Humankind has grappled with the questions surrounding God, life, and creation for as long as we can remember (Gülen 2006, 3-4). Historically, philosophers and theologians have sought to produce systematic and rigorous arguments to rationally prove the existence of the Divine through the means of logical deduction (Gök 2018, 10). One such argument that has been synthesized is that of the kalam (the Islamic theology), a cosmological argument which has provided a historical and modern basis for those seeking to validate the existence of God (Gök 2018, 10-13). This argument has come under particular examination in contemporary circles where modern scientific discoveries are seen to both challenge, and support, the existence of God and hence establish a valid basis upon which to argue either case. This essay will thus seek to discuss the validity of the kalam cosmological argument, and its subsets, in relation to two modern scientific discoveries: the Big Bang theory, and the concept of virtual particles.

The kalam cosmological argument consists of two subset arguments: the huduth (cosmological) argument and the imkan (contingency) argument (Craig & Moreland 2009, 101-102). Historically, notable Muslim theologians, such as Imam Al-Ghazali, utilized this argument as a testament to the proof of God’s existence (Copan & Craig 2017, 5-7). Within the modern Western philosophical and theological context, this theory has been refined by the works of William Lane Craig (Waters 2015). Regarding the huduth (cosmological) argument, Craig summarised the premise of the argument as follows: the universe either had, or did not have, a beginning; if the universe had a beginning then it was either caused or not caused; if there was a cause then this was because of an external and powerful being (Doko 2018). As can be inferred, the argument is based on a question of origins, causality, and in regard to the two preceding arguments, validating that the cause of the universe is external.

In assessing the validity of the huduth argument, the Big Bang theory can be utilized. In modern science, the Big Bang theory has been established as the leading paradigm for the origins of the universe (Paulson et al, 2015). The theory purports that the universe, and all that is contained within it, had a singular starting point whereby from this singularity, the universe has been inflating for what has been calculated as 13.8 billion years (Gonzalo 2008, 207-240). The first premise of the huduth argument is one of origins. The Big Bang postulates that the universe was derived from a singular starting point, with the key being that it indeed had a starting point. Scientists have been able to calculate the age of the universe through utilising data obtained through calculation and observation (Paulson et al, 2-3). In knowing that the universe has an age, and therefore a beginning, one can thus logically deduce that it must have had a point of origin. This complies with the first component of the huduth argument in that the universe indeed must have had a “beginning,” thus validating the first premise.

The Big Bang theory also complies with the second premise of causality. It is accepted by scientists and philosophers alike that in order for an effect to manifest itself within the natural world, there must be a cause to bring about the effect (Rabins 2013, 6-25). Upon accepting the first premise that the universe had a beginning, the universe itself must, therefore, be the manifestation or effect of a preceding cause. Though models such as Stephen Hawking’s “no-boundary-proposal” have been theorized to provide contradictory explanations for the causation of the universe, these have been later disproven by physicists (Wolchover 2019). In this regard, the notion that the universe came into existence without a cause is not logical, thus validating the second premise of the huduth argument.

The last premise argues that once it is accepted that the universe has a cause then this cause must be an external, all-powerful being. Studies into the observed universe are based largely on natural laws and observations that are measurable (Paulson et al, 2-3). Any cause beyond these natural laws of the known universe would thus be “unnatural” and potentially Divine (Ergi 2015). Though the multiverse theory has been proposed as an alternative to a transcendent, external being, the fact still remains that there logically must have been a first universe with an external cause that would then cause the proceeding universes that follow. As such, the third premise of the huduth argument proves itself to be valid, thus validating the argument as a whole.

In addition to the Big Bang, the theory of virtual particles can be used to attest to the validity of the huduth argument. Virtual particles are quantum fluctuations that shift between observed existence and non-existence (Daywitt 2009, 27-28). Historically thought to be empty and full of “nothing,” the vacuum of space has been theorised to contain these finite particles [16]. Through calculation, virtual particles come into existence with a measurable beginning and not out of what appears to be nothing (Jaeger 2009, 144). Physicists have conceived that the particles themselves are in fact not independent, rather that they rely on other quantum interactions and certain laws of physics in order to manifest (Falkenburg 2007, 258-260). In this regard, they have a beginning point of origin. As such, they can be seen to comply with the first premise of the huduth argument. Though virtual particles do appear to come in-and-out of existence there are a number of causal factors that must provide the right conditions for their appearance such as the vacuum-like conditions of interstellar space, the interactions of surrounding “real” particles as well as the mass of these “real” particles (Falkenburg 2007, 58). It is thus perceivable that the particles are caused by several factors and do not come into existence out of non-existence without a cause which adheres to the second premise. The third premise of the huduth argument points to an external cause or creator. As was argued above, virtual particles have a cause and this cause is external to themselves. They cannot create themselves from nothingness and manifest due to the interactions of the real particles around them, which give rise to conditions that are conducive to their appearance. As such, this complies with the logic of the third premise of the huduth argument, as virtual particles require external causes in order to come into existence. Thus, the validity of the huduth argument holds firm when applied to this concept.  

The example of the Big Bang Theory and the concept of virtual particles can also be used when assessing the validity of the imkan (contingency) argument. This argument posits that everything that exists is either necessary or contingent (Ergi, 9). When classified as contingent, it is postulated that something can either exist or not exist, and that if it does exist then this existence is dependent upon factors that are external to it (Gülen 2006, 3-4). The idea that creations within the known universe are contingent is logical, as it can be deemed that nothing exists without a cause (Doko 3-4). In this regard, it is possible to say that contingent items within the universe, including the universe itself, are dependent upon that which is “necessary” and outside of themselves (Yaran 2003, 181-187). The Big Bang Theory provides a solid basis on which to assess the validity of the imkan argument. Everything within the universe originated from that moment, thus the universe is perceivable as having temporal existence (Walles 2016). In being a temporal entity, it is thus contingent on a cause that is external to itself. It would seem illogical that time, space, energy, and matter created themselves as they are contingent elements devoid of consciousness and reliant on physical laws hence would not have been able to exist beyond the Big Bang prior to it occurring. As such, the universe, being contingent and unable to necessitate its own existence, must have been created by a necessary agent. Though this necessary agent has been speculated to be a preceding universe, such as in the multiverse theory, this would propel reality into an infinite regress, a chain of causes contingent on the one before it, a notion deemed to be implausible (Yaran, 181-183). Accordingly, these multiverses would also have to be temporal in disposition and hence the same issue of an eventual point of origin manifests. The logical conclusion is thus that the necessary agent must exist beyond what is known, namely a transcendent being that is beyond temporality and materiality, and thus the logic of the imkan argument is valid.

This principle is similarly seen within the example of virtual particles. These particles are observed to come in-an-out of existence within the vacuum of space (Jaeger, 144). However, this activity is contingent upon necessary conditions, such as the existence of the vacuum itself, quantum interactions based upon the uncertainty principle, as well as surrounding real particles (Greene, 424-425). If any of the aforementioned factors were not present then the existence of virtual particle would only be a probable outcome and not a necessary outcome, similar to that of the universe, in a way that these particles do not necessitate their own existence and are dependent on an external and necessary cause. In this regard, the concept of virtual particles demonstrates the validity in the logic of the imkan argument thus demonstrating the validity of the kalam cosmological argument.

The success of whether an argument is logically valid can be assessed based on the plausibility of the premise presented by the argument (Doko, 4). As is evident, the kalam cosmological argument has been examined with a discussion of its two subset arguments. These arguments have been contrasted against the two scientific discoveries of the Big Bang Theory as well as the concept of virtual particles. Evidently, by its very nature, the kalam cosmological argument is based on sound deductive logic where both its branches contain premises that reach their respective conclusions using logic and rationality. As such, the kalam cosmological argument proves itself to be valid and this has been exemplified by superimposing the matrix of this argument onto real, modern-day scientific discoveries.

REFERENCES

• Copan, Paul and Craig, William Lane. The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Philosophical Arguments for the Finitude of the Past. New York: Bloomsbury, 2017. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=LtI2DwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Kalam+Cosmological+Argument:+Philosophical+Arguments+for+the+Finitude+of+the+Past&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjuxfDOt5fpAhU4lEsFHePeBNIQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
• Craig, William Lane and Moreland, James Porter. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2009. https://www.difa3iat.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/William_Lane_Craig__J._P._Moreland_The_BlackwellBookZZ.org_.pdf
• Daywitt, William. “The Source of the Quantum Vacuum.” Progress in Physics 2, 1 (2009): 27-28, http://www.ptep-online.com/.
• Doko, Enis. “Kalam Cosmological Argument and the Modern Science.” Kader 16, 1 (2018): 3, doi: 10.18317/kaderdergi.417640.
• Ergi, Omer Atilla. 2015. Is it Possible to Conclusively Prove the Existence of God? Melbourne: Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilization Charles Stuart University
• Falkenburg, Birgitte. Particle Metaphysics: A Critical Account of Subatomic Reality. Berlin: Springer, 2007.https://books.google.com.au/books?id=EbOz5I9RNrYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Particle+Metaphysics:+A+Critical+Account+of+Subatomic+Reality&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7lt3f8JbpAhWKc30KHbIcDNwQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
• Gok, Hakan. Atheism or Theism? The Perspective of Said Nursi. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock, 2018.
• Gonzalo, Julio. The intelligible universe: an overview of the last thirteen billion years. Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Co., 2008. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csuau/reader.action?docID=1193384&ppg=222
• Greene, Brian. The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory Surrey: Vintage, 2000.
• Gulen, Fethullah. The Essentials of the Islamic Faith. Sommerset, New Jersey: The Light Inc., 2006.
• Jaeger, Gregg. “Are Virtual Particles Less Real?. ” Entropy 21, 2 (2009): 144, doi: 10.3390/e2102014.
• Paulson, Steve., Albert, David., Holt, Jim and Turok, Neil. “The origins of the universe: why there is something rather than nothing?,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 13611, 1 (December 2015): 2-17, doi: 10.1111/nyas.12859.
• Rabins, Peter. The Why of Things: Causality in Science, Medicine and Life. New York: Columbia University Press, 2013. https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/csuau/reader.action?docID=1103422
• Walles, Mathew. “The Existence of God- According to Muslim Theologians and Thinkers.” Fountain Magazine, 1 May, 2016. https://fountainmagazine.com/2016/issue-111-may-june-2016/the-existence-of-god-according-to-muslim-theologians-and-thinker
• Waters, Benjamin Victor. “Toward a new kalam cosmological argument.” Cogent Arts and Humanities 2, 1 (2015): 2, doi: 10.1080/23311983.2015.1062461.
• Wolchover, Natalie. “Physicists Debate Hawking’s Idea That the Universe Had No Beginning.” Quantamagazine, Jun 6, 2019. https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/.
• Yaran, Cafer S. Islamic Thought on the Existence of God. Washington: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 2003. https://fountainmagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/IIA-16-Contents-4f8.pdf

In our times, the Big Bang Theory is generally accepted to be the starting point of the universe. When the Big Bang happened, the universe and light were simultaneously created. The universe came into being at elevated temperatures from a single particle.

For the events that happened after the Big Bang, the most recent and accepted theory is the Inflation Theory. According to this theory, right after the Big Bang, the universe started inflating at an incredible rate, quantum fluctuations were scattered throughout the universe, and a homogenous inflation happened which allowed galaxies to be formed. Light was created at this period for the very first time.

What is “light” and what is the wisdom behind it?

Ibn Sina was the first scientist stating is was possible to measure the speed of light. And Newton used the marble example to explain the phenomenon of light containing colors of different wavelengths. Modern theories state that light is composed of weightless and charge-less particles called photons. Light is now known to be electromagnetic waves that carry energy as well as having the characteristics of refraction and reflection. A major discovery occurred in 1975, when the Danish scientist Ole Romer was observing the satellites of Jupiter. During this study, he was able to prove that the particle model proved to be insufficient, as was seen from the diffraction of light (changing its direction after having passed a narrow slit)..

Although the wave model is more dominantly talked about in modern times, it is known that both models are true.

Femto photography

Various experiments have been done to understand the properties of light. One of these experiments was a photography technique applied by Dr. Edgerton, in 1964. In this photo, the image of the apple right after the bullet passed through it was captured. This famous photograph, which was captured in a millionth of a second, inspired Prof. Ramesh Raskar from MIT (USA) to take a photo of light in order to see it by naked eye. Raskar developed a camera that can take up to a trillion frames per second. This would make it possible to visualize the human body without using X-ray. The wave like property of light was studied by this new technology called Femto Photography.

Light is the fastest substance in the universe. As long as it does not change its environment, the movement of light is linear because of its electromagnetic wave properties. If it passes to a different but transparent environment, it continues its movement. If it passes to an environment where the refractive index is larger than its original environment, it comes closer to the line accepted to be vertical to the surface (normal) and vice versa.

The speed of light and all electromagnetic waves in an empty, airless environment is 299,792,458 m/s (300 thousands kilometers). With this incredible speed, the Earth could be toured 7 times a second. The letter c represents this speed in science, and it’s based on the Latin name for speed: celeritas. While passing through any object (air, water, glass etc.) the speed of light is smaller than c.

If a laser pointer is activated for a thousandth of a second (a couple of femto seconds), a photon cluster is formed which is approximately 1 mm in width. This cluster of photons has a speed millions of times greater than the bullet passing through the apple.

What if the femto photo of a cluster of photons that were sent from the bottom of a glass bottle full of water was taken? How would the light appear in slow motion? Although this short journey of light takes place in less than a nano-second, it is possible to capture how it moves in slow motion by reducing the speed ten billion times with the femto camera. With this femto camera, it is possible to measure the average speed of light in a tomato and gain knowledge about its interior texture and quality without touching it. When a bunch of photons are sent to the surface of a sample, a three dimensional picture of it can be constructed by the high resolution detection of the photons that are reflected at different times from the sample.

With the science of light, technology for transportation that does not require a driver can be developed, creatures can be saved from natural disasters by the reflection of light on windows, and many new age surgery technologies can be developed.

In order for the eye to see, light needs to exist. One of the latest and most astonishing pieces of research done about light is the femto photography technology. By this technology, it will be possible to visualize the human body without the use of X-ray. If there was a femto camera incorporated in our cell phones, we would be able to understand the quality of the tomatoes we were buying when we went to the grocery store without having to touch them. By harnessing the great gift of light, we can make the great gift of life even better.

Finkelstein S.L et al., Nature, October 2013

Astronomers have recently spotted a faint ray of light using the Hubble Space Telescope, a ten-meter telescope at Keck Observatory, located at the summit of Mauna Kea, a dormant volcano in Hawaii. Analysis of light showed that it was a galaxy formed 13.1 billion years ago, which is only 700 million years after the Big Bang, when our universe came into existence. This is so far back in time, it would be about 8 billion years before our sun was born. The new galaxy is called z8_GND_5296, and it is the oldest and most distant galaxy ever discovered. Because the universe is expanding, the lights coming from distant objects would be stretched, and their wavelengths changed, as they travel through the expanding universe. This phenomenon is called Redshift. It makes visible light look redder, and redshift increases proportionally with the distance to an object. Lights coming from z8_GND_5296 looked more redshifted than anyone had seen before. More detailed analyses showed that the mass of gz8_GND_5296’s stars was equivalent to 1 billion suns, which is approximately 50 times less than the Milky Way’s stellar mass. Even more surprisingly, the new galaxy is found to have an unusually high star-formation rate. This rate is typically calculated by how much raw hydrogen the galaxy yearly converts into new stars. gz8_GND_5296 converts hydrogen 300 times the mass of our sun, while the Milky Way produces 1 or 2 solar masses per year. One of the explanations for this extraordinary star-formation rate is that the early galaxies contained or drew in much more gas than scientists expected. The search for distant galaxies aims to find the very first galaxies formed after the Big Bang, perhaps the ones that produced the first natural elements. To this end, NASA plans to launch the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) in 2018. JWST will reside in an orbit 1.5 million km from the earth and hopefully it will help astronomers to look further and further back into the origins of the Milky Way, and ultimately, the history of our universe.

Vast Freshwater Reserves Found Under Ocean

Offshore fresh groundwater reserves as a global phenomenon.
Post V.E.A et al., Nature, December 2013

As earth’s population rises, we face a serious problem of fresh water supplies. The United Nations predicts that half of the world will be struggling to find clean, fresh sources of water by 2030. Luckily, Australian scientists discovered huge freshwater reserves, and in the most unexpected place: under the ocean floor. Newly discovered reserves are estimated to contain 500,000 cubic kilometers of low-salinity water, located off the coast of South Africa, North America, Australia, and China. This vast reserve is approximately 100 times greater than the volume of the fresh water used since the beginning of the 1900s. This water reserve is thought to develop earlier in Earth’s history, perhaps over thousands of years, when oceans were not that deep and when the coastline was further out. Scientists hypothesize that rainwater leaked through the ground and had created these fresh water aquifers beneath layers of porous rock and/or soil. Around 20,000 years ago, the polar ice caps began to melt and these regions were covered by ocean. Fortunately, layers of either clay or sediment seemed to protect the reservoirs from salty contamination: the salinity of this water is low enough to be readily transformed into drinkable water. These water reserves can be extracted by constructing drilling platforms, either at sea or from the mainland, close to aquifers. However, drilling projects are usually very controversial due to environmental and economic costs. Scientists are currently seeking alternative, more environment-friendly ways to use these reserves. Nonetheless, mankind may have found a new vital water resource for the future.

Crows Don’t Forget a Face; Crow Intelligence Decoded

Abstract rule neurons in the endbrain support intelligent behavior in corvid songbirds.
Veit L. and Nieder A., Nature Communications November 2013

Scientists have long suspected that members of the corvids – a family of birds that includes ravens, crows and magpies – are extraordinarily intelligent. They make and use tools, remember multiple feeding locations, and exhibit highly social behaviors. Last year, scientists even demonstrated that crows captured in Seattle would never forget the face of their abductor and they would still taunt and dive-bomb the threatening face several years after the incident. To understand the mechanism of crows’ amazing face recognition process, neurobiologists designed an experiment, in which they trained the crows to perform memory tests on a computer. The crows were first shown an image and shortly afterwards, they had to select one of two test images on a touchscreen, using their beaks, based on switching behavioral rules. One of the test images was identical to the first image; the other one was a different image. Sometimes, the rule of the game was to select the very same image, and sometimes it was to select a different one. Remarkably, the crows were able to carry out both tasks and to switch between them almost perfectly. These tasks require a high level of concentration and mental flexibility that few animal species can manage – they even require a great effort for humans. By recording single-unit neuronal activity from an association area of the crow’s brain, known as the nidopallium caudolaterale (NCL), the researchers were often able to guess which rule the crow was following, even before the crow made its choice. The cerebral cortex in human brain is very large and it is thought to be home to complex cognitive functions including face recognition. However, since a bird’s cerebral cortex is much smaller than humans, people long thought that birds could not perform intelligent tasks. This study shows that birds use a unique non-cortical brain region, nidopallium caudolaterale (NCL), to sort sensory information and decide how to react.

Churning in time, “the process of becoming”

Every particle must sacrifice the ego to mill

Listening to the call, enabling Divine Will

Death in “itself” is the desire to “live”

Eternity is in giving away to rebuild

The mountains squash at the will of self

The meek perceive a mound a hill

Wandering hither and thither the lowly stars

Are but lost in the vastness of heaven,

To realize oneself, one has to part

It is the destiny, for existence, for non-being.

The moon is pale; loosing glamour at the last stretch

All secrets told, is stripped off into void

Soon the demons of dark will engulf the bright.

Why looking for a phantom light…?

Thy lamp is thy heart, O’ forlorn

Leave the sojourn, thee, thyself is the guide.

Thou art real, the only truth in heaven,

On the earth; the whole universe’s might.

Resting in a world of fabricated illusion,

Deserts are but for an infinite exploration

Thorns bear witness to a searching soul

How limited is the effort to grow one Rose

Yet, ye complain scarcity of the resource.

Mercy O benevolent, the most compassionate Lord.

Upon the ignorant, the sinful, and the tyrant

I urge to see an oasis, not an iced spring at a stronghold.

Muhammad Iqbal

Ode No XXX1 from Bang-i-D’rra of Muhammad Iqbal. Translated from Urdu by Seema Arif.

Seema Arif is an assistant professor of Business Administration, University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.

Modern theories of creation are built upon quantum theory and Einstein’s theory of gravity. The question is what happened before the Big Bang? Einstein’s equations break down at the enormously small distances and large energies found at the universe’s origin. At distances 10-33cm, quantum effects take over from Einstein’s theory. For questions involving the beginning of time, one must invoke the ten-dimensional theory. The Big Bang probably originated in the breakdown of the original ten-dimensional universe into a four- and six-dimensional universe. Therefore, the history of the Big Bang represents the breakup of previously unified symmetries, and the split universe was no longer symmetrical. Six dimensions have curled up.

Quantum physics abolishes time close to the Big Bang. How did the universe come into existence? Why does time vanish in the black hole? Did time exist before the universe came into being? These questions and realities point to the existence of a Creator.

Unfortunately, quantum theory and Einstein’s theory of gravity are mutually incompatible. In this new millennium, superstring theory, or simply string theory, resolves this tension. Three particle theorists (Yoichiro Nambu, Leonard Susskind, and Holger Nielsen) independently realized that the dual theories developed in 1968 to describe the particle spectrum also describe the quantum mechanics of an oscillating string. This marks the official birth of string theory in 1970, according to which the marriage of the laws of the large and the small is not only happy but also inevitable. Brian Greene writes in his The Elegant Universe: String theory has the inherent capability to show that all of the astonishing happenings in the universe”from the frenzied dance of subatomic quarks (components of protons or neutrons) to the stately dance of orbiting binary stars, from the primordial fireball of the big bang to the majestic whirl of celestial galaxies”are reflections of one grand physical principle, one master equation.

Fundamental forces

During the past hundred years, physicists have proven the existence of four fundamental forces in nature: Gravitational force, electromagnetic force, the weak force, and the strong force. Gravity, the most familiar force, keeps Earth revolving around the sun and our feet planted firmly on the ground. Electromagnetic force, the next most familiar force, is the driving force for such things as lights, TVs, computers, and telephones.

The strong nuclear and weak nuclear forces are less familiar, because they operate in the atom’s nucleus. The strong force (mediated by gluons) keeps quarks glued together inside protons and neutrons, and keeps protons and neutrons tightly crammed together inside atomic nuclei. The weak force (mediated by W and Z particles) determines the radioactive decay of such radioactive materials as uranium, plutonium, and tritium.

Gravitational force is mediated by graviton (the concept of graviton was introduced in 1974), photons for the electromagnetic force (a photon is the smallest EM force or the smallest packet of energy for light). In Einstein’s day, the strong and weak forces were unknown. For 30 years Einstein sought to unify the two distinct forces of gravity and electromagnetism.

String theory

Matter is composed of atoms, which in turn are made of nucleons (protons and neutrons in the nucleus) and electrons orbiting around the nucleus. Nucleons are made of three quarks each. Quarks are made of string. According to the standard model of particle physics, the universe’s elementary constituents are point-like ingredients with no internal structure. However, this standard model cannot be a complete theory, for it does not include gravity. But according to string theory, atomic and subatomic particles are not point-like; rather, they consist of tiny one-dimensional filaments somewhat like infinitely thin rubber bands. Physicists call these vibrating, oscillating, and dancing filaments strings.

String theory takes its name from this point of view. Unlike an ordinary piece of string, which itself is composed of molecules and atoms, the strings of string theory are alleged to lie deeply within the heart of matter. They are so small”on average about as long the Planck length (10-33 cm, or about 100 billion billion [1020] times smaller than an atomic nucleus)”that they appear point-like even when examined with our most powerful equipment. String theory offers a far fuller and more satisfying explanation than that of the standard model.

Moreover, this theory shows the harmonious union of general relativity and quantum mechanics”a major success. In this new millennium, the excitement in the physics community is that string theory may provide the unified theory of all four forces and all matter. For this reason, string theory sometimes is described as possibly being the theory of everything.

String theory proclaims that the observed particle properties (i.e., mass, charge, and spin) are reflections of a string’s various vibrations. Each preferred pattern of a string’s vibration in string theory appears as a particle whose mass and force charges are determined by the string’s oscillatory pattern. All fundamental particles can be described as resonant patterns of these string vibrations. There is even a mode describing the graviton. The same idea applies to the forces of nature as well. Hence everything, all matter and all forces, is unified under the microscopic string oscillations”the notes that strings can play.

Extra Dimensions

Our universe has three spatial dimensions: length, width, and height. In formulating the general theory of relativity, Einstein showed that time is another dimension. According to the general theory of relativity, space and time communicate the gravitational force through their curvature. The special theory of relativity is Einstein’s law of space and time in the absence of gravity.

In 1919, the mathematician Theodor Kaluza unified Maxwell’s electromagnetism and Einstein’s theory of general relativity by adding a fifth dimension. Thus Kaluza was the one who suggested that the universe might have more than three spatial dimensions.

For example, a garden hose viewed from a long distance looks like a one-dimensional object. When looked at closely, a second dimension, one shaped like a circle and curled around the hose, becomes visible. The direction along the hose’s length is long, extended, and easily visible. The direction circling around its thickness is short, curled up, and harder to see. Hence spatial dimensions are of two types: large, extended, and therefore directly evident, or small, curled up, and far harder to detect. As for the garden hose, the curled-up dimension encircling its thickness is detected either moving closer to the hose or using a pair of binoculars from a distance. If the hose is as thin as a hair or a capillary, its curled-up dimension is more difficult to detect.

In 1926, the mathematician Oskar Klein applied Kaluza’s theory to quantum theory, which is used in modern string theory. Klein showed that our universe’s spatial fabric may have both extended (the three spatial dimensions of daily experience) and curled-up dimensions. The universe’s additional dimensions are tightly curled up into a tiny space, a space so tiny that it has so far eluded detection. These extra dimensions are believed to be minuscule, somewhere between 10-35 meters and 0.3 millimeters in size.

The equations of string theory show that the universe has nine space dimensions and one time dimension. At present, no one knows why the three space and one time dimensions are large and extended, while all of the others are tiny and curled up.

Supersymmetry

Symmetry is a physical system property that does not change when the system is transformed. For example, a sphere is rotationally symmetrical, since its appearance does not change if it is rotated.

In 1971, supersymmetry was invented in two contexts at once: in ordinary particle field theory and as a consequence of introducing fermions into string theory. It holds the promise of resolving many problems in particle theory, but requires equal numbers of fermions and bosons. Thus, it cannot be an exact symmetry of Nature.

Supersymmetry, a mathematical transformation, is a symmetry principle that relates a particle’s properties of a whole number amount (integer) of spin (bosons) to those with half a whole (half-integer or odd) number amount of spin (fermions). Bosons tend to be the mediators of fundamental forces, while fermions make up the matter experiencing these forces. Bosons can occupy the same space and have an integral spin (0,1, .), while fermions cannot occupy the same space and have a half-integral spin ( 1/2, 3/2,.). Bosons transmit such forces as photons, gravitons, W and Z particles, mesons, and gluons. Many bosons can occupy the same state at the same time. Fermions (e.g., electrons, muons, tau, protons, neutrons, quarks, and neutrinos) cannot share a given state at a given time with other fermions. The fact that fermions make up matter explains why we cannot walk through walls: the inability of fermions (matter) to share the same space the way bosons (particles of force or energy) can.

Supersymmetry treats all particles of the same mass as different varieties of the same superparticle. This means that there is an equal matching between bosons and fermions. A supersymmetric string theory is called a superstring theory. The original string theory only described bosons, and hence became known as bosonic string theory (BST). Thus it did not describe fermions or, for example, include quarks and electrons.

Introducing supersymmetry to BST engendered a new theory that describes both the forces and the matter making up the universe: the theory of superstrings. String theorists have shown that all string theories are different aspects of a string theory that has not 10 but 11 spatial dimensions. This was called M-theory. The M might stand for the mother of all theories or mystery, magic, matrix, or membrane. The last two refer to mathematical techniques used in science. There is no space or time in M Theory. Furthermore, our space-time is not four-dimensional after all. M theory unites the four forces of nature (e.g., gravity, quantum mechanics, strong force, and weak force) and, remarkably, is a mathematical and geometrical theory. It is attractive because it can explain gravity and an atom’s inside at the same time and thus resolve the contradiction between current theories.

Summary and Conclusions

String theory gives a theoretical description of elementary particles and treats them as one-dimensional curves (strings). Traditional models of interactions between elementary particles are based on quantum field theory, which treats particles as dimensionless points. Theoretical physicists have not developed a workable theory of gravitation that is consistent with quantum mechanics’ principles.

However, treating elementary particles as strings permits the derivation of a quantum theory that encompasses all four forces. Superstring theory, a combination of string theory and supersymmetry, treats particles as very short (10-33 cm along its single dimension, which is 1020 smaller than a proton’s diameter) closed strings (string loops). All of the masses, charges, and other properties of elementary particles result from the vibration of these superstrings at different frequencies. The complex mathematical basis of superstrings involves 10 dimensions: 9 spatial dimensions, 6 of which are invisible, and time. Since superstring theory provides a unified description of all elementary particles and fundamental forces, it is sometimes called the theory of everything.

Some major unsolved problems of string theory are how to condense, 10 dimensions to 6 (spatial) plus 4 (space and time) dimensions, and what is happening at distances smaller than 10-33 cm. In addition, the experimental verification of the existence of strings in the near future poses quite a challenge. Since they are thought to be less than a billionth of a billionth the size of an atom, we cannot use current technology to detect them directly. An indirect test, however, will be carried out within the next decade or so by the Large Hadron Collider, a huge atom smasher being built by CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research, located in Geneva, Switzerland). There also is an urgent need to develop new mathematics in areas of Riemann surfaces, algebraic geometry, singular geometries, number theory, and other related fields. 

Footnotes

1. K stands for Kelvin, a measurement of degree relating to, conforming to, or having a thermometric scale on which the unit of measurement equals the centigrade degree and according to which absolute zero is 0A , the equivalent of “273.16A C.

References

• Adams, Steve. A Theory of Everything. New Scientist 161 (20 Feb. 1999).
• Arkani-Hamed, Nima et al. The Universe’s Unseen Dimensions. Scientific American 283 (Aug. 2000): 62-69.
• Davies, P. C. W. and Julian Brown, Eds. Superstrings: A Theory of Everything? Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
• Duff, Michael J. The Theory Formerly Known as Strings. Scientific American 278, (Feb. 1998): 64-69.
• Green, Michael M., John H. Schwarz, and Edward Witten. Superstring Theory. 2 vols. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
• Greene, Brian. The Elegant Universe. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.
• Gribbin, John R. The Search for Superstrings, Symmetry, and the Theory of Everything. Boston: Little, Brown Co., 1998.
• Kaku, Michio. Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the Tenth Dimension. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
• Mukhi, Sunil. The Theory of Strings: An Introduction. Current Science 77 (25 Dec. 1999): 1624-34.
• Peat, David F. Superstring and the Search for the Theory of Everything. Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1988.
• Polchinski, Joseph G. String Theory. 2 vols. Cambridge, UK and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Cosmology is the study of the universe’s beginning, formation, and evolution. Humanity has devised many cosmological theories. For example, ancient Greeks thought the universe was composed of four elements: earth, wind, fire, and water. Now, despite several millennia of effort, modern cosmologists are even worse off.

About 60 years ago, Fritz Zwicky realized that clusters of galaxies consist mainly of matter in some non-luminous form, defined as matter that we cannot see with our telescopes. Now, after decades of accumulated observations, most astronomers believe that as much as 90 percent of this material may consist of objects or particles that cannot be seen. That is, most of the matter in the universe does not radiate light. Previously, people called this phenomenon missing matter. Contemporary researchers prefer dark matter, for it is the light, not the matter, that is missing.

In this article, I discuss evidence that proves the existence of dark matter, possible candidates for dark matter, and the importance of dark matter in understanding the universe’s beginning and end according to the Big Bang theory.

Obsering the invisible

As dark matter emits no electromagnetic radiation (e.g., light, radio waves, and X-rays), it cannot be seen by a telescope. However, we can infer its existence through its gravitational effects on luminous matter. The most obvious example of this is observed when looking at the rotation rates of galaxies. Using the resulting information, scientists can calculate the speeds of stars as they rotate around a galaxy’s center (orbital speeds) in two different ways. The first way is to look at the light coming from stars in different parts of a galaxy. Through a close study of that light’s properties, they can deduce how fast and in what direction (whether toward or away from us) that star is rotating. The second way is based upon gravitational physics. Given that we know how much matter the galaxy contains, we can calculate how fast stars must be orbiting around its center. By accounting for all of the galaxy’s luminous matter (e.g., stars, gas, and dust), astronomers can calculate the star’s orbital speeds.

But there is a problem here: The two results do not agree. The only way to account for this difference is to posit the existence of a large quantity of dark matter in the galaxies. To explain the astronomical observations, this dark matter must surround the galaxy in a large spherical distribution (known as a galactic halo).

Is the gravity of the galaxies seen in this image strong enough to contain the glowing hot gas? Superposed on an optical picture of a group of galaxies is an image taken in X-ray light. The X-ray picture shows confined hot gas highlighted in false red color and provides clear evidence that the gravity exerted in groups and clusters of galaxies exceeds all of the individual component galaxies combined. The extra gravity is attributed to dark matter, the nature and abundance of which is one of the biggest mysteries in astrophysics today. Credit: Richard Mushotzky (*)

Another effect, known as gravitational lensing, gives evidence for dark matter’s existence. This effect occurs when a massive object’s gravity bends the light that is passing by. For instance, when a cluster of galaxies blocks our view of another galaxy behind it, the cluster’s gravity warps the more distant galaxy’s light into rings or arcs, depending on the geometry involved. By observing these rings, one can calculate how much mass should be present inside the galaxy to produce this pattern. Such calculations confirm that clusters contain far more mass than the luminous matter suggests.

Image of the rich galaxy cluster Abell 2218, taken with the Hubble Space Telescope. This cluster shows evidence of multiple lensing images, as well as numerous strong and weak arcs. Using information about the arcs and multiple images allows astronomers to reconstruct the mass distribution, which then gives us knowledge about the distribution of dark matter. (*)

Dark matter defined

Understanding dark matter is a key to other important issues in cosmology, such as how much mass the universe contains, how galaxies formed, and whether or not the universe will expand forever.

The posited explanations for dark matter can be grouped into three main categories:

– Dark matter could be some kind of ordinary matter that emits or reflects too little radiation for our instruments to detect. Such objects are known as massive astrophysical compact halo objects (MACHOs) and may be ultrafaint stars, large or small black holes, cold gas, or dust scattered around the universe.

– Dark matter could consist of exotic, unfamiliar particles (i.e., different from such known particles as electrons, protons, and neutrons) that we have not figured out how to observe. These are known as weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPS). Despite the many theories about them, their existence remains unconfirmed. These exotic particles are thought to have very small masses (smaller than atoms), meaning that there would have to be a huge number of them to make up the missing matter. Thus, millions of WIMPs are passing through Earth and us. They interact with ordinary matter only by means of gravity. Since the interaction is very weak, it is difficult to detect them.

Our understanding of gravity needs a major revision–but most physicists do not consider this option seriously.

Dark matter and the universe

The search for dark matter is more than trying to explain discrepancies in galactic mass calculations, for it is closely related to how the universe was formed and will end.

The Big Bang theory, which tries to explain how the universe was formed, maintains that in the beginning, everything was compressed into a single point. Then, a great explosion resulted in the universe being formed. It is still expanding. This theory is based on the fact that all galaxies, when observed with telescopes, are moving away from each other. After this explosion, matter started clumping together to form the stars and galaxies we see today.

The picture shows mankind’s deepest, most detailed visible view of the universe provided by Hubble telescope. Representing a narrow keyhole view stretching to the visible horizon of the universe, the Hubble Deep Field image covers a speck of the sky only about the width of a dime 75 feet away. Though the field is a very small sample of the, it is considered representative of the typical distribution of galaxies in space, because the universe, statistically, looks largely the same in all directions. In this picture, Hubble uncovered a bewildering assortment of at least 1,500 galaxies at various stages of evolution. (*)

One problem with this theory is explaining how the stars and galaxies were formed. If matter initially was distributed evenly in all directions, what caused it to clump together in some regions and form stars and galaxies? Gravity alone cannot cause this in a smooth universe, and so something had to supply the initial gravity that allowed galaxies to form. Physicists suggest that dark matter WIMPs accomplished this task. Since WIMPs only affect ordinary matter gravitationally, physicists say this dark matter could be the seed of galactic formation.

According to the Big Bang theory, there are three possibilities for the universe’s future. In a closed universe, gravity is strong enough to stop the expansion eventually and pull everything back to a single point. In an open universe, gravity cannot stop the expansion and so it will continue forever. In a flat universe, there is just the right amount of mass so that gravity can stop the expansion but not pull it back into one point.

The amount of dark matter that exists is crucial to determining the universe’s fate, because the Big Bang theory posits that the amount of mass in the universe determines gravity’s strength and, by extension, whether the universe will be closed, open, or flat. To quantify this, scientists define a constant, called Omega, as the ratio of the universe’s density to some critical density. A flat universe is said to have an Omega of 1, meaning that its density is equal to that of the critical density. If the density is greater than 1, the universe is closed; if it is less than 1, is be open. Without dark matter, the universe’s observed density is between 0.01 and 0.1. Therefore we live in an open universe. If a lot of dark matter were present, the universe would be closed. If there were just the right amount present, it would be flat.

Conclusion

The discovery of dark matter could affect our view of our place in the universe. If its existence were proven, our world and its inhabitants would be made of something comprising an insignificant portion of the physical universe. This probably would not affect our daily life, but would create a new scientific paradigm. In this sense, the discovery of dark matter would be as revolutionary as finding of extraterrestrial life.

Footnotes

1. Herman, R. and S. L. Larson. Is Dark Matter Theory or Fact? Scientific American (15 June 1998).
2. Rubin, V. Dark Matter in the Universe. Scientific American (March 1998).

* http://www.nasa.gov

Cosmology is the study of how the universe we live in came into being, why it looks and behaves as it does, and what its ultimate fate is. Building on the work of Albert Einstein, cosmologists have come up with a new account of the origin of the universe, the so-called big-bang cosmology. Over the past three decades a series of observational developments and refinements to the theory have led to its wider acceptance. For the present, there are no fundamental challenges to the big bang theory, although there are certainly unresolved issues with the theory itself. Astronomers are not sure, for example, how the galaxies were formed, but it is questionable whether there is a reason not to think the process did not occur within the framework of the big bang. Indeed, the predictions of the theory have survived all tests to date.

Nevertheless, we should always bear in mind that present-day science is not the last word, and perhaps Einstein’s theories, and the big-bang cosmology, will in turn be superseded.

Our present knowledge of the universe is restricted to a handful of observational facts. The expansion of the universe, indicated by the law relating the red shift in light from astronomical objects to their distance, was dis¬covered by Edwin Hubble in the early part of this century. The existence of the microwave background radiation corresponding to a temperature of 2.7K, and the cosmological abundance of helium are more recent discoveries. Together, these three observations suggest that the universe was born in a hot fireball from a very dense state-the big bang. Not just matter was created in the big bang, but space-time as well. There was nothing outside for the big bang to explode into-and this nothing means not even empty space.

Cosmologists today do not claim to know exactly what made the universe explode into existence from a state of zero volume and infinite density-a space-time singularity-but they do claim to be able to describe in great detail how a hot fireball of matter and radiation has evolved from a fraction of a second after the instant of creation over about 15 billion years to produce the cool, dark spread of empty space, dotted with galaxies made up of stars, gas, dust and planets, that we see about us now.

The laws of nature as we currently understand them allow us to trace the observed expansion of the universe back billions of years to what would be a true beginning, a moment when the universe was infinitely hot and dense. Although, theorists are now pushing back their speculations about what happened in the first 10-35 seconds after the big bang, with less confidence, the modern cosmological world view begins at a time when the universe had cooled to only 1012K, about 10-5 seconds after the instant creation. At these extreme conditions, the laws of physics as deduced here on earth can be applied to produce the story of everything that ha happened since. At a temperature of 1012K, particles and radiation would be interchangeable, as the mass equivalent of energy in the radiation would be ample to produce particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons, not out of thin air but out of thick radiation, in line with the rules E=mc2 for a particle of mass m and E=hv for radiation with frequency v (h is Planck’s constant). Here higher black body temperature of radiation corresponds to bigger v, that is bigger energy E, and therefore to more massive particle equivalents.

So, one-hundred-thousandth of a second after it began, the universe would have been a seething mass of particles and radiation, a swirling soup in which particle/antiparticle pairs were constantly being created out of energetic photons, and constantly annihilating with one another to produce other energetic photons. Overall though, the total mass/energy of the whole system was constant. For every E/c2 of mass created or destroyed an exactly equivalent E/h of radiation is destroyed or created.

Things began to get more orderly at 1011, still within the first 0.1 seconds after the big bang, as the universe expanded so that the density of radiation at any point was no longer enough to produce the more exotic particles. Only electron/positron pairs, and the massless photons and neutrino/antineutrino pairs, were light enough to have a continuing involvement in the matter/radiation balance.

About 14 seconds after the big bang, the temperature of the universe had dropped to around 3xl09K, and even electrons and positrons needed too much energy for the weakening radiation to create them. As the universe con¬tinued to expand and cool, creation became slower than annihilation, and almost all the particles and antiparticles disappeared. But for some unknown reason, a small proportion of electrons, protons and neutrons were left over. It is this early excess of matter over an¬timatter that survived to form light atomic nuclei a few minutes later, then (after about a million years) to form atoms and, still later, to be cooked to heavier elements in stars, ultimately to provide the material out of which life would arise. The reason for this predominance of matter over antimatter remains a mystery and has been a source of concern to modern cosmology. It is, nevertheless, one of the key initial conditions that determined the future development of the universe.

As the temperature dropped to 109K-about 70 times the temperature in the heart of the sun today-many protons and neutrons fused into helium nuclei, and by the end of first four minutes no free neutrons were left. Some 75% of the mass of the visible universe had been processed into protons plus electrons (ultimately to be bound into hydrogen atoms) while rather more than 25% mass of the universe had been processed into helium. The abundance of these elements in the universe is detectable today, and provides a constraint on the range of allowable models.

Another 700,000 years later, the expanding universe cooled to the point where electrons can bind to helium and hydrogen nuclei to make atoms, at a temperature of around 5000K. This signalled the end of the last remaining links between matter and radiation on a cosmic scale. Although free electrons and atomic nuclei, being electrically charged, interact strongly with radiation, electrically neutral atoms do not. From then on, the background radiation had nothing left to do but spread thinner in the expanding and cooling universe, to become the faint hiss we now detect at temperature equivalent of 2.7K. The very high degree of uniformity of the microwave background today is a strong indication that uniform, isotropic models provide a good description of the universe.

After the first thousand million years or so, with matter firmly established and radiation playing only a minor and decreasing role, the story of the universe can be taken up in terms of gravity, left as the dominating force because of its long range and its independence of electric charge. Gravitational forces then shaped the galaxies by holding stars and planets together.

However, our grasp of the conditions that prevailed in the early universe does not translate into a full understanding of how galaxies formed. Many scientists believe that the hydrogen and helium gases that filled the universe must have been pulled into concentrations by gravity. But there are problems with this explanation: for, what could cause large, diffuse gas clouds to collapse, even with the aid of gravity, while the universe as a whole is expanding?

Having established that the universe began in a hot big bang, and being tolerably happy with a rough understanding of how galaxies formed, the truly cosmological question remaining for astronomers to puzzle over is whether the universe is open (will it expand forever) or closed (will it one day collapse into a new fireball)?

The answer lies in its density. The symbol used for the mass density of the universe is Omega. If Omega, is less than 1, the universe will expand forever, so that, eventually, all the galaxies and stars will grow dark and cold. The alternative to this ‘big chill’ is a ‘big crunch.’ If Omega is more than 1, gravity will eventually reverse the expansion, and all matter and energy will be reunited. For the present, since we are not sure how galaxies formed, the value of Omega is uncertain-most astronomers put it somewhere between 0.1 and 1.

While eternal expansion is the generally favoured hypothesis; there may be enough of the unseen matter in the universe to produce a gravitational pull capable of halting the expansion and eventually producing a recollapse. Though the case is not yet proven, one current idea is that neutrinos, once believed to be massless particles, may have a rest mass less than 1/10000 of an electron. As neutrinos are thought to be as numerous as photons, their aggregate mass could suffice to close the universe. The fact that we cannot see enough matter to close the universe does not mean that it is not there.

During the next decade, as techniques for measuring the mass of the universe improve, we may learn whether the present expansion is headed toward a big chill or a big crunch. What happens then? Just as we do not know how everything could appear from nothing in the big bang if space-time did not exist, we do not know what happens to the universe at this stage; the laws of physics are inadequate to describe such extreme conditions. If there is ever to be a solution to the mystery of the origin and end of the universe, it must await a substantial increase in our understanding of the quantum nature of gravity-the big bang account of creation has forged an unlikely marriage between cosmology, the science of the very large, and particle physics, the science of the very small.

In any event, the universe we inhabit seems to be very improbable. Random processes and statistical fluctuations on cosmological time scales could easily have made it quite inhospitable to life. Are we just lucky? Or is there some deep significance to the fact that we live in a universe just right for us?

For all its violence-including the possibility of a black hole resident at the centre of our own galaxy-the universe seems to be an ideal place for man. Everywhere we look in the universe, from far flung galaxies to the deepest recesses of the atom, we encounter order. The laws of physics can explain beautifully the analytic structure of nature, the behaviour of individual particles and fields, but tell us nothing about the collective, collaborative organization of matter: that is, how the world is put together.

Why is the world the way it is and not otherwise? This is not the type of question scientists normally ask. The customary approach to scientific inquiry is to discuss what we see, not what we might see. Nevertheless, the universe is such a remarkable place, and we, as observers, are perhaps the most remarkable feature, it seems worth while ascertaining just how probable or improbable the present arrangement is.

For example, we do not understand why the fundamental constants of nature have the values they do. Einstein captured its essence when he said: ‘What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the world.’ Very slight changes in the physical constants of nature could have made the universe unfold in a completely different manner.

Most of the features of the everyday world and the astronomical scene are determined by a few basic physical laws and constants, such as the masses of the elementary particles and the relative strengths of the basic forces that operate between them. In many cases, a rather delicate balance seems to prevail. For example, if the nuclear forces were slightly stronger then they actually are, compared with electromagnetism, the di-proton-an atomic nucleus containing just two protons and no other particle-would be stable; ordinary hydrogen would not exist, and stars would evolve very differently. If nuclear forces were slightly weaker, no chemical elements other than hydrogen would be stable, and chemistry would be dull indeed. In either case, we would not be here to ponder such matters.

Or suppose the constant of gravity were stronger and the gravitational force were, say 1030 times weaker than the electromagnetic force instead of a factor of 1040 weaker. Then we would have a small-scale, speeded-up universe, in which stars-gravitationally bound fusion redactors-had only 10-15 times the sun’s mass, and lived for about a year. This might not allow time for complex systems-such as life forms-to evolve. The question-Was the relative strength of electromagnetic force over the gravitational force there from the beginning of time or is it an accident of today? -remains intractable.

These mysteries are heightened when we reflect how surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any of several physical quantities had slightly different values. The best known of these quantities is the energy of one of the excited states of the carbon-12 nucleus. There is an essential step in the chain of nuclear reactions that build up heavy elements in stars. In this step, two helium nuclei join together to form the unstable nucleus of beryllium-8, which sometimes before fissioning absorbs another helium nucleus, forming carbon-12 in this excited state. The carbon-12 nucleus then emits a photon and decays into the stable state of lowest energy. In subsequent nuclear reactions carbon is built up into oxygen and nitrogen and the other heavy elements necessary for life. If the energy of the excited state of carbon-12 were just a little higher, the rate of its formation would be much less, so that almost all the beryllium-8 nuclei would fission into helium nuclei before carbon could be formed. The universe would then consist almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, without the ingredients for life.

Moreover, if the proton and neutron masses were equal, then neutrons and protons could not bind to form deuterium and heavy nuclei, and nuclear burning in stars and, consequently, life would be impossible.

The most ubiquitous examples of orderliness in the universe are the stars. They represent an extreme departure from thermodynamic equilibrium because they burn brightly in a cold, dark space. The source of starlight is the nuclear furnace at the core of the star, where the chief nuclear reaction is the fusion of hydrogen to helium. This is a downhill process, leading to nuclei of greater stability, and the cost paid for achieving it is the redistribution of nuclear energy into the surrounding space in the form of heat and light. This particular orderliness, and with it most familiar examples of terrestrial organization, leads to the question: Is the present structure of the universe-which is made mainly of hydrogen and not helium or heavier elements-just luck, a coincidence? Because, if the universe were made of, say, iron (the most stable element) there would be no stars like the sun.

Also, the structure of our world depends vitally not only on the availability of free hydrogen, but also on the reasonably smooth distribution of the primeval matter. If the big bang had only coughed out black holes-the ultimate triumph of gravity-in which everything is completely obliterated and disappears, no life would have been possible.

Can all these peculiar ‘coincidences’ be understood in terms of some self-evolutionary mechanism?

In its standard form, the big bang theory assumes that all parts of the universe began expanding simultaneously. Observations confirmed this assumption and showed that the expansion is remarkably uniform in all directions. This would seem to imply a collaboration between widely separated regions of the cosmos to expand at the same rate everywhere. Such highly organized behaviour leads us to ask how all the different parts of the universe could synchronize the beginning of their expansion?

Where does the energy that makes the universe expand come from? What could be a permanent, decidedly nonzero source of energy in the universe, with cosmic consequences? Could it be vacuum-as the source of everything yet itself nothing? This is one of the hottest topics in contemporary physics and lies at the heart of perhaps the most important new concept in cosmology of the past decade. If it is correct, could the creation of being out of nothingness occur without the mediation of a Creator?

There are many such peculiar ‘coincidences’ in the universe. Is it just our luck that they have worked out that way, or is there a deeper explanation? One understanding would be that the world is the way it is because it is the creation of a Creator who wills it to be capable of fruitful process: His command, when He desires a thing, is to say to it ‘Be!’, and it is (Ya Sin, 36.82). Without an Organizer, chaos can never be transformed into cosmos. This explanation is not a temporary sop to satisfy our curiosity about phenomena for which we cannot yet work out a satisfactory physical explanation; rather, it is a step guiding us towards a better understanding of the real world.

That does not mean that these mysteries constitute a barrier beyond which science cannot pass. As in the past, we may reasonably expect that, in the future, deeper understanding will be achieved and a more profound pattern discerned at the basis of physical reality, in a new, perhaps new kind, of explanatory theory. It may be some version of supergravity or it may be the novel theory of ‘superstrings’. Or some other theory that we have not yet thought of.

However, we should bear in mind that both our growing knowledge about the universe, and the need, alongside it, to revise it continually, is clear evidence for the inconclusiveness of science and the limitation of its methods.

In addition, the finititude of man’s existence (in this very small part of a vast universe) and the limitations of his senses mean that all our efforts must be considered ‘relative.’ The results of pure and experimental sciences are a limited portion of reality as man can grasp it from his location in the universe and within the very limited time allotted to him, and not the truth itself. There is of course, a great difference between being aware of things and knowing their actual truth. The former is limited to sensible events only, while the latter lies beyond the capacity of our senses.

No inquiry into the nature of creation or any part of it can be closed and concluded. The patterns of God in creation are infinite: there will always be more of them to discover. As we strive to do so, understand more and more about nature, the scientist’s sense of wonder will not diminish but become sharper, more narrowly focused on the mysteries that still remain. The worth of science lies in its commitment to understanding the Divine handiwork. The comprehensibility of the reality around us is among the greatest of God’s favours to us. Einstein remarked this: ‘The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.’

The Qur’an contains many scientifically accurate statements, some of them still relevant to cosmology; it does not contain any statements which are in conflict with the findings of man’s scientific research nor open to criticism from modern science. Many of its verses allude to, and urge, reflection upon the reality around us as a form of worship, as a way to draw nearer to the Creator. I shall conclude by citing (in translation) a verse which draws our attention to the fact that, in a general sense, the future will be the age of knowledge and information, and that as a natural consequence of this, it will be an age of faith and belief:

Soon We shall show them Our signs on the furthest horizons, and in their own souls, until it becomes manifest to them that this is truth. Is it not enough that your Lord witnesses all things? (Fussilat, 41.53)

USEFUL READING

• GRIBBIN, J. (1982) Cosmology today: A New Scientist Guide
• JAMES, P. et al. (1994) ‘The Evolution of the Universe’, Scientific American, October
• SIMSEK, U. (1986) Big Bang-Kainatin Dogusu, Yeni Asya, Istanbul
• NURBAKI, H. (1989) Verses from the Glorious Qur’an and the Facts of Science, Turkish Foundation for Religion Publications