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.

If the universe was expanding, then it had to be smaller in the past, and there could even be a moment when the entire universe appeared as a tiny mass. A group of physicists who took these findings seriously, started theoretical research regarding the birth of the universe (that is, the space-time and all of the matter within) and its evolution. Another group of physicists still thought that the universe should have no beginning and insisted in their conception of a static universe. One of these physicists, Hoyle, made a statement during a BBC radio program in order to criticize the idea of an expanding universe and used the phrase “big bang” for the first time. Later on, the phrase, initially used in a sarcastic manner, started to be used as the name of the expanding universe model. It was an entirely new model no scientist had even imagined before. Accordingly, there had to be an electromagnetic radiation (cosmic microwave background radiation) which would emerge after the explosion—this can be compared to the smoke of a gun right after a fired shot. After Penzias and Wilson observed this electro-magnetic radiation in 1964, the doubts about the model disappeared almost completely. As technology developed over time, so many different observations and sensitive measures were made and taken in support of this theory. Since there is no other cosmological model to explain the present data, the Big Bang model has general acceptance among physicists today. We would like to relate some facts about the universe based on contemporary observations and theories before we expand our discussion.

What we know about the Universe

Galaxies are typical formations throughout the universe. The Milky Way galaxy, which hosts our solar system, is a disc-shaped one. The measurements revealed that the diameter of this “disc” is 100,000 light years and its thickness is 1000 light years (one light year is approximately ten trillion kilometers). There are approximately 100 billion other stars in the Milky Way galaxy similar to our sun. Owing to gravitational attraction, the number density of the stars near the center of the galaxy is higher—for the same reason, black holes are thought to exist in the centers of galaxies. The stars visible to the naked eye at night are the ones within the Milky Way galaxy. When further distances are observed through telescopes, other galaxies begin coming to sight as bright spots. Galaxies form galaxy clusters and the clusters form super-galaxy clusters. Even light year appears to be an unimportant unit of measurement in order to express these dazzling great distances. The most successful model we know that describes the universe is Einstein’s theory of relativity. According to this theory, space-time is a dynamic object and it can be curved. As for the force we feel as gravity, it is an outcome of the curved nature of space-time. The Big Bang model appears naturally within the general Theory of Relativity. The essential data we are going to relate here about the universe is mostly based on observations and general theory of relativity.

According to the Big Bang model, the universe was born in a very hot and dense form nearly 13.7 billion years ago. Here, we need to remember that the concepts of “time” and “space” as we know them came to being with the Big Bang. Therefore, asking what was there before the Big Bang is meaningless for this model. Similarly, the common notion of expansion brings to mind something expanding inside something else. However, it is possible to describe the universe without any notions of inside or outside expansion. That is, we do not have to assume another environment inside which the universe expands.

One of the important suggestions of the Big Bang Model is the fact that the universe was at a state of thermal equilibrium in the past. There is important data based on observation in support of this suggestion. Therefore, even though the term Big Bang brings to mind a chaotic happening, there was a very important state of equilibrium at the emergence of the universe. So many physicists have underlined the fact that this state of equilibrium is impossible to happen on its own. Our universe was born out of a very hot and dense state of equilibrium and it began to cool down as it expanded. The heat in the early periods was so high that matter was found in a plasma state formed by the smallest constituents of matter. As the heat decreased, the plasma also changed structure and different cosmic phases took place. For instance, when the heat dropped down to 1010 C atomic nuclei began to form out of neutrons and protons. When it dropped to 3000 C, atoms were formed. There are many observations in support of these different phases. For example, the electro-magnetic background radiation observed by Penzias and Wilson in 1964 is formed out of photons (i.e. light) released after the phase in which the first atoms are formed. The Big Bang model has so many more important details and the calculations made according to this model have been in conformity with observations. Together with that, it should be noted that as the known physics get closer to the moment of the bang (zero time), it loses validity and new theories are needed.

The expansion of the universe in the Qur’an

The Qur’an openly refers to the expansion of the universe. The 47th verse of the 51 chapter (Dhariyat) is translated as follows:

And the heaven, We have constructed it mightily; and it is surely We Who have vast power, and keep expanding it. (51:47)

The original Arabic phrase used, which refers to expansion, is “musiun.” The interesting point is that the sentence is a noun clause which denotes in Arabic grammar a quality of being steady and continuous. Therefore, the meaning can be understood as being “we are expanding it continuously.” According to the Big Bang model, the universe has constantly been expanding ever since it was born. Expressing this fact by saying “We are expanding it,” the Qur’an also guides us to acknowledge that the expanding does not happen in itself but is realized by Divine power.

Other verses related to the Big Bang

The 30th verse of the chapter Anbiya is translated as follows:

Do those who disbelieve ever consider that the heavens and the earth were at first one piece, and then We parted them as separate entities; and that We have made every living thing from water? Will they still not come to believe? (Anbiya 21:30)

According to some scholars of Qur’anic exegesis, the phrase ratq (joined together, one piece) and fataqnahuma (We parted them) can be alluding to the moment of the Big Bang. As we have tried to summarize above, the entire universe was a single and very small mass and then started to expand and grow. As the universe expanded, the matter it contained began to expand and occupy a larger volume. As the universe expanded, its contents also began to separate from one another. So the phrases mentioned might be alluding to this chain of events. Together with that, some scholars thought that this verse alludes to the formation of the solar system, earth, and its atmosphere. The reason is that the verse continues with referring to the creation of living things. Accordingly, ratq might be referring to the phase when the solar system was a single mass and fataqnahuma might be referring to the planets and the earth breaking away from the sun and the formation of the atmosphere. It should be noted that systems forming within galaxies are also considered in the Big Bang model, which is used for referring to all of the phases from the time of zero to ours. Therefore, both possible explanations can be related to this model.

Another phrase which can be related to the Big Bang is the “Originator (Fatir) of the heavens and the earth” used in many different verses (e.g. Yusuf 12:101). Similarly, there is another verse expressing this reality with a verb from the same root (fatarahunna): …your Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth, Who has originated them each (Anbiya 21:56). Normally the phrase “fatara” is translated as “created.” In his study of Qur’anic exegesis (not available in English), Hamdi Yazir (1877-1942) points to the fact that the root “fatara” means to “split” or “split lengthwise,” and to originate something for the first time without a prior model. When these meanings of “fatara” are taken into consideration, “Originator (Fatir) of the heavens and the earth” can be an allusion to the Big Bang. Let us remember the fact that the Big Bang particularly refers to the very moment of the first creation. Therefore, the meaning “to originate something for the first time without a prior model” might be referring to this quality of the Big Bang. In addition, the word “split” expresses the moment of this great explosion better than the word “bang”; and so the beginning of space-time can be compared to splitting of a seed and its emergence.

One of the alternative meanings of “fatara” mentioned by Yazir, “split lengthwise” is very interesting. One of the important misconceptions about the Big Bang is to imagine that the universe was born in a certain spot and began expanding within another space. The Big Bang did not take place at a single spot. According to our theoretical understanding today, the entire space came into being altogether in a single moment. In other words, the Big Bang took place everywhere. When we consider the meaning “split lengthwise,” it might be an allusion to the fact that the Big Bang did not take place at a single point.

Conclusion

Considering the points we have tried to summarize above, the Qur’anic verses related to the creation of the universe can be defined as evidently miraculous. Surely, it is possible to expound on the subject from different aspects. For example we can think about a relation between the phrase “the seven heavens” used in many different verses in the Qur’an and the different phases after the Big Bang (although it is not possible pinpoint the exact number of these phases, figures like seven or seventy are metaphorically used in Arabic for referring to something in relevant multitude). Or they might be referring to some extra dimensions suggested by certain theories (The String Theory, one of the most-studied theories in recent years suggests the existence of seven extra dimensions).

Finally, we would like to underline that this article is an elementary attempt. What needs to be done more seriously is to form a board of scholars, particularly from the fields of cosmology and Qur’anic exegesis, and evaluate systematically all the verses related to the subject, and then try to analyze and understand them without any biased opinions. Such a study can provide deeper insight into the Qur’anic message.

Ali Kaya is a professor of physics in Bogazici University, Istanbul.

Note: This article was translated from Turkish by Korkut Altay.

Paul Davies, a British-born cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and bestselling author, conducts inter-disciplinary research in the areas of physics, cosmology, and biology. Dr. Davies is the director of a new research center at Arizona State University called Beyond. The mission of the center is to explore the great questions of our existence, the origin of our universe and life, the nature of consciousness, and the mathematical laws that underpin the universe. He is particularly interested in the Big Bang Theory, one of the most influential theories of our time concerning the origins of our universe.

Matter&Beyond: You are a cosmologist and the topic obviously is fascinating. But what is the root of our connection with space? What is the root of our human fascination with the sky and stars?

It’s very interesting to speculate if human beings had developed on a planet that was totally covered in cloud and had no awareness of the sky and astronomical bodies, whether society would’ve developed very differently. It’s quite clear when you look back at human history that the “heavens,” as they used to be called, had a very major role to play in all early civilizations. We can see evidence of astronomical observatories, thousands of years ago, long before the invention of telescopes. There are monuments, for example, pyramids that were built or Stonehenge in England, which are clearly astronomical monuments of some sort. And then we think of the world’s great religions and they all have an astronomical component. Think of the role of the new moon in Islam, for example, or the Star of Bethlehem in Christianity. … I think we can trace this preoccupation with the sky and the heavens to the early days of the development of agriculture because it became really important for people to know when to plant their crops and when to harvest them and the different seasons and so on. We can imagine that, say 10,000 years ago, people studied the sky very, very carefully and they became familiar with the movement of the objects and they invented complicated mathematical formulas to chart them.

M&B: How did our fascination with space change after industrialization?

What I would say has happened in the last three or four hundred years is that actually most people have become less aware of space. We live in cities that are polluted so we don’t see outer space. We’re too busy looking at televisions or driving home from work so we never look up and see this wonderland above our heads. How many people, for example, could name even the major constellations of stars if they were ever taken outside of their cities to somewhere where they could see the dark night sky? And so astronomy has become in a way less and less significant in people’s lives.

M&B: But today astronomy and cosmology is making a comeback. There are a lot of bestseller popular science books written on space and time.

I think during the 1970s and ‘80s people became very antiscientific, perhaps as a result of a reaction to the Vietnam War. Astronomy somehow remained aloof from that. It was perceived as a subject that wasn’t dangerous, that we could study the stars, they were a long way away using benign equipment like telescopes and astronomers weren’t going to threaten anybody. And so I think exploring the universe has been seen in many ways as a sort of untainted glorious enterprise that doesn’t have this sort of threatening aspect to it. It’s still, of course, immensely popular. People still want to go to planetariums and they read books on astronomy and they like television productions on astronomical things. But I think it’s shifted now from those early days where people’s lives really revolved around the stars in a very literal sense, and those days are now gone.

M&B: You are a cosmologist, but based on the wide range of research areas at the center Beyond, I would say that you look more like a modern seeker of old times.

Since the dawn of human history people have asked the great questions of existence, how did the universe come to exist? What is the role of human beings in the great cosmic scheme of things? How will the universe end? What is it made of? Now for the greater part of human history, these questions were addressed by priests and philosophers. But in recent years, science has made progress as well. So scientists find themselves now asking those same age-old questions of existence. In my career, I have covered topics like the origin of the universe and the origin of life, the nature of time, the nature of consciousness, and the underlying laws of the universe. Inevitably these topics trespass on territory which was previously almost exclusively philosophy or religion’s. Now science has a story to tell about these great issues.

M&B: If you have to pick the most interesting question modern science is trying to answer, what would be your choice?

I suppose the most interesting thing modern science is telling us about is how the universe came into existence. When I was a student, the Big Bang Theory was just one of many ideas about the origin of the universe. But over the past 30 years it’s become much more secure so that not only do we know that there was a Big Bang about 13.7 billion years ago, but we know a great deal about the details including the conditions that prevailed in the universe back to as little as one-trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. So we’re now able to reconstruct precisely how the universe went bang and how it developed over the subsequent billions of years into what we see today. So I think that the scientific story of the genesis of a universe is fascinating—its origin, its explosive outbursts, and the long period of enrichment and complexification of matter leading eventually to the emergence of life and beings like ourselves who could look back and reflect on it all.

M&B: The Big Bang Theory is well established. Yet it’s still open to commentaries and interpretations.

It’s often said that science deals with “how?” questions and religion deals with “why?” questions and so you don’t normally go to a scientist to find meaning or purpose in the universe. Nevertheless it is clear that because science is now able to fill in so many details about the big picture, that scientists are inevitably asked to make pronouncements about meaning and purpose. As they do so, they divide about equally into two groups. One group who says, “Well, the universe is beautiful, it’s so ingenious that it looks as if it has been designed by an intelligent creator but in fact it hasn’t.” There is no meaning, no purpose in the universe. The famous quote by Steven Weinberg, the American cosmologist, goes: “The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless.” Then the other half of cosmologists look at this same set of facts and they agree about the facts but they interpret them differently. They will say, “Well, it does suggest that there is a grand scheme of things, it does suggest that the universe is about something. This grand and wonderful scheme, which is so ingeniously constructed, does suggest that there is something deeper to it all.”

M&B: We find more and more scientists thinking and writing about these topics on both sides.

Human beings usually are not happy just to have a technical description of how the universe works, and in particular people always want to ask the question what happened before the Big Bang? What made the Big Bang go bang? Why is there a universe in the first place, and why is the universe as it is and not something different? And these are questions right on the edge of science because science really can only deal with things that can be measured and observed. They can deal with the facts of the world, the things before us. When we come to questions about why does the world exist at all or why are there laws and where do those laws come from, it’s very difficult for science to make a contribution. Nevertheless, in the last ten or twenty years more and more scientists have been addressing those questions. The nature of physical laws is a very good example… When I was a student, you were simply told the laws of physics are what they are, we don’t know why, maybe there isn’t any reason why—that’s just the way it is. It was not the job of the scientists to ask why those laws of physics exist. The job of the scientist was to discover what the laws are and then apply them. But that has changed. There is now a feeling that maybe the nature of physical laws is something that is a proper, legitimate subject for scientific inquiry. And so there’s a whole bunch of physicists who are looking at alternative laws.

M&B: How do they theorize alternative laws?

Supposing we stipulate a different law of gravitation and see what the consequences would be. We can work out using mathematics what it would be like if gravity differed a little bit from the observed law. And then we can do the same with the other forces of nature and other features of the world. What would it be like if we lived in the universe with 23 space dimensions instead of three? We can work that out. Partly that’s a recreational exercise—it would be fun to know what it would be like in a universe with different dimensions or different forces—but also we would like to know is there anything special about the particular laws of this particular universe.

M&B: What is the result of such experiments?

There is something special and that special thing is that the particular laws that we observe in this universe are very strangely conducive to the emergence of life. They’re highly suited to life, even suspiciously so. It’s almost as if these laws have been fine-tuned for life, and so at that point disagreement sets in and some scientists say, “Well, it’s just a lucky coincidence that that is the case,” and others say, “No, there must be some other explanation for it.” But it is certainly the case that the universe we observe and the laws that underpin it, which used to just be regarded as given, as not a proper subject for inquiry, are now being studied as one set among a vast variety of possible sets, and it’s generally agreed that the particular laws that we observe are very special in their relation to the ability to bring forth life.

M&B: And you call this a “cosmic jackpot.”

My book, Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life, examines a very specific problem, the problem of why the universe seems to be just right for life. When we look at the fundamental laws of physics and the way that the universe originated in the Big Bang, there are many features that appear to be coincidences or the happy arrangement of different aspects of physical laws without which there would be no life and no observers like ourselves. And the question is, What are we to make of that? Some people say, “Well, it looks like the whole thing is a fix, it looks like the universe is being created by an Intelligent Designer.” Well, obviously all the scientists aren’t going to believe that. So instead they come up with other explanations.

M&B: There is the theory of multiverses.

According to that theory, there are many universes each of which has its own set of laws and these laws are just randomly distributed across these universes. So here and there, just by chance, the laws are going to come out just right for life. It’s no surprise that we find ourselves living in a universe where conditions are just right for life because we could hardly live in a universe which had laws of physics that did not permit life. It’s like a gigantic cosmic lottery with all of these different universes and we’ve just hit the cosmic jackpot because we’re winners of this vast lottery. So that is the popular view as to how we explain that the universe is just right for life. I think that view is progressive but I think it falls far short of providing a complete explanation of existence. I take life seriously and I take the mind seriously so I don’t think that these are just incidental phenomena in the great cosmic scheme of things. I think they’re fundamental to the workings of the universe as a whole and so what I’m trying to do here is to go beyond the rather startled debate between science and religion that’s existed for the last 30 years about the ultimate source of reality.

M&B: It just seems to me, just based on intuition, that we’re not alone here. The universe is so vast, there’s just got to be life somewhere. Does mathematics and statistics support this intuition?

A lot of people make that mistake by saying, statistically, there has to be life elsewhere, the universe is so vast, so many stars out there. It would be incredible if this was the only planet with life. It’s just simply not true. The probability of forming even the simplest enzyme, the simplest protein in known life, if you did it just by shuffling the building blocks, the amino acids that make up for that, is infinitesimal. If you took the entire volume of the universe and filled it with an amino acid soup and just kept shuffling and shuffling and shuffling, you would simply not make it. If it’s happened once, we’re it. It would not happen anywhere else. So the probability of life forming in that way by chance is twice as infinitesimal. So if that’s the way life happened, the fact we live in a vast universe makes no different whatsoever.

M&B: People who are not scientists may think that scientists are the smartest of all of us so they must be figuring out everything, they’re the smartest ones who bring the technology. They look at scientists as natural guides. Do you see a danger here?

Scientists are human beings like everybody else, and I think it’s a mistake to see scientists as generally cold, hard, soulless people who don’t care about the consequences of their work. Scientists are very passionate people and they feel passionately not only about their work but about other aspects of human life. It is also a mistake to think that scientists have any special moral authority over questions of general relevance to human beings. The vast majority of problems that we confront in the world really are only related obliquely, if at all, to science. We struggle with things like the ruin of our environment or international disputes or family concerns or education concerns. These sort of day-to-day things loom very large in people’s lives, but I’m not sure that scientists make a contribution. Science is obviously relevant to some of these things, for example, if we could find a better source of energy that doesn’t heat the planet, that would be good. So science can play a role, but individual scientists, I don’t think are any better than anybody else as moral judges.