“The most beautiful system [the universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” (Isaac Newton)

The Newtonian physics, quantum mechanics, and the theory of relativity took the modern community to the boundary of the two realms of physical and metaphysical existence. Nevertheless, the nature of the fundamental physical dimensions still remains an open question resting on the related areas of science

The fundamental concepts of Newtonian physics are Time, Length, Mass, and Electric Charge by means of which all the other classical physical quantities such as velocity, force, momentum, energy, current, electric field, magnetic flux, etc. can be derived and expressed as their combinations. Classical physics stands on the assumption that material, having two basic intrinsic properties of mass and charge, and immaterial phenomena are all contained in an absolute space and an ever-flowing absolute time. These four physical dimensions, without asking the nature of them, provide a practical framework for a description of the gravitational and electromagnetic forces and thus a description of the physical world and an interpretation of the events occurring in it up to a certain degree. However, the Newtonian picture of the universe is neither adequate for a deeper understanding of the corporeal reality nor appropriate for linking that reality to the ones possessing higher degrees of the Universal Existence.

Starting from late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Newtonian picture of the world has been changed due to two revolutionary theories, which have been proved both experimentally and theoretically that they are superior to and not compatible with the classical descriptions and assumptions. They are the relativity theory and the quantum mechanics. In physics, a field is a physical quantity associated with each point of Space-Time. For example, the Newtonian gravitational field is a vector field specifying its value at a point in Space-Time, which requires three numbers, the components of the gravitational field vector at that point. Quantum field theory constructing quantum mechanical models of systems classically parameterized by an indefinitely big number of degrees of freedom, namely fields, is the natural and quantitative language of particle physics. The current set of fundamental fields and their dynamics are summarized in a theory called the Standard Model. All particles and their interactions observed to date can be described almost entirely by the Standard Model although most particle physicists believe that it is an incomplete description of nature, and that a more fundamental theory, the Theory of Everything, awaits discovery. Figure 1 represents an overview of the various families of elementary and composite particles, and the theories describing their interactions.

The relativistic quantum field theory of the subatomic world does not only include the strong and weak nuclear forces in addition to the electromagnetic and gravitational interactions of the classical picture, but also provokes some ideas about the nature of the fundamental concepts of the classical physics. Symmetry of a physical system is a physical or mathematical feature of the system that is preserved under some change. The Standard Model says, for instance, that the electric charge is the generator of the U(1) symmetry of electromagnetism. U(1), the unitary group of rank 1, is the simplest internal symmetry group of the Standard Model. It can be visualized as the rotational symmetry of a circle about a perpendicular axis passing through the center of the circle. It represents a continuous symmetry because a circle can be rotated by an angle and remains unchanged. It is an internal symmetry since this circle does not lie in the physical space but in the complex plane of mathematics. More abstractly and more generally, a charge is any generator of a continuous symmetry of the physical system under study. When a physical system has a symmetry of some sort, Noether’s theorem implies the existence of a conserved current. The thing that flows in the current is the charge; the charge is the generator of the symmetry group. This converts our classical concrete idea of electric charge into a mathematical abstraction. Conservation of energy and conservations of linear and angular momenta are nothing but the applications of Noether’s theorem to the translational symmetry in time and translational and rotational symmetries in space, respectively.

Classically, which is equivalent to macroscopically, mass is associated with matter and can be defined as a quantitative measure of an object’s resistance to the change of its speed. But in the Standard Model of the subatomic scale, the mass of the elementary particles are explained by the Higgs mechanism which refers specifically to the generation of masses for the W and Z bosons through electroweak symmetry breaking. The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is currently searching for Higgs bosons, and attempting to understand the electroweak Higgs mechanism. The Higgs mechanism is the process that gives mass to elementary particles. In 1905, Einstein proposed mass-energy equivalence (E=mc2) in his paper entitled “Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy-content?” In relativity, all of the energy that moves with an object (that is, all the energy which is present in the object’s rest frame) contributes to the total mass of the body, which measures how much it resists acceleration.

When we come to the remaining two fundamental concepts of Newtonian physics, we see that Time and Length, which we know instinctively, are no exceptions. The modern physics challenges our classical understandings of them too. Relativity theory argues that Time and Space are of equal ontological status; the reality is the 4-dimensional unity of Space-Time. Physics could no longer be understood as Space by itself, and Time by itself. It also states that simultaneity is relative, so there is no objective way to define a “Now” that would be the same for all states of motion which substantially affects the idea of causality. In addition, this Space-Time is not flat but rather curved due to the material and energy contained in it and not static but dynamic. Time and Space are neither uniform nor absolute.

The missing part of the so-called Theory of Everything is the quantum gravity, which attempts to develop scientific models that unify quantum mechanics describing three of the four known fundamental interactions with general relativity describing the fourth, gravity. The following quotation is from one of the leading quantum gravity researcher, Carlo Rovelli, stated in 1997:

“I believe that we are going through a period of profound confusion, in which we lack a general coherent picture of the physical world capable of embracing what or at least most of what, we have learned about it. The fundamental scientific view of the world of the present time is characterized by an astonishing amount of perplexity, and disagreement, about what time, space, matter, and causality are. But if a new synthesis is to be reached, I believe that philosophical thinking will be once more one of its ingredients. Due to the vastness of the problem involved, the generality and accuracy of philosophical thinking and its capacity to clarify conceptual premises are probably necessary to help physics out of a situation in which we have learned so much about the world, but no longer know what matter, time, space, and causality are.“

Lee Smolin, another theoretical physicist named as #21 on Foreign Policy Magazine’s 2008 list of Top 100 Public Intellectuals, stated the following in 2001:

“Atoms do fall, so the relationship between gravity and the quantum is not a problem for nature. If it is a problem for us, it must be because somewhere in our thinking there is at least one, and possibly several, wrong assumptions. At the very least, these assumptions involve our concept of space and time and the connection between the observer and the observed.”

It is true that quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity were born and are growing in the nontraditional atmosphere of the scientific enterprise. Thus, they can be considered as sharing the reductionist character of the Newtonian physics by having no direct reference to the hierarchy of physical and metaphysical existence. Nevertheless, we consider them as an improvement since they took the modern scientific community to the boundary of the two realms, by asking the old question of ancients about the nature of the fundamental physical dimensions. The mystery of them is still an open question resting, we believe, on the related areas of science and metaphysics.

However, a recent book, Islamic Science and Making of the European Renaissance, by George Saliba calls these arguments into question. This book prompted me to think more critically about this long, accepted argument. Can this prominent scholar of Islam or his famous book, Tahafut al-Falasifah, be held responsible, single handedly, for causing an age of decline in the scientific activities in the Muslim World?

Many orientalists argue that Ghazali’s Tahafut is responsible for the age of decline in science in the Muslim World. This is their key thesis as they attempt to explain the scientific and intellectual history of the Islamic world. It seems to be the most widely accepted view on the matter not only in the Western world but in the Muslim world as well. George Saliba, a Professor of Arabic and Islamic Science at Columbia University who specializes in the development of astronomy within Islamic civilization, calls this view the “classical narrative” (Saliba, 2007). However, interesting discoveries in the second half of the twentieth century by historians of science challenged many of the assertions of this classical narrative. An example of such discoveries is the strong connections between Ibn al-Shatir, a famous Damascene astronomer of the fourteenth century, and the Renaissance astronomer Copernicus (Roberts, 1957). If Ghazali had killed science in Islam in the twelfth century, then al-Shatir’s work from the fourteenth century could not have been so influential on Copernicus’s work. Saliba challenges almost all of the major tenets of the classical narrative on the basis of (1) a critical examination of historical evidence, some of which is quite recent, and (2) the results of his own long-term research in Islamic astronomy.

Saliba’s response to the question

In making his argument, Saliba first notes that most of the orientalists operate under the assumption that there must be a sharp conflict between religion and science. This paradigm is probably based on their European experience. To them, al-Ghazali represents the orthodox tradition in Islam and with Tahafut, written in the late eleventh century (between 1091 and 1095), they assume that orthodox religious thought won a decisive victory over rational, scientific thought. From that point on they assume that science in Islam declined, and the Islamic world did not produce anything significant in terms of scientific advancements.

Saliba argues that both of these assumptions are false. First, the European paradigm of conflict between religion and science does not really apply to the Islamic world. The religion of Islam encourages rational and scientific inquiry. Therefore, Muslims see no insurmountable contradictions between their faith and natural laws. Hence, studying religion and studying natural sciences does not create a conflict for Muslims.

Secondly, many of the scientists in the Islamic world were also religious authorities at the same time. A few examples among such scholars are Ibn al-Nafis, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi ,and Ibn al-Shatir who lived in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and made important contributions to such diverse scientific disciplines as mathematics, astronomy, medicine, physics and philosophy. In fact, these scholars were regarded primarily as religious figures by the general public with side interests in sciences. Early Muslim scholars did not hesitate to acquire scientific knowledge wherever they could find it, whether it be in Indian civilization, in Greek civilization, or in Persian civilization. Not only did they acquire these sciences through translation, but they also critically examined them in a comprehensive way. Making corrections and improvements and even introducing new disciplines, they showed a high degree of ownership and maturity. This led to a remarkable period of creativity and rapid advancements in many scientific disciplines in the Islamic world beginning as early as the eighth century (Saliba, 2007).

Contrary to the classical narrative, scientific advancements in the Islamic world did not stop or even slow down after Ghazali. Saliba gives many examples of sophisticated scientific achievements in the Islamic world well after Ghazali. Based on his life-long research in the area, he concludes that the golden age of Islamic astronomy was in the post-Ghazali period from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century. Discoveries by Western historians of science in the second half of the twentieth century show that there are surprisingly strong connections between Copernicus (sixteenth century) and Muslim astronomers from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, such as Nasir al-Din al-Tusi and Ibn al-Shatir (Roberts, 1957; Saliba, 2007). These discoveries were shocking to many in the scholarly community who did not expect to find any transfer of knowledge from the Islamic civilization to Europe in the post-Ghazali period. Unfortunately, this new information has not been sufficiently digested by today’s scholars and does not yet generally appear in secondary sources.

Saliba also provides examples from other disciplines, such as medicine, that show that a high level of scientific production took place in more than one discipline in the Islamic world in the post-Ghazali period. How is it that such important scientific materials could have been overlooked by the experts? According to Saliba a major reason for modern historians of science to have missed the large amount of scientific production in Islamic world in the post-Ghazali period is the damage caused by the classical narrative. Most historians simply weren’t looking for it because the classic narrative stipulated that science in Islam was dead after Ghazali. Even though some new discoveries have been made, there are still many scientific works waiting to be studied from that period. As an example of these omissions, Berggren, the author of Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam, says that he used this title for his book as opposed to The History of Mathematics in Medieval Islam simply because “Such a book could not be written yet, for so much material remains unstudied that we do not know enough of the whole story” (Berggren, 1986).

The Content and the Method of the Tahafut

Even though Saliba’s arguments and evidence are quite convincing to doubt or reject the common narrative, I wanted to go straight to the source-the Tahafut-and have a closer look to see if it might be a book that can be held responsible for killing the science or scientific thought in Islamic civilization.

In Tahafut, Ghazali refutes twenty philosophical doctrines. Using a scientific, or in this context philosophical, method, he first explains those philosophical doctrines before criticizing them. His explanations were so comprehensive and so clear that he made them accessible to non-philosophers, and thus, his ideas became generally better known in the Islamic world. Next, he gave arguments to refute those doctrines. In doing so, he used the very same logical and philosophical principles and arguments that philosophers used in the first place to support their claims. Ghazali mainly argues that the philosophers who proposed the doctrines that conflict with religious principles failed to provide valid and rigorous proofs for their propositions. Hence, he attacked their methodologies using their own tools and principles.

An important point Ghazali makes in Tahafut is that he has no problems with the philosophers’ mathematics, astronomical sciences, or logic. He says (Marmura 2000, p. 11):

Regarding mathematical sciences, there is no sense in denying them or disagreeing with them. For these reduce in the final analysis to arithmetic and geometry. As regards to logical sciences, these are concerned with examining the instrument of thought in intelligible things. There is no significant disagreement encountered in these.

Therefore, it is clear that his views could not be used to justify a position against the study of mathematical sciences.

To give the reader a sense of what kinds of philosophical doctrines the Tahafut is concerned with and aims to refute, a selected few out of the twenty are listed below (Marmura 2000, p. 10, 11). The list shows that the questions discussed in Tahafut concern some of the most fundamental issues in theology, particularly in the Islamic theology.

The first problem: On refuting their doctrine of the world’s pre-eternity.

The sixth: On refuting their doctrine denying the divine attributes.

The tenth: On showing that upholding a materialist doctrine and the denial of the Maker is a necessary consequence [of what they hold].

The twentieth: On refuting their denial of bodily resurrection and the accompanying bodily pleasures and pains in paradise and hell.

Concluding Remarks

When I discuss the question given in the title of this article with my colleagues, and I argue that it would be unfair to hold Ghazali or Tahafut responsible for the decline of science in Islam, I sometimes hear the objection that “perhaps the content or the method of Tahafut may not justify this conclusion, but this is not how people understood it.” But then, one must consider the evidence given by Saliba that there is a large amount of sophisticated scientific production in the Islamic world well after Ghazali, and there is still much more to be discovered. Considering the content of Tahafut and the scientific advances in post-Ghazali period, I have a hard time convincing myself that the classical narrative is the ultimate truth on the matter. This position is supported by the fact that it is usually not realistic to try to explain most major social and historical transformations in terms of a single person, a book, an event, or the like. According to Saliba, the decline in Islamic science was the result of a combination of many internal and external reasons that took place several centuries after Ghazali.

Finally, one may wonder why this question is important or relevant. After all, these things happened a long time ago, and we have to deal with the current realities. One answer would be that there are many lessons to be learned from the history. And of course if the correct version of the history is not available, conclusions will be flawed. If anybody is interested in reviving science and scientific activities in a society, there is much that can be learned from the early Islamic period when there was a remarkable rapid and widespread rise in science, as well as lessons from the later periods of Islamic history when the Islamic world fell behind in scientific production. Some researchers are beginning to realize how much damage the classical narrative has caused in understanding the general history and the development of the modern science. It is always useful to have a critical mind to question and reevaluate assumptions when they do not conform to the evidence.

References

• Berggren, J. L. 1986. Episodes in the Mathematics of Medieval Islam, New York: Springer-Verlag.
• Marmura, Michael E. (translator). 2000. Al-Ghazali The Incoherence of the Philosophers (Tahafut al-Falasifah) Provo: Brigham Young University Press.
• Roberts, Victor . 1957. “The Solar and Lunar Theory of Ibn al-Shatir: A pre-Copernican Copernican Model,” Isis 48:428-432.
• Saliba, George. 2007. Islamic Science and Making of the European Renaissance, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Therefore, holy war can be an element of jihad, but is restrained by strict rules. Many modern interpretations of jihad are not congruent with classical jihad and many physical aggressions by Muslims today cannot be classified as the specific kind of holy war that is legitimized by the Qur’an.

The Prophet Muhammad described jihad as the “apex of lofty Islam.” Jihad literally translates to struggle or striving in English and it is derived from the root Arabic word jahada—to strive, strain, or exert oneself to the utmost. Jihad is a very important duty of Islam; some even consider it the sixth pillar of Islamic faith. Jihad encompasses many types of struggles that Muslims are meant to overcome throughout their daily life in different forms. In the Qur’an, jihad is striving in the name of Allah through four stages: jihad against the soul, jihad against Satan, jihad against disbelievers, and jihad against dissemblers. Jihad against the soul is meant to solidify firm belief within a person while jihad against Satan will create tenacity. For jihad against disbelievers, Muslims are meant to strive by pen, tongue, hand, media, and only if inevitable, with arms. Jihad against disbelievers is not purely peaceful and at times, the use of arms is inevitable in this stage, described in the Qur’an as qital, or fighting.

Contrarily, jihad against dissemblers is by the tongue, through educated arguments and persuasion. Therefore jihad is much more than physical aggression, and far greater emphasis is placed on striving by all other means before war. The most important struggles for Muslims will come from inside themselves, which will be a lifelong jihad of following Allah and living by his way. Jihad should then be described as the striving journey of Muslims to become aware and learn the injunctions of Islam, teach them to others, and make constant practice of them in their life while encouraging others to do the same. It is also the act of calling others to Islam and dealing with any obstacles that may arise from fulfilling this journey. This journey will encompass many obstacles that do not relate to physical violence and emphasize the importance of striving by other means throughout one’s life. Jihad with the tongue is viewed as very important because Muslims are meant to be peaceful in their struggle if possible and it is important to be expressive verbally rather than resorting to violence immediately. However, when words are not sufficient and qital, physical fighting, is necessary within jihad, there are strict guidelines that must be followed in the aggression. Not every war fought by Muslims can be defined as jihad; not every jihad can be generalized as holy war. In order for physical jihad to be legitimate, the opposing side receiving the aggression must be in a state of war against Islam, or a large group of Muslims, or non-Muslims who have had their personal freedoms and civil rights violated. A classical interpretation of jihad from the Qur’an clearly outlines that any physical jihad must be conventional warfare, with ambush fighting and the killing of civilians prohibited. There have been many examples of physical jihad in history that were legitimate in the eyes of the Qur’an, and exemplify the rules that limit aggression, as well as the circumstances necessary for a holy war to be considered jihad.

In Islamic history there are many instances when jihad was a holy war. This can partially be explained by the era. Arabia was engulfed in constant warfare throughout the Prophet Muhammad’s time, and for the centuries of empire rule that followed. Muslim tribes were often provoked by aggression and forced into numerous defensive jihads with their surrounding neighbors. The original physical jihad originated from Muhammad’s migration from Mecca to the city of Yathrib, modern day Medina, in 622. The Prophet and his Muslim followers were met with violent pilfering by the Meccans and Muhammad delivered verses from the Qur’an authorizing the Muslims to fight against the Meccans. The Muslim war with the Meccans began Muhammad’s career as military commander, a title that he had to carry in the remaining years of his life. This jihad follows the rules outlined by the Qur’an because it was in defense of Muslim land that was being physically threatened; it also follows the rules of jihad by keeping the warfare traditional and targeting only those directly involved in the aggression. Muhammad had decided physical jihad was necessary and fought in the name of Islam. But upon returning from battle he said, “We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad,” underlining the importance of a believer’s internal struggle against his or her carnal self. While the time demanded physical jihad from the Muslims for their very survival, the significance was placed on the other forms of jihad, most importantly those within the hearts of each Muslim. In addition to Prophet Muhammad’s own view of physical jihad, Muslim scholar Said Nursi supported physical jihad in response to physical aggression but also believed in continuing jihad through the written and spoken word. When he was required to fight, his jihad was with his pen. Nursi highlighted the shift between pre-modern civilization and modern civilization and believes jihad should follow this shift. Pre-modern civilization was plagued by violence and conquests from Islam’s neighbors and required defensive war in response. Modern civilization has seen the rise in science and reason, secularism and materialism, and therefore the most appropriate jihad is one that persuades hearts and minds. Muslims are called to fight a cultural and economic war through ideas and thoughts, not arms.

The battles fought by Muhammad and Nursi are historical examples of jihad as holy war used to protect Islam and guarantee its growth within the world. There is a physical aspect in battle, but the focus on Islamic law as derived from the Qur’an is never ignored in jihad. Jihad includes, but is not encompassed by, legitimate, defensive warfare against aggressive enemies, which contrasts with the modern usage of jihad among a minority of Muslim laymen and mainstream society. Most conflicts engaged in by some Muslims today are a crime under Islamic law, and jihad is defined solely as war, with its other aspects ignored. Today in Muslim-majority countries, and in non-Muslim media and discussion around the world, jihad means war. The usage in Muslim countries can be interpreted as rationalization, that all wars their governments involve themselves in are just, similar to the justification most countries do that any war they are involved in is just.

Though it is debatable whether a war is just and follows Islamic law, the more troubling factor is the shift of the entire meaning of the word jihad. Jihad has evolved from meaning struggle, usually internal, sometimes external by the written or spoken word, to simply being a synonym for war. This semantic evolution has perpetuated misunderstandings of Islam as a violent religion, with war and physical aggression central to its tenets. Jihad has evolved from struggle in classical Islam, with the occasional legitimate war, to representing necessary, continuous physical aggression within modern Islam. This linguistic shift has created a grave misunderstanding of jihad around the world, and its sole definition as holy war in popular culture.

Jihad has come to hold a new meaning with the general population because of the differing interpretations of jihad by classical and modern Muslim scholars. Without background knowledge of jihad’s origins in the Qur’an, most people would believe that jihad is a holy war without rules or guidelines, based on modern scholars and media portrayal. Most laymen are not aware that classical jihad explicitly prohibits aggression towards civilians, and must be limited to conventional war tactics. This misconception of jihad is a result of the rise in world terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims who claim their actions as jihad in the name of Allah and the Qur’an. The misinterpretation of jihad by a small group of Muslims has spread around the world because of globalization and effective media coverage. This misinterpretation has resulted in the current perception. Some modern Muslim scholars and popular figures within Islam who have catalyzed this new definition, refer to jihad as, “war against oppressors, particularly those who oppress Muslims.” Osama bin Laden said in many of his speeches that Americans resemble the medieval Crusaders, with the desire to subjugate the Muslim world in a colonial war. Therefore, bin Laden believed that Muslims are currently fighting a defensive jihad against the West in response to their actions. The West as an enemy is described as similar to the Christian knights of the Crusades who also attacked Muslim civilization. Egyptian Islamist Adb al Salam Faraj called for a new jihad against the subjugation of the Muslim world, and Osama bin Laden has expanded on the ideas of a new jihad to legitimize terrorist attacks against the West that result in the death of civilians. In addition to Faraj, the Muslim scholar Maududi’s thesis on the change in Muslim society has also been viewed as spawning the modern interpretation of jihad. Maududi believed that because not all Muslim societies were ruling based on Sharia law, there was a decline in the society as a whole, and the only viable response was to wage a jihad against this dark age. In order to confront the decline of Muslim society and loss of Muslim lands, Sharia law and the doctrine of jihad had to be reinterpreted and applied both internally within Muslim societies as well as externally to the West for its role in seeking Muslim land and fighting against Muslim civilization. Muslim countries have witnessed an internal “jihad” through the removal of leaders classified as un-Islamic based on an unwillingness to impose Sharia law within their nations. This internal “jihad” has taken place historically with the Iranian Revolution’s removal of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat, and the overthrow of Sudanese President Jaafar Nimeiry. External “jihad” against foreign occupiers of Muslim lands has taken place many times throughout history, recently in the Afghan fight for independence against Soviet occupation and Palestinian and Lebanese liberation movements against Israeli-occupied territories. Modern “jihad” has become a war with the goals of reshaping Islamic society by ridding it of Western influence and presence, economically and politically.

What has been described as jihad, and then reported by worldwide media, is far removed from classical jihad described in the Qur’an. Terrorist attacks that aim at killing large numbers of civilians, including women and children, are unilaterally condemned under Sharia law. Their fights do not comply with the rules outlining when physical jihad can take place and how it may be fought. It is not wrong for people to believe jihad can be violent, but it is wrong to only hold this belief without an understanding of the other aspects of jihad. Some modern Muslims have provided this misinterpretation and perpetuated the fear that Islam as a violent religion able to wage wars at any time, on any grounds.

Jihad is popularly misunderstood in today’s world as a synonym for holy war. This misunderstanding has been prevalent for decades but has become more widespread because of a handful of terrorist attacks being labeled as jihad against America and Europe by radical Islamists. By examining jihad, as defined by the Qur’an, and analyzing historical accounts of jihad, it becomes clear that jihad can involve physical violence if all the rules outlined by the Qur’an are followed, including only the use of conventional warfare and killing of combatants. The modern interpretation of jihad does not consider the context of the Qur’an or classical Islamic law, and it ignores the other aspects of jihad. Jihad is the internal struggle Muslims face to fight off evil, the striving effort to become a better person, a more pious follower of Islam. Jihad focuses primarily on internal struggles, with external struggles such as warfare being secondary, and only if physical force is necessary and legitimate. It is very unfortunate that the true meaning of jihad has become lost in today’s society. Jihad is one of most admirable and good-natured duties within Islam, from which many could learn from to better themselves and their lives.

References

• Ali, Afroz. Overcoming Misunderstandings: Understanding Jihad http://alghazzali.org/resources/articles/jihad.pdf, accessed 20 May 2010.
• Bonner, Michael. Jihad in Islamic History, Princeton, 2006, p. 39.
• Bonney, Richard. Jihad: From Qur’an to Bin Laden, New York, 2005, p. 27.
• Chittick, William and Murata, Sachiko. The Vision of Islam, St. Paul, 1994, p. 21.
• Esposito, John L. “VIOLENCE AND TERRORISM.” In What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam. Oxford Islamic Studies Online, http://www.oxfordislamicstudies.com.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/article/book/islam-9780195157130/islam-9780195157130-chapter-5 accessed 25 May 2010.
• Gerges, Fawaz. The Far Enemy, New York, 2009, p. 43.
• Greenberg, Karen. Al Qaeda Now, New York, 2005, p. 213.
• Kelsay, John. Arguing the Just War in Islam, Boston, 2007, p. 41.
• Muhammad, Noor. “The Doctrine of Jihad: An Introduction,” Journal of Law and Religion, vol. 3, no.2, 1985, p. 395
• Napoleoni, Loretta. “Modern Jihad: The Islamist Crusade,” SAIS Review, vol. 23, no. 2, 2003, p. 53.
• Tibi, Bassam. Political Islam, World Politics, and Europe. New York, 2008, pp. 41-42.
• Vahide, Sukran. Jihad in the Modern Age: Bediuzzaman Said Nursi’s Interpretation of Jihad, at http://www.nur.org/en/nurcenter/nurlibrary/Bediuzzaman_Said_Nursi_s_Interpretation_of_Jihad_168, accessed 22 May 2010.

There are seven chapters in the book. The first chapter summarizes the basic tenets of the classical narrative, then criticizes it listing many questions which the classical narrative cannot satisfactorily answer. Islamic civilization’s contribution to the development of modern science is so immense that it is impossible to completely ignore this part of the history in any serious discussion of the general history of science or civilization. The problem arises in assessing the importance and the nature of Islamic science. Generally accepted views of the classical narrative go something along these lines: Islamic civilization was a desert civilization and began to develop scientific thought only when it came in contact with more advanced civilizations (Persian, Indian and Greek and most importantly Greek). A vital component of the rise of science in Islamic civilization was the remarkable translation movement that took place during the early period of Abbasid times (750–900 CE), in which many important scientific books of other civilizations, particularly those of ancient Greeks, were translated into Arabic. The classical narrative says by learning Greek science through this translation activity, Islamic science reached its golden age while Greek science was neglected under Byzantine rule. Adherents of the classical narrative generally assume that Islamic civilization did not go much beyond translation, did not make original contributions to scientific knowledge or produced any new science of its own. They also assume this period of the golden age did not last long and came to an end with Ghazali’s “attack” on philosophers in his major work Tahafut al-Falasifa (The Incoherence of Philosophers). They assume that Islamic science began to decline with Ghazali while there was an awaking in Europe, sometimes called the Renaissance of the twelfth century, when Europeans began to translate major Arabic philosophical and scientific texts into Latin. Some of these texts had already been translated from much earlier Greek and Sanskrit texts into Arabic. So, they reconnected with their Greco-Roman legacy. The classical narrative says from that point on Europe had no need for Islamic science, hence the role of Islamic civilization was to simply translate and preserve the ancient Greek science and make it available to Europeans later. Thus, according to this view all the roots of modern science were European. The classical theory also attempts to explain the process by which the acquisition of Greek science by the Muslim world occurred. There are a few versions of this proposal which are called “contact theory,” “pocket transmission theory,” and “translation through Syriac medium first.”

In this first chapter of the book, Saliba argues that the classical narrative is an oversimplification of what actually happened in reality and fails to answer many fundamental questions. The first problem is about origins. He argues none of the proposed methods of translation is convincing to explain the reasons why, how, and when Muslims acquired Greek science. In terms of the nature and quality of translations, Saliba gives examples of sophistication and maturity exhibited by the Muslim scientists that is well beyond what would be expected from an early generation of translators who are struggling to understand a foreign science. Moreover, already in the early period of the translation movement Muslim scientists produced original new science such as algebra by al-Khwarizmi (830 CE), remarkable advances by Habash a-Hasib (850 CE) in the field of trigonometry and mathematical projections that go far beyond what was known from Indian and Greek sources, and developed decimal fractions. He argues such advances could not happen suddenly. There must be a longer tradition of scientific activity in the Islamic world and real motivations for the rise of science which cannot be explained by the classical narrative.

Not only does the classical narrative fail to explain beginnings but also more recent developments as well. Saliba gives many examples from various scientific disciplines to show that the Islamic science did not decline after Ghazali. Astronomy is a perfect counterexample to this thesis of the classical narrative, and it is not the only one. In fact, there were so many advances in astronomy in the Islamic world after Ghazali that Saliba calls the post-Ghazali period as the golden age of Islamic astronomy. Recent research in the second half of the twentieth century shows that astronomy has particularly interesting connections to the European Renaissance. Saliba comments that post-Ghazali works by the Muslim scientists were not sufficiently considered by the adherents of the classical narrative because of their pre-supposition that no significant science of any interest could have been produced in this period. This caused unfortunate damage in terms of understanding the post-Ghazali period in the Islamic world as well as the European Renaissance itself.

In the second chapter, Saliba proposes an alternative thesis/narrative to the classical narrative in terms of the beginnings of the rise of scientific activities in the Islamic world. His thesis is based on the writings of Al-Nadim (full name Abu al-Faraj Muhammad b. Abi Ya’qub Ishaq al-Nadim) who wrote about intellectual history of the early Islamic period. Saliba also supports his thesis with well known historical facts. In summary, the alternative narrative proposes that there was already a significant amount of interest and activity in the nascent Islamic civilization before the translation movement began. Rather than learning science from others (Greeks) just because they came into contact with them, the Islamic world actively sought those sciences because of a keen interest to advance their own scientific knowledge. Unlike the classical narrative, the alternative thesis argues that Muslim scientists already had a high level of knowledge and maturity when the translation activities began. This is evidenced by the high quality of translations of highly technical materials, and corrections of errors in the original sources. The main societal factors for the rise of science in the new civilization are listed as a) the need for people (bureaucrats) with a high level of scientific knowledge in administrations, and b) competition between those people to acquire higher levels of scientific knowledge to be able to advance in the ranks of governments.

In the next chapter, Saliba gives detailed examples, mostly from astronomy, to show how critically Muslim scientists received and reacted to the Greek science. They noticed observational errors and internal inconsistencies in Greek texts. They also pointed out more philosophical and foundational errors and contradictions. Muslim scientists showed a high level of sophistication, maturity and critical spirit. They had a comprehensive look at the Greek texts they translated and studied them in relation to one another. Saliba argues that it is not possible to explain these phenomena with the classical narrative. Moreover, Muslim scholars went beyond just criticizing these errors and made many novel contributions to exact sciences. In the process, they realized the proper place of mathematics in the natural sciences. Saliba also comments that Muslim scientists continued to make original contributions to astronomy and other mathematical sciences long after Ghazali, when the classical narrative would preach the death of Islamic science.

In chapter four, Saliba gives examples of critical innovations by Muslim astronomers. He remarks that the interest of the Islamic society in astronomy was very strong due to many religious requirements that need to be answered by astronomy, such as visibility of the moon, daily prayer times, and qibla (direction of worship) etc. Such problems were not considered by Greeks before. Muslim astronomers could not ignore absurdities in Ptolemaic astronomy where mathematical models in Almagest violated the fundamental cosmological assumptions in Planetary Hypotheses. Although Ptolemy’s mathematical models usually made good predictions computationally, it was not satisfactory for the scientists in the new civilization to allow those models to violate the physical properties of the celestial bodies. They took it upon themselves to propose alternative mathematical models that satisfied both requirements. They were highly successful in that quest. The solution of this problem required some new mathematical theorems. Two of the most important of such theorems were Urdi’s Lemma and Tusi couple invented by Urdi and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi in the thirteenth century. Both of these were fecund and fundamental theorems that were used repeatedly by many astronomers who followed them for a long time. Renaissance astronomer Copernicus was among those who made use of these theorems. Also noted in this chapter is Shams al-Din al-Khafri’s understanding of the role of mathematics in describing the physical phenomena.

The title of chapter five is “Science between Philosophy and Religion: the Case of Astronomy,” wherein Saliba considers the relationship between the religion of Islam and scientific developments in astronomy. He explains that religious motivations led to the creation of new disciplines such as ilm al-hay’a (science of configuration) and advances in trigonometry. He states that astronomy and trigonometry are the best examples which demonstrate the intersecting interest between the practice of a religion and scientific thinking that need to be developed as a result of that practice. Many important scientists in medieval Islam were at the same time religious authorities. A few examples among such scholars are Ibn al-Nafis, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi and Ibn al-Shatir. Saliba also notes that the European paradigm of conflict between science and religion does not exist in the Islamic world.

“Islamic Science and Renaissance Europe: The Copernican Connections” is the title of chapter six. Researchers in the second half of twentieth century first realized that many of the astronomical models of Copernicus were identical to that of Ibn al-Shatir from three centuries earlier. This surprising discovery, which contradicted the view that Renaissance science was a European self-contained creation, opened the door for further investigations which revealed more surprising outcomes. The mathematical theorem called the Tusi couple that is mentioned above plays an important role in Copernicus’s model. Copernicus stated the theorem and proved it in 1543 without mentioning that he invented a new theorem or saw it in any other source. The theorem was first invented and proved by Tusi in the middle of the thirteenth century. By comparing the two proofs, W. Hartner noticed in 1973 that Copernicus’s proof was identical to Tusi’s. He even used the same letters for essential geometric points. That is where Tusi used the Arabic letters “alif,” “ba” etc. Copernicus used the corresponding Latin letters “A,” “B” etc. This discovery makes it pretty certain that Copernicus knew about Tusi’s work.

Saliba shows Copernicus’s case is not an isolated instance and gives more evidence in this chapter of the phenomenon that “there are much too many coincidences of ideas appearing first in Arabic texts usually written between the 12th and 15th centuries, which reappear, without much explanation, in Latin sources of the 16th and 17th centuries.” Saliba’s explanation of this phenomenon is that by the Renaissance time men of science themselves learned Arabic and no longer needed translations. There are many examples that show European reliance on Arabic sciences in the post-Copernicus period when the whole worldview was supposed to have been changed by him. Renaissance men of science had a high regard for the Islamic sciences and were looking to the Islamic world for the latest in scientific activities rather than the classical Greek sources.

In the last chapter Saliba discusses the age of decline in Islamic science. He starts by rejecting the two main reasons proposed by the advocates of the classical narrative and argues that it did not start after Ghazali (eleventh century) or the destruction of Baghdad by Mongols in 1258. Saliba says that those who believe the first reason look at the Islamic civilization as a source of religious thought only and operate under the assumption that the European paradigm of conflict between religion and science applies to Islamic world as well. Saliba argues that this assumption is not true for the Islamic world and that scientific activities did not decline after Ghazali. Those who think the main reason was the destruction of Baghdad by Mongols saw the Islamic civilization mostly in political terms and paid little attention to its intellectual history. Saliba gives many examples of high quality and sophisticated scientific production in the Islamic world, mostly in astronomy but in other areas as well, well after both of these events. He says those examples were ignored or not properly read by the adherents of the classical view who did not expect to find any important scientific production in the Islamic world after the thirteenth century.

There still remains the problem and timing of decline of science in the Islamic world. When did it happen? Saliba notes that decline is a relative concept. What actually happened was the European science advanced more rapidly than the rest of the world after the sixteenth century. Hence it looked like science declined elsewhere, including the Islamic world. According to Saliba the main reason for these rapid developments in science in Europe was related to the discovery of the “new world.” He argues that the wealth and resources obtained by Europeans as a result of discovery of new lands helped them fund scientific activities. Europe witnessed the rise of royal and scientific academies where most educated men of the time were assembled and engaged in scientific research without having to worry about financial needs. Healthy competition among these institutions led to new scientific discoveries. Western superiority in science continues to this day and the constant brain drain that feeds the West at the expense of the developing and third worlds does not help to change the balance.

In summary, this book presents fundamental challenges to many of the commonly held views about the intellectual and scientific history of the Islamic world and proposes alternative explanations. The science of astronomy is used as a template to test and justify these claims. The author invites researchers to subject his proposals to the test of historical data in other disciplines as well. This book is highly recommended to all interested in the general history of science, and that of the Islamic world and the Renaissance period in particular.

Nuh Aydin is an associate professor of Mathematics at Kenyon College, Ohio, USA.

How about quantum computers? Quantum computers make use of a quantum mechanical phenomenon, so-called quantum superposition (being in different states simultaneously). Classically, voltage across a circuit element can be either positive or negative when measured by a voltmeter, but not simultaneously negative and positive. Could it somehow be possible to be in both states simultaneously?

Quantum superposition

For electrical circuits, the answer is obviously no. In microscopic scales of single atoms, or photons (i.e., single quantized packets that constitutes the light beam), however, the answer is yes. Consider an optical component, for instance, that splits an incoming light beam into two beams of equal intensity. In optics, such a device is called a 50/50-beam splitter. You can ask what happens when a single photon is sent to such a beam splitter. Since a single photon cannot be split in this simple experiment, you might expect that it would either be transmitted or reflected with equal probability . Experiments, however, show that this is not actually true in the single photon level. The single photon is indeed simultaneously reflected and transmitted.

Once microscopic quantum superposition is brought into our macroscopic world, we can imagine many interesting phenomena. Simultaneously occupying many different places and being dead and alive at the same time are only two of them. Of course such technology, especially applied to humans is highly science fiction, given current experimental and theoretical challenges. Nevertheless, quantum superposition has a strikingly interesting similarity with the spiritual states already achievable by saints, such that they can be available in more than one place at a given time or become dead and alive, in the sense that they live both in the future and in the past.

It is not known exactly why quantum superposition exists, but what we know is that it is a necessary ingredient for our complex universe to perform its vital functions in a finite amount of time. Quantum superposition principle reflects the great wisdom and power of the Omnipotent. Similar to the single photon example above, with this principle, God gives the underlying particles of the universe an immense power to achieve many tasks simultaneously. Otherwise, regarding the finite age of the universe (about 15 billion years), our physical universe and the events taking place all around us would not come into existence. The Quantum superposition principle has also inspired researchers to build unprecedentedly fast computers to solve the problems that are intractable with any classical computing method. In this article, we introduce this new strategy to computing.

Quantum computing with superposition

Having provided some background about the quantum superposition, we ask the question “How could we exploit quantum superposition for fast computing?” Below we will give a glimpse of that power. Consider a three-bit register. It can only store one out of eight numbers in the set, {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7}, in a given moment of time. For example, number 5 is stored in a three-bit register as “101.” Now suppose that these three bits are replaced by their quantum cousins, so-called qubits (short for quantum bit). You can imagine, for example, a quantum register consisting of three rubidium (Rb) atoms. These individual atoms can be prepared in the 0 and 1 logical states simultaneously by shining a laser beam for a certain amount of time. Then it is possible for three atoms combined to be prepared in a superposition of eight numbers, which is impossible classically. In other words all those eight guys physically exist in the same room, although it doesn’t allow more than one guy to fit classically. If we want to make operations on all of these numbers, we don’t need to perform serially; instead, we can achieve that in only one computational step on a single hardware. Thus, quantum superposition leads to a massive parallelism, which renders the computational complexity (i.e., a measure of how efficiently a given problem could be solved) highly reduced for various difficult problems in computer science.

For example, let’s consider RSA, a well-known algorithm (i.e., a set of instructions to solve a problem on a computer) for secure communication that was invented by Rivest, Shamir, and Adelman, hence the name, in 1977 at MIT. It is widely used in electronic commerce protocols. The details of RSA are out of scope in this article (See the FAQ section of the RSA Laboratories’ web site in Ref. [1] for a brief introduction to RSA). Here, we only want to mention its vulnerability to quantum computers if they were to exist. The security of the RSA cryptosystem relies on the difficulty of factoring large numbers, which is intractable with classical computers. Factorization for small numbers, say 15, is quite simple. When the number of digits increase up to a few 100s, for example, enormous computational resource is required. RSA Laboratories publish the RSA challenge numbers (see Ref. [2] for the list of challenge numbers and the prize) on their web site to test the security of their algorithm at various key lengths. The largest integer, RSA-640, which has 193 decimal digits (640 bits), was factorized recently by F. Bahr, et al. The next challenge number in turn is RSA-704, and the prize is $30,000. Imagine factorizing a 1000-digit number. You would probably be a considerably rich person in just a few minutes, if you had a moderate quantum computer and the RSA Laboratories kept feeding you with new challenge numbers, because the factorization of such a large number with current computational resources takes forever, perhaps even more than the estimated age of the universe. Of course, the RSA Laboratories will not let you be very rich, by simply quitting posting new challenge numbers. They would be interested in your quantum computer, though.

How does the quantum computer crack the world’s most secure cryptosystems with little effort? One can construct new algorithms for quantum computers based on above described principle of superposition. These algorithms can take the outcome of previous calculations and input them as a superposition to the next stage of the instructions, which results in a highly efficient form of computing (please consult Ref [3] to have for a simple explanation of quantum superposition for fast computation). In 1994, Peter Shor from AT&T’s Bell Labs in New Jersey just did that. He developed the world’s first quantum algorithm, which efficiently performs factorization. In 1996, Lov Grover also at Bell Labs invented the unstructured database (i.e., a disordered list such as a list of city names not in alphabetical order) search algorithm for quantum computers, so-called Grover’s algorithm.

Suppose that there is a basket with ten balls in it. You are now asked to find a specific one with your eyes closed, say red. It is known, however, beforehand that there is only one red ball in the basket. All you, or your smart digital friend, can do is just pick one randomly and see if it is red. If you are lucky enough, the first ball you pick might be red. In the worst case, however, you will be successful at your last choice. So, classically you have to repeat the process on average at half times the number of balls. If you made a quantum friend rather than classical, however, your life would be smoother. You would be able to find and manage your stuff easily, no matter how messy you are. Quantum computers speed up such unsorted database searches quadratically. You can find, say your favorite socks, in a number of trials that is about the square root of the total number of your stuff. You may think that you don’t have that much stuff. But consider identifying a specific element in a considerably large pool of unsorted data. As the number of elements in the set increases, it quickly becomes intractable to find what exactly you are looking for. In that case the significance of quadratic boost cannot be denied.

Motivated by the above mentioned factorization and unsorted database search algorithms, the power of quantum computing has inspired great attention, since their invention, among many disciplines including physicists, computer scientists, mathematicians, engineers, and material scientists.

Quantum computer today

Despite promising developments in theory, progress in the physical realization of quantum circuits, algorithms, and communication systems have been extremely challenging to date. There are many approaches for quantum information processing. Major model physical systems include nuclear spins, ions, neutral atoms, solid state nanostructures, superconductors, and optical circuits. In optics, for example, the qubit can be represented by the polarization (i.e., direction of oscillation of electric field) state of a single photon. So that the instructions described by the algorithm could be implemented by manipulating the polarization states of single photons. Unfortunately, all the models for quantum computing have their own drawbacks besides their advantages.

Given the trends, nobody knows whether or not a sufficiently scalable (i.e., large enough to harvest its potential power) quantum computer would be available in the decades to come. Nonetheless, D-Wave Systems, Inc., The Quantum Computing Company, was eager enough to unveil the “world’s first commercially viable quantum computer” (see Figure 1, and Ref [4] for the story.). D-Waves’ 16-qubit quantum computer makes use of superconducting element niobium, which operates at an extremely low temperature. It can search for molecular structures that match a target molecule, create a complicated seating plan, and fill in Sudoku puzzles. Although the device is very slow compared to an inexpensive PC, D-Wave intends to develop a 1000-qubit quantum computer.* The goal is to scale the quantum computer to about 10 thousand qubits to solve the most challenging problems outright, which are simply intractable with classical computers. The researchers, however, are not very optimistic. Prof. Lloyd of Massachusetts of Institute of Technology, a pioneering scientist in superconducting approach for quantum computing that underlies the D-Wave’s quantum computer, says “It’s too good to be true.”

Once quantum computers of reasonable power are built, the world will be unimaginably exciting and perhaps scary too. When the first commercial computer, Universal Atomic Computer I (UNIVAC I) (see Figure 2), was shipped to the United States Air Force in 1952, nobody was indeed aware of what this fat guy would lead to in our social, economical, political, and psychological life. Its descendants, however, are now inevitable parts of our lives. They are helping us in many aspects of daily life. Controlling machines, sending electronic mail, scheduling our plane tickets, communicating with our best friends, playing games, making our payments are only some of them.

In this article we only sketched the quantum superposition principle as an important ingredient for quantum computation. This is certainly not the whole story. “Entanglement” [6], for example, is another complementary resource for quantum computing and communications, as well as quantum mechanics to test its foundations.

Contrary to its classical counterparts, the power of quantum computers indeed comes directly from our granted capability of tailoring and mimicking the amazing design hidden in the microscopic world of atoms, photons or other quantum particles. Quantum computers sooner or later will bring the most science-fiction into reality. They will play a significant role especially in the development of ultra-intelligent machines and robots superior to classical ones, and communication systems whose ultimate security is guarantied by the nature’s architecture which was lay down by God. Quantum computers will reveal to us the deepest secrets of our Creator embedded in our universe, which cannot be explored using conventional computers. That day, the future will only be lacked by our limited imagination.

Acknowledgment

This article was produced in MERGEOUS [7], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realm of science and religion.

Omer D. Ikramoglu is a freelance writer in optics and quantum physics.

References

1. RSA Laboratories, http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/

2. RSA Challenge Numbers, http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2093

3. A short introduction to quantum computation by A. Barenco, A.Ekert, A. Sanpera and C.Machiavello from La Recherche, November 1996. http://cam.qubit.org/articles/intros/comp.php

4. J. R. Minkel, “First “Commercial” Quantum Computer Solves Sudoku Puzzles”, Scientific American, Feb 13 (2007).

5. UNIVAC I, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIVAC_I

6. S. Candaroglu, “Quantum Entanglement: Illusion or Reality?” Fountain, Issue 61 (January-February 2008).

7. http://www.mergeous.com/

* At the time of writing D-Wave Systems had only 16-qubit quantum chip and they were intending to develop a 1000-qubit quantum computer by the end of 2008. Although they couldn’t meet their goal, they now have a design of a 128-qubit most powerful ever quantum chip which awaits the tests (see http://www.dwavesys.com for up to date information).

Cryptography mainly aims to save information and to transfer messages to recipients safely. Cryptography can change a message into a complicated form by applying several different methods. Encoded information can be resolved only when the receiver applies specific methods to it. Not only does computer cryptography render communication secure but it also gives users secure access to servers.

Nowadays, cryptography is becoming more and more significant, especially now people transfer their personal, commercial, military or political information to each other on internet. It is easy for someone to get personal information through online shopping sites which are very common today. Therefore, credit card information entered into the website is converted into unintelligible characters through an encryption method so that the credit card number can be transmitted to the server securely. Then, the server can easily retrieve the original form of the credit card number using decryption.

The encryption algorithm includes essential elements known as the “key.” Protection of the key is always vital for information security.

History of Cryptography

To find the first examples of cryptography one needs to go back more than 4,000 years in history. For instance, in 2000 BCE the ancient Egyptians used hieroglyphs on the gravestones of their kings to describe their achievements when they were alive. Eventually, the system of hieroglyphs grew too complex to understand. Then people began to use it for encoding. Similarly, Chinese people used ideography, which conveys ideas through symbols, to hide the meaning of words.

There are also encoding examples from ancient Mesopotamia that have similar aspects to those used in Egypt. The Roman emperor Julius Caesar used a type of encryption technique called the “Caesar cipher” in which each letter in the plain text is replaced by a letter some fixed number of positions down the alphabet. In the Middle Ages cryptography received a lot of attention from many nations, especially in Europe. In recent years, many different methods have been developed in this field. Therefore, the classical methods are not as useful as they were in the past, especially since the 1970s. Today, more complex mathematical methods have replaced the classical methods of cryptography.

The Arabs were the first to make successful studies of how to decode encrypted messages. Ahmad al-Qalqashandi of Egypt (1355–1418) developed an encryption method which is still used today. This technique is based on a theory of language stability which explores the distribution and frequency of the words in a text. With this method, the frequency of the characters within the encrypted text is compared to the frequency standards in the language; in this way, it is determined what an encoded letter really stands for.

This method is used successfully in decoding messages encrypted by the mono-alphabetic method, which is based on sliding or replacement of a letter by another one.

In 1931, the French obtained documents from a German spy which showed the functions of a code named “Enigma” that was going to be used in World War II by the Germans. British mathematicians were then able to decipher the code during the war. Thus, the commands of Hitler could be learned immediately by the Allied Powers. The Allied countries won the war because of their access to the decryption technique. Likewise, the American army gained victory over the Japanese in the Pacific War in the 1940s because American decryption experts, along with their British and Dutch colleagues, were able to decode the system called JN-25 which was being used by the Japanese army.

Technological developments in computer science have enabled us to decode even previously unbreakable ciphers. For instance, an encrypted message which was created in 1977 and which, it was thought could be decoded only 40 quadrillion years later with the help of an algorithm that analyses the known large numbers into their factors, was actually decoded seventeen years later in 1994.

Classical and modern cryptography

Cryptographic methods are divided into two categories: classical and modern. In the classical method, encoding can be done by consistent replacement of a letter by another letter in the same alphabet. For example, if we replace each letter in the word FOUNTAIN by the third following letter it changes into IRXQWDLQ. It can also be done by replacement of a word with another one or replacement of a character by another character. Of course, the recipient of the message must be the only person who knows the decryption method. In that way, for example, the unintelligible word above can easily be changed back to its original form by replacing each word by the letter three places before it in the alphabet. Such encrypted messages can only be decoded by linguistic analyses or after numerous trials. The classical method was invented hundred of years ago, and it has been used since then. Although this method is so simple that it can even be used manually, computers are the only devices which can have maximum security as well as very long keys and complex algorithms for the modern technique.

The “Spartan cylinder” is another device used in the classical method. A message is written on a piece of paper rolled around a cylinder with a known diameter. The encrypted message is then detached from the cylinder and sent. The only way to decipher the message is to have a cylinder of the same diameter. If the unrolled paper is re-rolled around a decoding cylinder properly, then the original message is obtained. This method is known to have been used by the Spartans around 600 BCE.

One modern method is called Public-Key Cryptography. In this form of cryptography, the key used to encrypt a message differs from the key used to decrypt it. The public key may be widely distributed while the private key is kept secret. Thus, incoming messages are encrypted with the recipient’s public key; yet, they cannot be decrypted except with the recipient’s private key. Hence, the possessor of the private key is the only one who can decrypt the message and read it.

Conversely, in secret-key cryptography, a single secret key is used for both encryption and decryption. One disadvantage of secret-key cryptography is the distribution of the private key since it is always at risk of being acquired by third parties.

If we look at the universe, we can observe similar cryptographic methods in every creation process. For instance, living cells produce protein by deciphering nucleic acids (DNA, RNA), which include encoded genetic information in ribosomes.

The structure of encoded DNA and encryption in protein synthesis

There is divine wisdom in the encoding of DNA and the transference of these codes to ribosomes in the protein-making process. If we compare DNA molecules, which contain the genetic instructions inside living organisms, to a book, the letters in this book can be symbolized by A, T, and G and C. These symbols represent four molecules which are used in the encoding of the genetic program that shapes the basic form of all living organisms. Each human genome is identified with different sums of those letters. For instance, while the sum of genomic letters is approximately 3 billion in mice and human organisms; it is about 4–5 million in a bacteria. Furthermore, when the genome sequences of two humans are compared, the combination difference between the two appears to be only one percent; nevertheless, no human being is exactly like another in appearance.

There are some interesting distinctions between humans and animals in terms of their genome numbers. The various encoding techniques used in DNA are a basic biological mechanism which can also be considered the mystery behind the genetic diversity in the creation of living organisms. If we compare the genome to a program booklet, we can consider the booklet to be a tiny model of the “Manifest Record” (Imam al-Mubin) mentioned in the Qur’an, in which the future lives of all things and beings, including all the principles governing those lives, and all their deeds and the reasons or causes are kept pre-recorded in this world. The instructions and mechanism used in this encoding program are identical in most living beings. This uniformity shows that they are all created by one Almighty being.

Scientists also observe another kind of encoding which helps transmission of the right message to ribosomes during the protein-making process. The main idea is that unlike the base-pairing of DNA, in messenger RNA (mRNA) the complementary base to adenine is not thymine, as it is in DNA, but rather Uracil, and also that every three nucleotides (a codon) carry information of one amino acid. For example, while codons in DNA appear as “AAT, GCC, GAT, GTA,” they appear as “UUA, CGG, CUA, CAU” in mRNA. Here the main goal is not to keep the information safe against the third parties as in normal encryption, but rather to transmit the message properly and preserve the diversity of living beings.

Developments in the area of cryptography do not only provide confidentiality of information, but they also shed light on our understanding of God’s wonderful creation in the world of living creatures. All these extensive and essential practices, including the encoding of the information by the four letters of DNA, proper transmission of this encoded information to the cells, and the necessary synthesis in the cell, prove that the All-Knowing and Omnipotent God has great wisdom in all His actions in the Universe.

References

• Protein Synthesis, http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookPROTSYn.html.
• Selim Aydın, “Gen Haritası Neler Söylüyor?”, Sızıntı, June 2001, no. 269.
• Quantum Cryptography: Privacy Through Uncertainty, October 2002 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/crypt/overview.php 1.5.2006.
• Larry Petterson, Bruce S. Davie, Computer Networks: A System Approach, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2000, 568–615.

The quantum description of the universe is very different than the classically observed one, or our perceptions in everyday life. This new way of looking at nature has many consequences, both philosophically and practically. The modern technological development of the second half of the last century may be a very good example of the consequences of the discovery of the quantum world. Now we have a bunch of gadgets from cellular phones to long-lasting batteries, from engineered drugs to space missions, from pocket size computers to nanotechnology, a wide range of end-products of the quantum world. Certainly, these will not be the only changes in our life; quantum sciences will eventually affect the way we look at life.

One of the most dramatic potential changes in thought may arise from the discovery of the quantum entanglement of particles. Quantum entanglement can be described as non-classical correlations of different parties. It is very different than the classical description and can be explained by using the following analogy. Imagine an author writes a book of one hundred pages which includes the most precious arts or explains very important facts about the universe depending on one’s point of view. To make it more interesting or more realistic, he distributes each page of the book to one of his servants and asks them to read and understand the rules written in the book. That is, each servant has access only to one page of the book. If we assume the information on the pages is classical, every servant has one hundredth of the total information written in the book and if we let them communicate with each other, they can in principle reconstruct the written information. However, the situation is very strange in the quantum world. If the information in the book is written using entanglement principle of the quantum world, then none of the servants has any definite idea about the partial information on his page. It is as if the pages are empty. All the information about the content of the book is written on correlations of the pages, not physically on each page. So, the servants can have no idea, if they only look at their pages.

Einstein vs. Bohr

To understand this strange feature of quantum entanglement we should review the historical development of the concept. One of the earliest objections came from Einstein, who was one of the developers of quantum theory. Although he explained the photoelectric effect by introducing the concept of quantization of light, he did not believe in some of its consequences. Mainly, he was not sure about the completeness of quantum theory because of its contradictions with common sense and the theory of relativity. The famous 1927 Solvey Con ference was a turning point for debates between Einstein and Niels Bohr, who was also one of the developers of quantum theory and the Copenhagen interpretations of the theory.

Einstein tried to show this incompleteness by proposing different Gedanken (thought) experiments. Each of these questions was answered rigorously by Bohr. However, Einstein was never convinced by Bohr about the completeness of the theory. The last one of these Gedanken experiments was one related to our concept, quantum entanglement. It is called the EPR paradox and takes its name from the authors of the famous paper “Can a quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?” by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen in 1935.

Mainly, the paper was about faster-than-light communication between physically separated objects, two particles. If two particles are generated from a source affected by the existence of a conservation law, like the conservation of energy, or linear or angular momentum, the conserved property is carried by the particles independent of their separation. If the conserved quantity is observed by measuring one of the particles, the other particle arranges itself according to the result of this measurement independent of the distance between particles. According to Bohr, this arrangement happens instantaneously at the time of measurement, which conflicts with Einstein’s theory of special relativity that says nothing can travel faster than light. Apparently, the knowledge of the result of the first measurement is carried somehow to the second particle. Bohr’s reply is now called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. He takes this property as a postulate of quantum mechanics by saying that the state of the particles includes all information about them. After this explanation Einstein never replied again.

If we look more closely at the proposed experiment, we can deduce that in reality information is not transferred faster than light because although the measurement result of the second particle is decided by the first measurement, this information is hidden for the second particle. The result of the second measurement makes sense only if the result of the first measurement reaches the second one. Otherwise, the second measurement can be described as a random outcome of possible results. Now it makes sense if we return to the book description. Here our book has only two pages. Each page is given to one servant. If they only look at their pages there is no information, which means that measurement results are random.

However, if the two servants work together and share their measurement results, then the initial information can be reconstructed.

Coins

Einstein’s point of view can be described in the following example. Imagine we have two coins with the usual heads and tails on different sides. Let us assume that there is a conservation law deduced from everyday experiments stating that if we flip these two coins we always have two opposite results; that is, if we get tails from the one that we measured, the other one is heads for sure and vice versa. In the real world, these coins can be identified as electrons, photons or atoms. Heads/tails corresponds to the spin components for electrons, polarization directions for photons or ground/excited states for atoms. Now, imagine these two coins are separated by a large distance.

Einstein says that as soon as separation occurs the result of flipping is decided but this result is hidden from us. One can measure or learn it by performing a measurement or looking at each coin. Moreover, looking at only one coin is enough to determine the measurement result of the other coin, since the results are correlated. Conjecturing that the side of the coin is determined at the time of measurement is against the causality principle of the theory of relativity which says that cause and effect cannot be simultaneous. However, I am of the opinion that reality is closer to what Bohr described. That is, the result of the measurement is decided at the measurement time not at the separation time. Before the measurement, each coin shows both heads and tails at the same time. The information, deduced at the point of measurement when one of the coins is measured, is transferred faster than light, in other words, at infinite speed.

The nature of each coin is also very strange before the measurement because it includes both sides at the same time with equal probabilities, but a classical coin has only one side at one time, either heads or tails. Here the classical coin means the flipped or measured coin. This property of the quantum world is called parallelism. As in the famous case of Schrödinger’s cat, sometimes two extreme situations can happen at the same time. Schrödinger’s cat is a very special cat which is dead and alive at the same time, like a quantum coin. However, when one measures such a cat, that is, observes the cat, its nature collapses to one of the known situations, either a dead cat or a live cat. This measuring process happens systematically due to interactions with its surroundings and is called decoherence.

Although the quantum world is very strange and different than the classical world, it encapsulates more reality than we experience in our everyday life. In the near future, we can expect that ways of looking at the world will be different than the present mechanical, deterministic, and materialistic view because of the unexpected outcomes of the quantum world. If you know how to look, you can already feel this change.

Civilizations are built on knowledge and a worldview of how it fits together. At some point, a civilization must decide what type of knowledge is going to form its foundation and essence. Chinese-influenced societies opted for scholarly and literary knowledge, while Indian-influenced ones chose religious and spiritual knowledge. Classical Greece concentrated on philosophy, and classical Rome settled on law. Christian societies focused on spiritual knowledge, but then went all out for science during the Renaissance. Later on, some tried to replace God with the individual, money, the state, or ‘the party.’ Indigenous societies in other lands pursued what was important to them. Muslim societies balanced science and religion, but lost this balance as civilizational decline gave way to colonialism, dependency, and poverty.

Regardless of which path is chosen, all societies understand that everything has to be interrelated for life to make sense. Neither science nor religion can dispute this. Look at life. Without photosynthesis, life could not exist. But who or what caused oxygen, sugars, plants, water, carbon dioxide, soil, air, and sunlight to be interrelated? Look at the universe. It works so perfectly that many of us take it for granted. But why is there such symmetry and asymmetry? Why does everything cooperate? Science tells us how; religion tells us why.

Look at our own spiritual and material lives. Our spirit makes us who we are, yet needs our body to achieve its ultimate purpose: knowledge of and submission to God. If we ignore either our spiritual or material aspect, our life becomes unbalanced. We might opt out by suicide, use ‘spirituality’ to mask self-interest through ‘religiously justified’ conflict, pursue extreme spirituality to our own detriment, or become devoted to what is transient’either it will leave us or we will leave it by dying. We might even seek to become a Pharoah instead of a Mejnun, a self-proclaimed deity instead of a lover of God, never asking what happens when life ends.

To restore life’s balance, some turn to fundamentalism, an early twentieth-century Christian attempt to maintain Christianity’s influence through preaching blind faith and Biblical inerrancy, despite contradictions with modern science. The fact that fundamentalism has become synonymous with resisting modernity and science is illuminating. But if God sent Revelation and told us to learn of Him through science and knowledge, how is such a situation possible? The best way to restore this balance is honest dialogue among agnostics, believers, and atheists; followers of different religious and spiritual traditions and of science; followers of Revelation and of philosophy; and among those at the extremes. Success is vital if all inhabitants of this ever-smaller and interrelated world are to live together in peace.

These and other issues are addressed in this issue. We hope that you find them thought-provoking. But more importantly, we hope that they encourage you to make your own corner of the world a better and more pleasant place in which to live.

The winners of our writing contest are: Dr. Najeeb Khan, Serdar Yoldas, Dr. Mohamed Omar Salem, and Amany Fouad Hassanei, respectively. Each will receive $100. Due to the number of entries received, our board of reviewers felt compelled to modify the rules. We apologize for this. The Fountain staff thanks everyone who took the time to research and submit their papers.

We hope that you enjoy this issue and, as always, look forward to your comments.

Quantum mechanics developed as an attempt to explain discrepancies observed in experiments that could not be explained by classical theory. Scientists hoped that it would help them understand human consciousness, since, in a parallel manner, behaviorism could not explain adequately the complex structure of human behavior.

The intersection of physics, psychology, and biology led to a new pseudo scientific field: quantum consciousness. Although some say it is nothing more than a fantasy,(1) others have found the concepts offered by quantum mechanics to be useful.

Classical physics cannot explain the human consciousness and mind.(2) Newton’s well-established laws of mechanics posited a deterministic universe. In short, he stated that if every detail of a system were known at a particular time, its future state could be predicted precisely. As classical physics perceives the universe as consisting of objects and fields, and requires nothing further to explain the systems, there is no place for such concepts as consciousness and mind. Materialistic theories generally based on the classical approach do not deny the mind’s existence; they just say is has no effective action on the brain.(3)

Quantum Mechanics

What basic principles of new physics allow the mind to control matter? Quantum mechanics was an unnoticed revolution. Set in a probabilistic world, it changed the whole idea of a deterministic universe. Unlike classical physics, quantum mechanics cannot talk of future events with complete certainty; it can only evaluate the probability that a certain event will occur. The Uncertainty Principle, which prevents a precise and simultaneous determination of a particle’s velocity and position, means that all trajectories assigned by Newtonian mechanics to describe the resulting motion are invalid.

In a quantum world, waves are associated with particles. These probability waves carry all information about a given quantum object. At this point, the probability function says nothing about the particle’s actual movement and state. Such an observation requires a measurement.

However, this means collapsing the wave function into one of the probable results. When such a measurement is made, the particle will be found in one of the probable states. Thus one cannot know the system’s actual state either between observations or in the future. This is why determinism collapsed and the universe became a collection of probable events. Even Einstein denied the concept of such a bizarre and perplexing result: “God does not play dice!”

How do scientists use quantum mechanic tools to study consciousness? Do they really explain how the brain works and the subtle relation between consciousness and matter?

Are Mind and Matter Somehow Related?

The mind-matter connection remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries. It requires a comprehensive approach featuring a deep understanding of how the brain functions, physical laws, and human psychology. Although there are different approaches, the main problems are how to explain this connection scientifically and how to close the gap between the brain’s material structure and the tremendous results of its functioning.

Since the time of Descartes (d. 1650), one general approach has been to treat the mind and brain separately by placing them in different categories. One model based on this duality involves finding a parallelism between a computer’s hardware and software and the human mind and brain, respectively.

This is not the only approach, however. The materialist idea, based on the deterministic universe model, focuses on the brain’s functioning and either disregards mind and consciousness or supposes them to be illusory. For decades, this view had a great impact on theories related to the brain and mind. Minsky’s approach of “minds are simply what brains do” reflects quite literally this approach.(4)

On the other hand, the natural occurrence of necessity for a mind or a soul, as a result of a quantum mechanic view of the brain, to have control over matter seems to cause a change in both evolutionary and materialistic models of conscious thought. This was a direct consequence of applying quantum mechanics to chemical reactions occurring in the atomic world of neurons.

Indeed, some claimed that various processes in living bodies required a quantum mechanic treatment. For example, light-sensitive cells in a human eye (in a retina, which is considered part of the brain) are sensitive to even one photon that is truly a quantum particle.(5) Eccles, a neurophysiologist famous for his contributions to neuroscience, discusses quantum effects in synaptic action and claims that some functional parts of neurons need to be treated as quantum sites.(6)

The materialistic view taught that when brain cell interactions were understood completely, nonmaterial concepts would become unnecessary. Interactions between neurons are now said to cause conscious thought. Therefore, neuroscience focuses on explaining brain cell (neuron) interactions.

The Role of Neurons

Neurons are connected to each other by their strands (axons and dendrites) across synapses (Figure 1). Electrical signals are carried by neurotransmitters located in synaptic gaps (Figure 2). The release of neurotransmitters is initiated by calcium ions entering the synapses from the fluid surrounding the cell. Calcium cations cross into the cell through calcium channels.

Stapp treats calcium channels as the area in which quantum consciousness can be applied, and where the effect of the mind comes into play. Diffusing a small calcium cation (a positively charged ion) through the calcium channel cannot be treated as a classical phenomenon, for in a classical diffusion each particle follows a certain trajectory through the channel. But when considered from a quantum view, the particle (or cation), starting from one end of the channel to the other end, takes all possible paths at the same time. Only a measurement can locate the particle in one of the channel’s possible paths [collapse of state into one of the probable events]. Therefore, one path becomes real. In a real transmission, since there is no measurement, the mind chooses the path, which supports the theory that matter can be controlled by the mind. Since the chosen trajectory will either enhance or decrease the probability of neurotransmitter release, the whole communication process will be affected. Due to this probabilistic nature of events, the mind should control the brain.(7) Sir John C. Eccles, a British neurophysiologist and Nobel Prize winner for his work on how neurons communicate with each other, is an important contributor to the mind-brain interaction issue. He focuses on microsites where synaptic vesicles (little bags of neurotransmitters) are released. (The figurative structure of a synapse is shown in Figure 2.) He claims that the process taking place in those microsites is a quantal emission (a release of multimolecular packets). In the synapse of two neurons, vesicles are stored in certain places and released according to electrical impulses. Eccles emphasizes that the mind (or mental events) does not initiate any activity in those synapses; rather, he hypothesizes that mental events control only the probability of each vesicle’s release from the microsites. In this model, he agrees with Margenau, who also says there are such things as nonmaterial events(8): “The mind may be regarded as a field in the accepted physical sense of the term. But it is a nonmaterial field; its closest analogue is perhaps a probability field. It cannot be compared with the simpler nonmaterial fields that require the presence of matter (hydrodynamic flow or acoustic)…Nor does it necessarily have a definite position in space. And so far as present evidence goes it is not an energy field in any physical sense, nor is it required to contain energy in order to account for all known phenomenon which mind interacts with brain.” According to Eccles, microsites are targets for such nonmaterial mental events as an intention to carry out some movement. Pointing out that vesicles are released without any energy input, the mind’s effect on them is seen in the form of an increased probability of neurotransmitter release. Eccles, who believes in the soul, supports the dualist approach starting from self-consciousness and the unity of self. In his How the Self Controls Its Brain, he summarizes his approach with a quotation from Hodgson(9): “What we are looking for, I think, is a purpose that we should try to recognize and pursue, which our lives if correctly lived will fulfill in fact, and which is right and good. It may also be God’s purpose for us. I think that the notion of a purpose of life makes more sense in relation to a God, or some wider consciousness, than it otherwise would.” Victor J. Stenger, a proponent of the materialistic view, summarizes the materialists’ general idea of quantum consciousness theories: “The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world.” A comparison of points made by Eccles and Stenger shows that science cannot be independent of the thoughts of those who establish it. This is why quantum consciousness theories remain controversial.

Conclusion

Despite the ongoing controversy over quantum mechanics, quantum consciousness is an important first step toward explaining how the mind might control matter. Solving the mind-brain issue could revolutionize neuroscience and artificial intelligence. A better understanding of quantum mechanics and its applications to neuroscience might help scientists solve the mind-matter puzzle. However, we should keep in mind that: “I think that is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it ‘But how can it be like that?’ because you will go ‘down the drain’ into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.” (Richard Feynman)

Footnotes

1 Victor J. Stenger, “The Myth of Quantum Consciousness,” The Humanist 53, no. 3 (May-June 1992): 13-15. 2 Henry P. Stapp, Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, part 1 (Germany: Springer-Verlag, 1993), 37. 3 C. John Eccles, How the Self Controls Its Brain (Germany: Springer-Verlag: 1994), 4. 4 Nick Herbert, Elemental Mind, Human Consciousness and the New Physics (New York: Dutton, 1993), 116. 5 Roger Penrose, Shadows of the Mind: A Research for the Missing Science of Consciousness (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 349. 6 Eccles, How the Self Controls Its Brain. 7 Herbert, Elemental Mind, 258. 8 Eccles, How the Self Controls Its Brain, 73. 9 ibid, 39.

References (not cited in article)

1. Davies, Paul, Other Worlds, (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1980), p.17-35.
2. Eccles, C. John, How the Self Controls its Brain, (Springer-Verlag, Germany, 1994).
3. Herbert, Nick, Elemental Mind, Human Consciousness and the New Physics, (Dutton, New York, 1993), Chap. 4,10.
4. Hodgson, David, The Mind Matter: Consciousness and Choice in a Quantum World, (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991), p.47, Part IV.
5. Penrose, Roger, Shadows of the Mind, A Research for the Missing Science of Consciousness, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1994), chap. 7.
6. Stapp, Henry P., Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics, (Springer-Verlag, Germany, 1993), Part I, p.79-116.
7. Stenger, Victor J., “The Myth of Quantum Consciousness,” The Humanist, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, Number 3, p.13-15.

These words attempt to pierce the veil of habit that develops in our minds from not looking into the reason for things. The perfection of the order operative in the universe is of such a degree that it prevents us from being aware of it. In the same way, we only become aware of the faultless operation of the watches we have worn on our wrists for years when they stop working.

In the world-view developed upon the foundation of Newton’s laws of motion, the universe was likened to a flawlessly operating watch. Events were tied to one another in a cause-effect relationship and our knowing the laws of this relationship allowed us to predict events with great accuracy. It was possible to determine with mathematical exactness a wide range of phenomena, from the times of eclipses of sun and moon to the amount of fuel and the speed needed to put an object into orbit around the earth. The success of these ‘natural laws’ led many people to believe that they completely expressed and ‘ruled’ the whole order of the universe.

Because God creates and sustains all things and events from behind the veil of universal general laws, because certain events (causes) are followed reliably by similar events (effects) each time they (the causes) occur, it begins to be supposed that the causes are responsible for or ‘create’ the effects. This is, of course, a gross error, as no number of causes suffices to create even a little effect; for every event even the tiniest, the whole universe must be presupposed first, including the laws operative within it. Moment by moment, all things and all events are created and sustained by God, Who wills from an infinite range of alternative possibilities a particular actuality.

The clockwork model of the universe derived from Newtonian or classical physics is not a complete account of the phenomena which we observe in the universe. Already in the late 19th century, scientists had been bewildered by the lines that turned up in the light spectra emitted by heated gases: the steady, stable clockwork model predicted did not happen. Also, there were problems explaining the behaviour of light: sometimes it made more sense as a beam of particles, sometimes as a wave.

Today our understanding of the universe is very far from the ‘clockwork’ model. The shift in understanding occurred in the first quarter of the 20th century, beginning in 1900 with the publication of Max Planck’s work on radiation. The problem Planck worked on for six years was that the actually measured radiation from hot bodies did not conform to the values predicted by the classical theory. He put forward the suggestion that bodies radiating energy did so, not evenly and continuously, but unevenly and discontinuously in tiny packets or ‘quanta’. So startling was this suggestion that, despite confirmation by experiment, Planck himself thought of his theory as solving the problem of radiation by a sort of trick.

But then, in 1905, Albert Einstein published an article using the notion of packets of energy of definite sizes to explain how electrons are ejected from metal when light (radiation) falls on it. Whereas classical theory had predicted that the voltage (measure of the energy of the electrons ejected) would be proportional to the intensity of the light (radiation), Einstein showed that it was proportional instead to the frequency of the radiation. The conformity of this explanation with experimentally observed results gained Einstein the Nobel Prize. (Einstein didn’t receive the prize for his famous theory of relativity.) The significance of these findings and theories was not fully appreciated at the time.

A few years later in 1910, Ernest Rutherford did a ground-breaking experiment. He bombarded a thin layer made up of gold atoms with high energy particles and showed that the atom contained an extremely small positively-charged nucleus with negatively-charged electrons moving around it. Following the classical physics model, these electrons should have been small particles orbiting the nucleus in the same way as the planets orbit the sun, steadily losing energy until they fell on to the nucleus-in other words, the atom should have been unstable. Again it was a rejection of the classical model, three years later, by Niels Bohr, that helped solve the problem. Bohr argued that the electrons must move in fixed orbits until deflected by the absorption or emission of a unit of energy.

Atoms emit radiation after various external signals and only at specific wave lengths. As Einstein said, every different color of light is composed of energy packets inversely proportional to its wave-length (frequency). Because the Planck constant (h) is very small, the energy of these packets is also very, very small. For example, a normal light bulb emits 1020 light packets (photons) a second. Each of these photons is created when an activated atom or molecule passes to its normal or ‘basic state.’ Thus light, which allows us to see and which is a basic building block of life, develops as a result of the motions (in wave form) of electrons. The concepts of classical physics could successfully explain many of the events of daily life, but it couldn’t explain events on the subatomic level.

During those years (1910-1925) physics fell into a state of

confusion because of the many measurements that conflicted with general theory and could not be explained by it. This situation was to lead W. Pauli (later to discover the principle fundamental to the understanding of the structure and characteristics of elements) to say he would rather have been a singer or gambler than a physicist. Actually in order to explain the observations being made, the whole way in which physical events had been understood required fundamental revision by wholly new methods. This was achieved by Werner Heisenberg, a 24 year-old physicist described by his teachers as a person who dealt with the essence of a subject rather than getting bogged down in detail, a person with powerful concentration and ambition. Perhaps the success of this young mind can be explained by the critical perspective he developed through reading the works of great men such as Kant and Plato, which was later supported with sound knowledge he got from great physicists. Heisenberg, who relaxed from work by climbing rocks and reading poetry, said: ‘It was around three in the morning when the calculations were completed and the solution to the problem appeared in front of me. First I experienced a great shock. I was so excited that I didn’t even think about sleeping. I left the house and, sitting on a rock, I waited for the sunrise.’

Like the other scientists who established quantum physics, Heisenberg was a philosopher-physicist. The philosophy he accepted and advocated that allowed him to interpret atomic events is as follows: ‘Even though it is successful with classical physics, the language we use to explain physical events in the atom or its surroundings is insufficient. For this reason, after making a specific measurement in a quantum system (for example, an atom), using that knowledge we can get a theory that will tell us what kind of results we can find in the next measurement. But it’s not possible to say anything about what takes place between the two measurements.’

What pushed Heisenberg to make such a statement was that the mathematical tools he used to develop a theory that could explain the observed discontinuity of energy in light and atoms were abstract concepts that had not been used before. In classical physics the numbers we know were used to give value to matter’s position, speed, size, etc. In Heisenberg’s quantum mechanics, these sizes were expressed with infinite dimensional n x n matrices which enabled physicists to calculate the properties attributed to electrons (energy, position, momentum, angular momentum) in an approximate way. Because these abstract mathematical expressions didn’t have an equivalent in everyday spoken language, it wasn’t possible to approach them with a classical understanding. It was observed that in order to measure the position of an electron, the experimenter necessarily altered its velocity. This problem was formally expressed in 1927 in Heisenberg’s famous Uncertainty Principle.

Independently of Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger made another significant breakthrough in mathematical description of electrons. Inspired by the hypothesis put forward two years earlier by De Broglie about the wave properties of matter particles, Schrodinger developed a ‘wave mechanics’ by which the movement of particles could be calculated. (figure: 1) But the fundamental question remained as to what these strange and original ‘waves of matter particles’ or ‘waves accompanying matter particles’ were.

The mathematical formulations devised by Heisenberg and Schrodinger are complementary in the sense that physicists use whichever best resolves the particular calculations they are trying to make. There is no formally distinct space between the scientists and the phenomena they are seeking to understand and manipulate: their means of observation and manipulation (the mathematics) in some sense ‘posit’, put in place, the very phenomena whose place (among other properties) they are trying to determine. Alongside the notion of an infinite array of rows and points, as invented by Heisenberg, to plot the position or motion of a sub-atomic particle, physicists and philosophers of physics have begun to speak of arrays of events or ‘stories’ to try to explain, in something resembling ordinary language, the ideas they are handling. This cannot be described as a world-view in the way that the Newtonian physics confirmed and sustained a world-view, but it is nevertheless a clear and distinct disposition which, instead of excluding God as the Force Who wound up the clockwork and then retired from His creation, admits the in-completeness and uncertainty of human knowledge as a structural element of reality-in other words, the uncertainty is not a function of our present ignorance (to be relieved by future knowledge), but an actual constituent of the way reality is.

Quantum physics, at least figuratively and metaphorically, has became a vehicle for the interpretation of such concepts as matter, beyond-matter, energy, existence and non-existence in a way nearer to Divine sources; and led to many physicists settling accounts with their conscience and turning towards God Who is understood to be simultaneously transcendent and immanent, there and here.