Animals such as butterflies, turtles, and birds are given the ability to perceive the Earth’s magnetic field and navigate themselves accordingly. Migratory species also benefit from the sun, stars, and even scents in nature as they from one place to another.

Magnetic fields and poles

Modern studies have focused on how animals perceive the Earth’s magnetic field and act accordingly. We need to look closer at the Earth’s “magnetic polar points” to understand how magnetic fields work exactly.

It is important not to confuse geographic and magnetic poles. There is a layer called the “inner core” in the center of our Earth where all substances are in a fluid state, similar to those seen in volcanic eruptions. Volatile and molten elements such as nickel and iron form a magnetic electric field above the Earth. This is also the force that is responsible for causing our compasses to point north. At the center, the Earth’s magnetic field changes due to these fluid substances. That is, our compass does not always show the “true north,” i.e. the exact geographical north.

As of the last decade, the Earth’s magnetic pole has kept moving at a rate of about 55 km per year. The magnetic north pole, found in Canada in 1831, has now shifted 2300 km and approached Siberia. Scientists say that about 780 thousand years ago, today’s southern and northern magnetic poles were exactly the opposite. Although the magnetic poles shift, the Earth’s magnetic field continues to function properly. This is imperative for protecting all life on Earth, as a balanced magnetic field protects our planet from the magnetic effects of solar flares and solar winds.

Effects of polar shift

A new magnetic map of our planet is released every five years due to the fact that our magnetic poles are constantly shifting. This does not affect most people on a daily basis, however it does present a challenge for people and vehicles that rely on a compass. Due to the shift, a difference called “magnetic declination angle” occurs between the magnetic north pole and the geographic north pole. This angle varies according to the location. For example, in Canada the magnetic deflection angle is 13 degrees whereas in Brazil it is 20 degrees. In order to determine their exact location, military and civilian aircraft and ships manually or automatically calculate their location based on the angle of deviation and navigate accordingly. Even if we are not aware, our mobile phones are automatically updated according to this calibration. In physics, the formula known as Lenz’s Law, or a tool called a gaussmeter, can be used to calculate the Earth’s magnetic field.

Cryptochromes

This complex and intricate system affects most animal life on Earth, including birds, insects, and fruit flies. So, if these magnetic poles keep changing how do animals find their way? Most creatures utilize cryptochromes, a type of flavoprotein that affects their body clock.

Cryptochrome (CRY) [1] is found to play a leading role in this regard. Cryptochrome-2, one of the two cryptochrome photoreceptors, has been proven to be instrumental in regulating the daily life rhythm of beings by fine-tuning their body clocks and assisting certain animals such as migratory birds, king butterflies, and fruit flies to navigate their migratory paths accurately.

Years of research conducted by Steven Reppert and his team at the University of Massachusett’s School of Medicine on fruit flies and butterflies revealed the function of cryptochrome-2.

According to the research published in Nature magazine in 2009 [2], Dr. Reppert and his team found that flies could not adjust themselves to a new magnetic field without any form of cryptochrome, but that they could regain their sensitivity to a magnetic field only after cryptochrome-2 production.

During the study, the genetic structure of fruit flies was examined and it was ensured that they produced cryptochrome-2.

Speaking to the BBC, Dr. Reppert emphasized that they developed a system to understand how the perception of the magnetic field works in fruit flies. They sought the answer to the question, if cryptochrome-2 was to be transferred from animals to flies, can these proteins act like magnetic sensors in other forms? They have found out that human beings were the most effective option among all vertebrates to yield cryptochrome for this purpose. Their experiment with butterflies yielded the same results. They observed that flies without cryptochromes did not show any signs of magnetic field detection only until their genetic structure was intervened to produce a human version of the molecule.

In another experiment carried out by scientists, a group of migratory birds had iron nuggets, some of which were magnetized to scramble the Earth’s magnetic field, attached to their feet. It was observed that the birds with magnetized nuggets lost their migration path and the birds with unmagnetized nuggets could navigate as easily as usual.

Of course, birds could not know these exact calculations that many people do not even know. Pathfinding skills are “programmed” into birds before they are born so that even if the magnetic field shifts this wonderful mechanism in animals always delivers them to the right location.

The loggerhead sea turtles

As soon as they hatch on the east coast of Florida, the loggerhead sea turtles, Caretta Carettas, swim into Sargasso Sea, migrate into the North Atlantic Circle, and then subsequently into the Atlantic Ocean. The turtles first swim to the northeast towards Europe, then to the south, and return to North America after spending 5-10 years in this hot and nutrient-rich migratory loop.

Dr. Kenneth Lohmann and his team at the University of North Carolina wanted to observe whether loggerhead sea turtles used regional magnetic fields to find their migration paths. They set up a mechanism in a large water tank that was installed with coils in order to form multiple magnetic fields. 79 newly hatched turtles were then clad in cloth vests with wires connected to a computerized monitoring system and left in the same tank. Juvenile turtles were subjected to magnetic fields equivalent to those that exist at critical points of the North Atlantic Cycle, such as in the north of Florida, off the coast of Portugal, and at the southern end of the cycle. As a result, it was observed that in every magnetic field simulated in the experiment, the turtles begin to swim in the opposite direction. For instance, when the magnetic field in the northeastern part of the loop was applied, the animals headed south. In a real ocean setting, this direction keeps them on the right track and prevents them from entering icy waters and dying of hypothermia.

How do animals do it?

There are several research works documenting that not only birds, but also bats, ants, foxes, deer, and even cows feel magnetic fields.

Animals generally migrate to find more suitable reproductive, feeding and living areas for themselves. It is amazing how they know which way to go as soon as they are born. How do they decide that a place they’ve never been to is most suitable for them? How did they learn those navigational skills?

It is amazing to observe this intricate and interlinked system between the Sun, the Earth, and all the living things in it: while the rays of the Sun are needed for life, the harmful ones among them need to be shielded away from the Earth with a magnetic field, a field which is detected by a protein in animals so they can travel to places to continue their lives.

Human cryptochrome

Cryptochrome proteins are also present in the human body [3]. Cryptochrome-2 is especially functional and is linked more to adjusting biological rhythm rather than perceiving the Earth’s magnetic field.

Dr. Aziz Sancar, Chemistry professor and Nobel Prize winner, observed in his experiments of circadian clocks [4] that the cryptochrome pigment located in the eye, skin, and part of the brain regulated the circadian rhythm of mammals.

Currently, many theories are proposed and experiments are conducted on discovering the extent that human beings can perceive the Earth’s magnetic field.

Meanwhile, the wisdom behind the constant shift in the Earth’s magnetic pole awaits to be revealed.

Notes

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptochrome
2. Buchen, Lizzie. “Butterflies’ Migrational Timekeeper Found.” Nature, September 24, 2009.
3. Discovered between 1996 and 1998 in humans by Aziz Sancar and his colleagues, cryptochrome is one of the four genes that set the circadian clock in mice. This protein is also a member of a family of proteins including photolyase, DNA’s repair enzyme, on which Prof. Aziz Sancar has worked throughout his scientific career.
4. Rhythmic behavior and physiological changes that have a 24-hour cycle and regulate the day and night cycles of living beings. 

Further reading

Attenborough, David. 1998. The Life of Birds, Princeton University Press Princeton, New Jersey.

The single biggest problem regarding mathematics and the sciences is motivating younger students to study them.

While the United States excels at welcoming people from all over the world to travel to the U.S. and study science and math, the number of aspiring mathematicians at universities is decreasing. About only 2% of all students in America that pursue a bachelor’s degree are in the fields of mathematics or other physical sciences. On top of that, roughly 48% of students studying a STEM field in a bachelor’s program, and 69% of students pursuing an associate’s degree, changed majors or exited college before earning their degree [1]. One possible explanation for this is the reputation that math has for being boring, uninteresting, and complicated. However, there could hardly be a better time to become a mathematician.

I was watching a documentary about deserts with my 2 year old. At first, she found the documentary to be boring because the desert appeared to be bland and void of life. Then, the screen started showing the lively and colorful aspects of a desert including its oases, various cacti, and small creatures. She was shocked that the arid desert could possess so much color, life, and intrigue. It reminded me of my feelings towards mathematics. For some people, mathematics seems like a dry and dull subject that makes little sense. However, it too becomes full of life and color once one looks in the right places and from the correct perspective.

Ten years ago, the Wall Street Journal ranked jobs based upon a number of parameters such as salary, freedom, the possibility of promotion, and ease of employment. It may surprise you to find out that being a mathematician was ranked as the number one job in the world! [2] Career Cast, a company that started as a spin-off for this kind of ranking in 1988, also ranked mathematician as the number one job in 2014 [3].

In job advertisements, the definition of a mathematician is somebody who applies mathematical theories and formulas to teach or solve problems in a business, educational, or industrial setting. In other words, a mathematician is someone who insists on solving problems, which is what mathematics was invented for. However, a crucial point is missing from this description. There are mathematicians who not only teach or apply mathematics but do math, generate math, and change math.

If a mathematician is one of the best jobs in the world, how many mathematicians are there around the world? Thankfully, it is in the hundreds of thousands: almost 250,000, and it is growing every year, particularly in India and China [4]. These countries encourage their children to participate in STEM fields from a young age and place a very high emphasis upon education that can help foster a love for STEM careers at a young age.

Although mathematics is the science in which theorems last for a long time, it is also a field that is being renewed constantly. There are not many other subjects in which knowledge can last thousands of years and always remain both correct and relevant. For instance, the theorems of Euclid, a Greek mathematician who lived in the third century BC, are still accurate today. If we look at the modern applications of computer science and mathematics we see that people are still applying the contributions of Laplace about the central limit theorem, using the contributions of Shannon in sampling, and applying Fourier’s ideas about signal analysis and signal processing. Paradoxically, mathematics is ancient and contemporary at the same time.

In 2014, Emmanuel Candes of Stanford University gave a short speech about how he had collaborated with medical doctors and mathematicians, and used Fourier’s ideas in analysis and data processing, to drastically reduce the time needed to develop a scan [5]. His machine was a significant evolution for the medical field. In experiments, it was shown that to reconstruct images with the best accuracy, they need to have only 2% of the Fourier transform. Candes managed to reduce this time by a factor of eight by knowing only a very small portion of the Fourier transform. Netflix also uses this technology for reconstructing missing information and predicting the preferences of users for movies.

However, the life of a mathematician is not always full of success. The field is full of uncertainty, intense problem solving that can often take weeks or even months, and waiting. Most of a mathematician’s time as a researcher is spent in failure. That is an objective fact. A common motto is, “Every day is a failure. This is our life.” But when we look back on the amount of time that is spent solving these problems, everything pays off. Every year, the number of new theorems added in mathematics runs into the thousands. Failures are not actually failures, but merely bumps along the path of progress.

Another common problem that befalls mathematicians is that they will be expected to perfectly predict what will happen should their discovery work as intended. This is especially true of work done under the auspices of government agencies, since they will often not grant money without a very clear path towards a desired outcome. Things do not always go as planned, and thus it can be challenging to argue that a desired result will occur 100% of the time.

Despite these drawbacks, one of the most exciting aspects of mathematics is the potential to discover something revolutionary and groundbreaking. History has shown that the ideas and discoveries of one individual can make a tremendous difference in the world. By encouraging and enabling more and more students to study math and science, we thus increase the odds that more discoveries, be they groundbreaking or not, will continue to be made in the future.

Alan Turing was a mathematician who had an outsized impact on human history. He was instrumental in cracking the secret codes that were used by the Nazis during the Second World War. Some have argued that World War II would have lasted at least two more years without Turing’s intervention. In particular, the Normandy operation would have been impossible. What was Turing’s motivation? It was not patriotism, honor, or a strong duty to his country. It was simple: his main motivation was solving riddles and difficult problems. He lived for the thrill of solving his next big challenge.

Paul Erdos, a Hungarian, was the most productive mathematician of the 20th century. Erdos had no home, no car, no bank account, and no salary. He lived with just one suitcase and his ideas. He worked on theorems his entire life. When he got some money from some reward, he would always use part of it to put a reward on another theorem.

Leo Szilard was another revolutionary mathematician. He was the first person to understand the concept of chain reactions between atoms. His inspiration came from a public lecture, in which famed physicist Ernest Rutherford said, “It would be moonshine talking if you are willing to extract energy from the atom.” Rutherford acknowledged that energy existed within atoms but thought it was impossible to do anything with it. Szilard felt that Rutherford was wrong and decided to prove it. He worked and thought for days. And one day, while he was crossing a street in London, he was struck with an idea about the principle of chain reaction and exponential growth of atomic energy. This lead to him eventually meeting with Albert Einstein and the subsequent development of the Manhattan Project.

Steps in developing ideas

But how do scientists find those perfect ideas? What are the steps? Henri Poincare gives us some hints about how the ideas were coming to him. Poincare, who was always considered a genius, experienced many discoveries after working very hard on the problem and he had a lot of failures. He said: “Disgusted from my failure, I went to spend a few days near the sea thinking anything else. And one day, while walking on the cliff, the idea came to me. And as before, it was very brief, sudden, with immediate certainty, that arithmetic transforms of indefinite ternary quadratic forms are identical to those of non-Euclidean geometry.”

So, under which circumstances does a big idea come? In popular culture, we have those myths like Newton saw an apple falling down and changed the world. But in real life, it’s not the way it happens. For Poincare’s example, the cliff has nothing to do with quadratic forms. Poincare was saying that he worked very hard and then he decided to rest a little bit, and finally, he had the enlightening moment. What is important here is if the brain had not been prepared by hard work, the illuminating idea wouldn’t have struck.

So what is the process of discovery?

Of course, a publication will be the last step for the discovery of an idea. Because publication means that the idea is out and going to be seen and read by the world. But before that, we have many steps or ingredients which make our idea stand up on its feet.

1. Fecundation

The first step is fecundation. In other words, conversations and discussions you have with your colleagues. Your interaction has a potential to bring about a new phase, a new idea out of different projects. It may take months or years to decide what you want to prove.

2. Documentation

Documentation is built upon previous research and insights. We may need to document things from several centuries ago or from recent times. Nowadays, all information is stored in computers and the internet, which makes this step easier than before.

3. Motivation

Motivation is the most important ingredient when we pursue a discovery. Psychologists believe that childhood experiences play a big role. For instance, both Szilard and Turing’s lives were strongly influenced by a book they read before they found their ideas. In the case of Turing, the book Natural Wonders Every Child Should Know was his inspiration. When I was a child, I watched “Donald in Mathmagic Land” and thought it was fascinating. It might have played a big role in my choice to become a mathematician.

4. Ecosystem

A discovery or an idea never arrives on its own. A scientist is never alone and there is a whole ecosystem around them. For instance, at one point in history, Persepolis was the most innovative city in the world. Then it was Paris, and then Budapest. Today, we have the well-known Silicon Valley.

If you are working in a lab, you need to have an atmosphere where people can meet, discuss, and be creative. A good idea comes from teamwork.

5. Constraints

The next ingredient that you need for a good idea is constraints. Without constraints, discovering new ideas is not as likely as when there are. Rigorous findings come about mostly with constraints. One of the most famous problems in mathematics is the Riemann hypothesis, which was tested in thousands of experiments. After those experiments, the proof was only a set of logical rules with constraints. Constraints usually help generate authentic results and artistic quality as in rhyming poems.

6. Intuition

Intuition usually comes together with hard work, yet it is not easy to understand its process.

In addition to these six ingredients, whether one has good fortune or not also plays an important role. It is human condition that things may not come out as we like although we might have done everything necessary.

Henri Poincare says, “Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything.” Yet, a big idea might take years of work. Still, even after working so hard, our knowledge is like a tiny island in an ocean of unknown. We know almost nothing, but this is such a precious nothing, because that that knowledge came out of the richness of the thought of many people and their efforts. There are still so many ideas just waiting for us to discover them.

Mathematics, like many scientific fields, is an infinite universe with an infinite amount of problems waiting to be discovered and solved. Their applications within our world are endless, and the possibilities to use these results to create real change in our world are also endless. One tends to ask, is math a stand-alone, abstract concept while its vast horizons of knowledge explains the intricacies of our universe, or does it imply an infinitely bigger wisdom from which this abstract knowledge rises from and that relates to our existence? We must continue to motivate students to study math so that they may fall in love with it and continue to develop humanity.

References

1. United States, Congress, Chen, Xianglei, and Matthew Soldner. “STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields.” STEM Attrition: College Students’ Paths Into and Out of STEM Fields, National Center for Education Statistics, Nov. 2013. nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014001rev.pdf.
2. Needleman, Sarah E. “Doing the Math to Find the Good Jobs.” The Wall Street Journal, Dow Jones & Company, 7 Jan. 2009, www.wsj.com/articles/SB123119236117055127.
3. “Jobs Rated 2014: Ranking 200 Jobs from Best To Worst.” CareerCast.com, CareerCast.com, 9 Mar. 2017, www.careercast.com/jobs-rated/jobs-rated-2014-ranking-200-jobs-best-worst.
4. “Mathematics Genealogy Project.” Welcome! – The Mathematics Genealogy Project, genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/
5. Emmanuel J. Candes. “Mathematics of sparsity (and a few other things), August 14, 2014, Seoul. ICM2014 VideoSeries PL3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-b4aDGsbJk

Under the influence of these developments, it is highly likely that there will be collective transformations in convictions, ideas, and , scientific thought. When we look back at the recent past, we see that so many things have changed. Just yesterday, commonly accepted “immutable” facts, such as Galileo’s understanding of the cosmos or Newton’s universal gravitation, have been exchanged for relativity and become defunct theories. The view of taking matter as the basis for everything has been doubted for a long time. Today we see that researchers in different fields, particularly quantum physics, are concerned with the non-material world just as much as the material world. It seems that in the near future not just matter or atoms, but anti-matter will become a common subject of research for circles of science; metaphysics will be mentioned wherever physics is considered.

Science tries to explain the realities of our perceptions in the light of results obtained through experience. It does not give credit to knowledge which is not perceived and verified by the senses until their reality is proven through scientific methodology. For example, nobody doubts the reality of those things that we can see, regardless of their nature. Likewise, we can say the same for things we hear, touch or experience with other things perceptible through our sense organs. As for magnetic or electronic fields that we cannot perceive with our sense organs, we detect them with compasses or other tools. Science is able to perceive this much with the means it presently has, but is as yet unable to go further beyond “electrical,” “magnetic,” and “gravitational” fields. As relevant tools and devices that can prove the existence and nature of other fields are invented, scientific research will then be able to start exploring beyond these fields. In this respect, claiming that science encompasses everything and that it has reached its ultimate limits is surely a great mistake and is blind to what the history of science has shown us. As a matter of fact, if we look into the discoveries and inventions science has produced, we realize that what we know is almost nothing in comparison to what we do not know.

Not only does claiming that we know everything contradict reality, it is also a regressive behavior which lacks any zeal for further progress and is about being content with the present achievements. In every era, those who deem the achievements reached by contemporary science as the ultimate limits of progress, have blocked the way to further scientific discoveries and reduced the intellectual life to misery. Therefore, we see it as an obligation to reconsider what we have learned so far with a critical perspective, our previous knowledge needs to be reevaluated in the light of new discoveries, both in terms of correcting our mistakes and finding a way out of today’s dead ends. This includes a thorough study of the outer space and the earth, their relation to one another, night and day flowing in regular cycles, the special conditions of living or non-living beings in their own world, as well as human and animal organisms’ motion, function and purposes. Likewise soil, water, their composition, and their relationship with living beings, all must absolutely be reevaluated and analyzed with modern methods. Only in this way will it be possible to correct those theories that have not been proven according to scientific research methods, and those mistaken rules which are based on wrong judgments.

The dignity of science requires research to be conducted with an appropriate methodology. Those who busy scientific centers with unproven theories both deceive the masses and violate the dignity of science. Scientific methodology in its plainest form consists of: first, scientists determine their subject and clearly define what they want to learn; then they revise the results of previous research related to that subject; and then they determine the results to be derived from the data that they have collected. In order to test the reliability of the previously obtained results properly, a set of new tests is applied. If the new tests do not prove the suggested theory, scientists go back to the drawing board for further research. They collect new data, and by combining it with previous findings, they give new shape to their theory. Thus, they record the experimentally proven findings and then they consider whether the particular fact that they would like to define as an established principle can be generalized or not. If it can be generalized, then they evaluate the relationship with similar phenomena and see the whole of the picture. This method of research, also adopted by modern methodology, is an objective one for scientific evaluation. Therefore, it is absolutely not scientific to claim that something is definitely true or is established without using such scientific methodology, and to object or deny what contradicts that assumption. Suppositions and estimations asserted as established ideas are nothing but suggested theories and the universal principles that are derived from these suggestions are nothing but deception. Scientific conclusions cannot be drawn from such suppositions and estimations, nor can such suppositions be used to reject knowledge affirmed by testimony and reliable reports or proven through proper methodologies.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

2. www.wikipedia.com

3. www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter

4. www.press.web.cern.ch

These views reflect a shallow understanding of faith and religion as well as the reality of the scientific enterprise. In this article we argue that there are varying degrees of certainty in each piece of scientific and religious knowledge. One can thus imagine two fields of certainty where established knowledge is at the center and the less certain pieces of knowledge form field-like circles around a center. We further argue that this perspective can serve as a unifying paradigm for science and religion.

Science and Religion as Disciplines of Different Realms

The superficial understanding of science and religion as disciplines of different realms asserts that religion concerns the relationship of humanity with the divine and considers human relation-ships on this basis. Religion primarily relies on sacred scriptures and subjective experiences as sources of knowledge. Religious assertions tend to be absolute and they do not accept questioning. The main underlying assumption of religion is the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent Being referred to as God. Science, on the other hand, deals primarily with observable and measurable phenomena. Thus, its main domain is the domain of physical objects. It accepts systematic and objective observations or experimental findings, and inferences on these as sources of knowledge. Scientific assertions appear as theoretical models that attempt to provide objective descriptions of the physical world and predictions of natural phenomena. Science is ambivalent to the existence of a supernatural Being. The underlying assumption of science is that the physical world is governed by universal laws, regardless of the source. This perspective can be summarized in a table:

Based on this superficial understanding of religion and science, we can expect two disjoint spheres of interest that would not have much to do with each other, as illustrated in the figure above.

In this view, science and religion occupy different realms. This view gives complete sovereignty over the non-human domain to science. It leaves the unobservable phenomena to religion, with the condition that it might be claimed by science at any time. The current state of the relationship, however, refutes this simplistic perspective. Both science and religion make assertions that supposedly belong to the other and we perceive conflicts. Examples of perceived conflicts include the following:

– Spherical Earth vs. flat Earth.

– Sun-centric vs. Earth-centric cosmology or astronomy.

– Old universe or Earth vs. young universe or Earth.

– Evolution vs. the miraculous creation of animals and humans.

– A world-wide flood.

– …

We can illustrate the perceived conflict in figure two.

Both the simplistic views of science and religion, as well as their perceived conflicts, are due to shallow understandings of scientific and religious knowledge. Let us first examine the idealized scientific process as the source of the scientific knowledge. The idealized view of the scientific process as taught at many schools is illustrated in the figure below: In this view, the process starts when the scientist makes an observation or becomes aware of a phenomenon that they can not explain with their current knowledge. They first define the problem clearly and hypothesize about potential explanations. They then design experiments to test this hypothesis. They conduct those experiments and make observations. An analysis of these observations may produce one of two outcomes: Either the proposed explanation is valid or invalid. If the proposed explanation is found to be invalid totally or partially, it is refined and a new cycle of experiments and observation is started. If at one point the hypothesis is validated, then the results are communicated to the scientific community. Other scientists repeat the same or similar experiments with the same goal: Validating the hypothesis. If other scientists also reach the same conclusions then the hypothesis gains certainty and may eventually be viewed as an established theory. An important yardstick for the formation of a new theory is its predictive power. When the theory is young, it is used to make predictions. When these predictions turn out to be accurate then the theory establishes itself. Otherwise it is refined and a new cycle of experiments and observation starts.

While the idealized process of scientific research appeals as an objective means of building knowledge, it suffers from some important weaknesses: The first one is that real scientists rarely follow this idealized procedure. Even when they do, many human factors, such as prejudices and non-scientific concerns, for example, material gain and reputation may interfere with the objective interpretation of the results. A third, and possibly the most important limitation, is that many subjects are infeasible or impossible to study under idealized conditions. Consider the theory of evolution for instance. It is impossible to re-create the conditions on the Earth at the time when life first appeared on its surface. It is impossible to observe generation after generation of creatures and to observe whether evolution really took place. What we can do instead is to examine the available fossil record, the Earth’s surface and make logical inferences. But as we move away from the systematic and repeatable observation or controlled experiments, our confidence in our knowledge decreases. Hence we witness a plethora of perspectives and explanations, even among believers of the Darwinian evolution, of what really took place. Generalizing from this example, we can see that the various pieces of so-called “scientific” knowledge are not at the same level in terms of their certainty. Instead, they form a field of certainty, like circles around a center, where the most certain pieces of knowledge are located. Moving away from the center, the amount of control over experimental conditions and the repeat-ability of observations decrease as does confidence in the knowledge. The following figure illustrates this concept of certainty fields for scientific knowledge.

The confidence field phenomenon is not limited to scientific knowledge. Revelation forms the basis of religious knowledge, but revelation is conveyed to humanity via messengers, their scriptures, their inspirations, their words, and conduct. While the revelation itself is not subject to uncertainty, the human factor introduces uncertainty mainly in three mechanisms:

1. The deterioration or intentional manipulation of certain religious sources.

2. Human misunderstanding or misrepresentation of certain divine statements.

3. Confusion of human interpretation with the literal revelation or prophetic tradition.

Upon considering the certainty fields of science and religion we can look back at the perceived conflict between them. Now we realize that the perceived conflicts lie at those places where either the scientific or the religious knowledge, or both, are not completely certain in their assertions. When we enumerate all of the perceived conflicts and examine them carefully, we can attribute each one to one of the causes of uncertainty in scientific or religious knowledge.

Let’s take the example of the theory of evolution again as a popular and contemporary matter. On the science side we see that many of the assertions of the theory carry a high degree of uncertainty. We are definitely not at the center of the certainty field of scientific knowledge. On the religious side, the clear assertion is that God is the creator of the Heavens and the Earth, as well as its inhabitants. The way by which God has chosen to create, however, is not as clear. We don’t know, for instance, whether God also works through a mechanism that includes evolutionary elements. Some believing scientists argue that God works through what they call “micro evolution” to adapt or eliminate certain species. Some evolutionists, on the other hand, refer to a concept of “lucky accidents” to explain certain aspects of evolutionary history that cannot be explained within the framework of blind chance and natural selection.

As another example we can consider the perceived conflicts in social sciences. Certain sociologists or psychologists make assertions that seem to contradict religious positions. Again on the science side, when the subjects of interest are humans, it is extremely difficult to control all the factors that are involved. Furthermore, it is extremely difficult and sometimes impossible to have repeatable experiments. Since no human being is an exact replica of another and no society is exactly like another society, it is very hard to repeat any experiment in psychology or sociology. Finally, it is very hard to observe humans without affecting their behavior. Because of this and for similar reasons, some scientists have debated whether psychology and sociology can truly be classified as sciences. But these two disciplines are not alone in having difficulties in studying subject matters with the scientific method. A number of essential questions of personal and social life fall into this category of phenomena that are hard to explore scientifically.

These examples demonstrate that each of the perceived conflicts of science and religion can be attributed to one of the causes of uncertainty in scientific or religious knowledge.

An interesting question that falls under the topic of science-religion is the view of science from a religious perspective. Islamic sources include an interesting view: The “two books of God paradigm.”

The Two Books of God Paradigm

According to Islamic sources, the universe and the revealed scriptures are the expressions of the same God in two different languages, the cosmic language and the human language. While the languages are different, the messages are the same.

According to this paradigm, essentially the same messages are expressed in different forms. The book in the human language sometimes comments on the book in the cosmic language and helps us understand it better. Let us give some examples of messages encoded in these two different languages:

The first message is the unity and omnipotence of the Creator of the Universe. The name and attributes of the Creator of the universe are the main theme of the Qur’an. Faithful scientists and science enthusiasts find this message clearly expressed in the cosmic language.

The second message is found the creation of the Earth and the cosmic objects in a way to provide for the human life on Earth. The Qur’an declares that Adam was created as God’s vicegerent on Earth and the Earth, together with its creatures were made subservient to him, subject to God’s commandments. Again, persons of faith see clear signs of this phenomenon on the Earth, as pointed out in numerous articles in this publication. Our subconscious tells us that the One who has provided us with so many bounties and gifts obviously expects appreciation and gratitude from us. Again, both books clearly point out this fact.

The third message is the display of God’s beautiful names in human beings. According to both Judeo-Christian and Islamic belief, humans were created from a single pair: Adam and Eve. They are thus brothers and sisters and nobody has a claim to superiority, except in virtue and piety. Furthermore, each human is like a mirror reflecting God’s beautiful names. In the perfect design of the human body and face we can observe the names The Most Beautiful and The All-Wise, among others. In the meeting of our various needs through wonderful sustenance, we can observe the names the All-Benevolent and the All-Compassionate.

How Religion and Science Might Benefit from One Another

The last dimension of the relationship between science and religion that we would like to discuss is how the study of one might benefit from the other. In his Twentieth Word (Second Station) Bediuzzaman Said Nursi lists many examples from the Qur’anic references to scientific advances like train, electricity, and states that miracles of the Prophets as well as historical events allude to future inventions and thus might inspire scientists to work in those directions. Thus, religious sources can provide direction and goals for scientific research. Another important problem in science is the question of ethics.

The scientific method itself is unable to produce its own ethical principles as it does not assume absolute truths to exist. Without an external reference, the scientific approach to the generation of ethical principles has to examine each of the plausible options and try them out. This, however, might have some serious consequences. In the process of trying out ethical principles many humans and animals might be hurt. Science, therefore, needs an external source of guidance in the definition and implementation of ethical scientific procedures.

Religious study can also benefit from science in two ways: The first way was alluded to by the “two books paradigm” above. By way of scientific investigation, a believer has the opportunity to appreciate the omnipotence and other beautiful names of God much better than an unbeliever person. Thus, the study of the universe helps increase and deepen our faith.

The second way science can benefit religious understanding is through encouraging common people to base their faith on stronger foundations. By acquiring skills of systematic observation, sound reasoning, and methods of inquiry, both religious scholars and lay people can enhance the strength of their faith and reduce superstition. Science and true religion, hand in hand, can work on eliminating blind faith and blind rejection.

Conclusion

We have touched upon several aspects of the relationship between science and religion. We began by questioning the simplistic views of science and religion and showed that they cannot be regarded as disciplines of totally different domains. We have provided a framework, called the “certainty fields,” which may help explain the perceived conflicts between science and religion. The “two books paradigm” was provided as an example of a paradigm where science and religion do not merely coexist, but also complement each other. Finally we have mentioned two ways whereby scientific and religious inquiry can benefit each other. The reader will no doubt appreciate the vastness of these topics and the need for further study. We have tried to provide pointers and resources for the interested readers. When understood properly and practiced harmoniously, science and religion can open doors to human achievement, spiritual as well as materi-al, that were unheard of in the past.

References

• Nursi, S., The Words, Kaynak, Izmir: 1997.
• Smith, H., Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World’s Religions, Harper, San Fransisco: 1993.
• Shakir, M., The Qur’an Translation, Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, 1999.

The Process of Discovery

Kamerlingh Omnes, a Dutch physicist dedicated to achieving ultracold refrigeration, opened this field in 1908 by liquefying helium at -452 F (4 K or -269 C).(1) This achievement enabled scientists to cool materials to very low temperatures and study their properties.

Scientists knew that a metal’s resistance fell as the temperature was lowered, but did not know what the limiting value would be when 0 K (the absolute minimum temperature) was approached. In 1911, Omnes began investigating the electrical properties of metals at very low temperatures. Many contemporaries, including Lord Kelvin, believed that resistance eventually would level off to a nonzero value. While passing a current through a very pure mercury wire whose temperature was being steadily lowered, Omnes noticed that its resistance vanished at 4.2K. He remarked: “Mercury passed into a new state, which on account of its extraordinary electrical properties may be called the superconducting state.” This marks the birth of superconductivity.

Scientific and commercial potentials were obvious. A resistance-free metal wire could carry current for a long time without any loss. Omnes tried to determine the amount of such a loss. After letting a superconducting loop run for a year, he determined that there was no significant current loss. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1913 for his discovery.

In 1933, Walter Meissner and Robert Ochsenfeld discovered that superconductors are both perfect conductors and perfect diamagnets, for magnetic fields cannot penetrate a superconductor’s interior. When a material is superconducting and a field is applied, the current flowing on the superconductor’s surface generates a magnetic field that cancels the applied field inside the superconductor (the Meissner effect). Since the magnetic field generated inside the superconductor opposes the applied field, superconductors are diamagnetic. This shielding of an applied magnetic field occurs only if the applied field is not very large. Superconductivity is destroyed at a certain point.

Theoretical Progress and Surprises

Theoretical progress was much slower, however, almost as if superconductivity had been discovered too early. The scientific community’s incomplete understanding of quantum mechanics made it impossible to understand the mechanism behind superconductivity. Some phenomenological theories were developed during the 1930s and 1940s, but a clearer picture only began to emerge in 1957.

Three American physicists, John Bardeen, Leon Cooper, and Robert Schriffer, used quantum field theory and many-body physics to develop the BCS theory, which explains superconductivity for elements and some alloys.(2) In essence, the theory states that a superconductor’s electrons condense into a quantum ground state and move together coherently. Pairs of electrons (Cooper pairs)-not single electrons-achieve current transfer. These physicists received the Noble Prize in 1972.

Another milestone came in 1962. Brian Josephson, a Cambridge University graduate student, predicted that an electrical current could flow between two superconductors separated by thin insulating barrier. He made a suitable device (the Josephson Junction) by inserting an insulating material between two superconductors. Sending current through one superconductor, he saw it pass through to the other one. Known as the Josephson effect, it is one of the most important components in superconducting electronics. Josephson was awarded a share of the Nobel Prize in 1973.

In 1986, Alex Miiller and Georg Bednorz of IBM Research Lab (Switzerland) synthesized a ceramic compound that superconducted at 30K (-243C), the highest superconductor temperature ever reached. This compound contained lanthanum, barium, copper, and oxygen. Scientists do not know why it super-conducts, for it insulates at high temperatures and conducts electricity very poorly before it superconducts. Bednorz and Miiller received the Noble Prize in 1987.

This discovery inspired many researchers to combine elements to achieve superconductivity at higher temperatures. In January 1987, researchers at the University of Alabama replaced the lanthanum in the Bednorz-Miiller compound with yttrium and reached a transition temperature (Tc) of 92K. As a result, the much cheaper liquid nitrogen could replace liquid helium as a coolant. By trial-and-error experimentation, a Tc of 138K was reached in a compound consisting of mercury, thallium, barium, calcium, copper, and oxygen.

These new materials all contain layered copper and oxygen planes with other elements in between the crystal structure. Superconductivity occurs on the planes, and the rest of the crystal serves as a charge reservoir. The magnetic field gradually penetrates these new materials (called High Tc superconductors), causing a mixed state between the normal state and the superconducting state.

In 1997, existing theories were shattered when an alloy of gold and indium was used as a superconductor and a magnet. This is expected to have an important effect on magnetic data storage.

The most recent surprise came in November 2000. About 10 years ago, scientists learned that carbon-60 could superconduct at near absolute zero. By expanding the lattice structure, a Tc of 52K was reached. About a month later, the same group reached a Tc of 90K. Many believe that this temperature could reach well over 100K. Carbon-60 is the only material that has reached such high Tcs without having copper and oxygen planes in its structure.

Applications

Superconductors do more than just conduct electricity. Other important functions are as follows:

• The Korean-developed SQUID (Superconducting QUantum Interference Device) can detect magnetic field changes that are 100 billion times smaller than Earth’s minute magnetic field, and uses the most fundamental properties of superconductors and quantum mechanics. Medical researchers use SQUIDs to study the human brain. Systems in which hundreds of SQUIDs are arranged in a helmet-like configuration containing liquid helium are commercially available. These systems detect the magnetic field produced by thousands of neurons. Although neurons produce huge fields when compared to the SQUID’s sensitivity, a magnetically shielded room is required to filter out fields produced by TVs, computers, cars, and so on. In these rooms, external stimulation applied to the patient’s brain enables specialists to locate tumors or other ill-functioning areas by mapping the brain’s functions. The human brain has two types of responses: stimulated and self-generated (spontaneous). By using the SQUID’s fast temporal response, one can locate non-invasively the epileptic loci, which causes some diseases. Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s research also use SQUIDs at the detection level.

• Magnetic levitation became possible after scientists built superconducting magnets. Since superconductors have no resistance, a small voltage can generate huge currents and, therefore, magnetic fields large enough to float vehicles on these superconducting magnets with almost no friction. In 1999, a train in Japan reached a speed of 343 miles per hour. Japanese researchers are studying the possibility of a mag-lev linear motor car.

• Superconducting magnets have been used extensively in particle accelerators since 1987. Particle physics requires the acceleration of subatomic particles to speeds very close to the speed of light. This necessitates high magnetic fields that, in turn, need high currents-something for which superconductors are ideal. One event that made superconducting better known is probably the American Congress’ cancellation of the multi-billion Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) project in 1993. A European consortium is now pursuing this research field.

•Superconducting wires improve an electric generator’s efficiency by more than 99 percent. In addition, such generators are about half the size of conventional ones. General Electric estimates that there is a potential $20-30 billion global market for superconducting generators. Unfortunately, the high costs of cooling systems rules out using this technology to supply cities with electricity. But the moment sufficiently high Tcs are reached, superconductivity’s impact in this area will be immeasurable.

•Other applications are high-performance and high-capacity electronic filters (currently used in some cellular phone systems); a petaflop-computer (1,000 trillion floating point operations per second-1,000 times faster than today’s computers); mine and submarine detection (the U.S. Navy); and storing energy to enhance power stability (American Superconductor Corp.); satellites; telescopes and other light detection instruments; and Internet routers.

Footnotes

1. F (Fahrenheit): A temperature scale registering water’s freezing point as 32F and boiling point as 212 F at one atmosphere of pressure. K (Kelvin): A unit of absolute temperature equal to 1/273.16 of the absolute temperature of the water’s triple point; equal to one Celsius degree. C (Celsius): A temperature scale registering water’s freezing point as 0 C and boiling point as 100 C under normal atmospheric pressure.
2. Quantum field theory: A body of physical principles that accounts for subatomic phenomena. Quantum many-body physics: The branch of theoretical physics that studies the new collective phenomena or “elementary” constituents of a many-particle system and the underlying quantum mechanics that determines their behavior.

References 

• Clarke, J. “Superconductivity: A Macroscopic Quantum Phenomenon.” Beam Line 30, no. 2 (summer/fall 2000): 41-48.
• Dull, R. W. and H. R. Kerchner. “Applications of Superconductors.” A Teacher’s Guide to Superconductivity for High School Students (1994). Online at:
• www.ornl.gov/reports/m/ornlm3063r1/pt4.html.
• Gunnarsson, O. “C60: The Hole Story.” Nature 1408 (30 Nov. 2000): 528-29.
• http ://superconductors .org
• Tinkham, M. Introduction to Superconductivity. 2d ed. McGraw-Hill Higher Education: 1995.