However, none of these movies properly – or accurately – explains radiation. Regardless of what you do and where you are on a typical day, you are being exposed to millions of particle showers – another term for radiation – at all times. Radiation is all around us, but we are not turning into monsters, giants, or any other kind of creature. We do not even sense most of the radiation unless the harmful effects reach the detectable level. In fact, radioactive isotopes (the sources of radiation) found in water, air, soil, and most places in the environment have been emitting radiation since the Big Bang ^[1], which occurred approximately 14 billion years ago.

Radiation can be emitted by both natural and man-made sources ^{[2, 3]}. There are generally two main types of natural radiation: radiation from natural sources, such as elements in the ground, is terrestrial, and radiation from outer space, such as charged particles and gamma rays, is cosmic. For example, at this very moment you are being bombarded with cosmic rays every few seconds. On the other hand, the main human-made source of radiation exposure is from medical sources like nuclear medicine, x-rays, computed tomography (CT) scans, etc.

There are various types of radiation emitted by the sun. The most widely recognized forms are visible light, infrared, ultraviolet (UV), x-ray, and gamma radiation. We can only see the visible light, which is defined as having a wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum between 400-700 nm (a nanometer, or nm, is approximately 10-9 meter). Some of the other kinds of light have greater wavelengths, and some have smaller. In short, visible light’s region is a very narrow part of the wide EM spectrum.

Why can our eyes see only within this limited range? There are several reasons ^[4]: solar emissions, low absorption in the atmosphere, the energy of chemical bonds, the optical properties of matter, black-body emissions, and so on. Unless all these reasons align into a specific rhythm, we cannot see the kind of light. There are many laws determining light, and the fact that we can see even some light is quite remarkable, and a sign of how perfectly calibrated the universe is.

Misfits of the standard model: Neutrinos

Following our discussion of radiation, I would like to focus on one particular type of radiation: neutrinos. Neutrinos are created in certain types of radioactive decay and nuclear reactions, such as those occurring in the sun. They are one of the most abundant particles in the universe; billions of them pass harmlessly through your body, unnoticed. David Griffiths, a physicist at Reed College, describes neutrinos in his book on particle physics ^[5]:

“…neutrinos interact extraordinarily weakly with matter; a neutrino of moderate energy could easily penetrate a thousand light years of lead. That’s a comforting realization when you learn that hundreds of billions of neutrinos per second pass through every square inch of your body, night and day, coming from the sun.”

In total, there are three kinds of neutrino flavors, as they are called. These are electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos, and tau neutrinos. Each kind has a tiny mass. According to the Standard Model, there are three kinds of particles in the universe: “light-weight” leptons, “mid-weight” mesons, and “heavy-weight” baryons, such as protons and neutrons. Neutrinos are in the lepton family, which, in total, has only six particles; they have weak interactions within the universe. Neutrinos are neutral leptons since they are chargeless. Other leptons, electron, muon, and tau are called as charged leptons.

The Standard Model is one of the fundamental models in experimental high-energy physics explaining how the universe came into being. Well-known scientists are still improving the model to categorize particles properly in the universe with the aim of finding missing particles. The model explains very well the fundamental forces governing the world: strong nuclear forces, weak nuclear forces, gravitational force, and electroweak force. There were, frankly, two contradictions challenging the Standard Model until today: the Higgs mechanism ^[6] and the mass of neutrinos. The model predicted that Higgs boson ^[6] is the particle responsible for all the mass in the universe. CERN, the biggest particle accelerator^[7] on earth, announced in July 2012 that they had found a particle that behaves like the Standard Model predicted Higgs boson would. Scientists at CERN are still striving to understand the identity and features of this discovered particle. If they achieve that, they can unravel the mystery and origins of the universe a little bit more. At the end, only the mass of neutrinos will remain a controversial topic within the model.

The Standard Model predicted that neutrinos were chargeless and massless particles. However, cosmic, reactor, and accelerator neutrino experiments, which are the main three experiment types to track neutrinos, confirmed each other on the subject of neutrino oscillation. Neutrino oscillation, in short, means that they can change their flavors. For example, a tau neutrino can convert to an electron neutrino, and vice versa. This discovery shows that these particles can be chargeless but not massless. Each of them has to have small, different masses to be able to perform flavor conversions, according to the laws of physics. That is why these particles are usually called the misfits^[8] of the Standard Model.

Since each particle was produced with its antiparticle, according to Dirac’s theory of pairs^[9], neutrinos also have their antiparticles, so there are actually six types of neutrinos in the universe. Each antiparticle has exactly the same properties as the original particle, just with the opposite charge. What about the chargeless neutrinos? The difference between neutrinos and antineutrinos is their spin behavior, not their charge. They both have zero charge; however, antineutrinos have a right-handed spin and neutrinos have a left-handed spin.

If each particle has its own antiparticle in theory, there should be the same amount of particles and antiparticles in the universe. However, experimental results show that there are more particles than antiparticles. There are a lot of scientists explaining this dilemma by accepting a parallel universe in which there are more antiparticles than particles, so the total would still be the same. In return, some others are trying to clarify this contradiction by accepting that more particles were created at the beginning of the universe, approximately 14 billion years ago.

Acknowledgment: This article is produced at Mergeous ^[10], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realms of science and religion.

References

[1] Kaya, A. 2009. “The Expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang: A Qur’anic Perspective,” The Fountain Magazine, Issue 68.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation
[3] http://www.chem.duke.edu/jds/cruise_chem/nuclear/exposure.html
[4] Why can we see visible light? 2007. Physics Education, 42(1), pp. 37-40.
[5] David Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles.
[6] Kara, Cihan. 2013. “Will CERN Reveal the Origin of the Universe or Cause the End,” The Fountain Magazine, Issue 92.
[7] http://home.web.cern.ch/
[8] Symmetry Magazine, A Joint Fermilab/SLAC Publication, Spring 2013.
[9] Mahmood B. S. 2009. “The Holy Qur’an and Dirac’s Theory of Pairs,” The Fountain Magazine, Issue 68.
[10] Mergeous, Online article and project development platform, http://www.mergeous.com

In a globalized world, some regions – like Anatolia, which could be considered a bridge from east-to-west, past-to-future, and a melting pot for different cultures and religions – could pull from their centuries-long experience in child education to help others.
Ali Fethi Toprak

Child education or training is one of the biggest challenges parents face. During the child-raising process, every parent experiences some difficulties and needs help and guidance. Therefore, many parents naturally look for resources to educate themselves on how to better raise their children.

Pedagogy, defined as the art or science of teaching, offers different educational methods and models for children’s education. Some methods are so common that they are institutionalized. For example, there are about 4,000 certified Montessori schools in the United States, and about 7,000 worldwide. However, the necessity of a prepared environment and special Montessori teachers make this method available only to those who can afford it.

In addition to economic considerations, many pedagogical approaches in different countries have to balance cultural, religious, and regional considerations, so to better educate children. In a globalized world, some regions – like Anatolia, which could be considered a bridge from east-to-west, past-to-future, and a melting pot for different cultures and religions – could pull from their centuries-long experience in child education to help others.

Although most of the world only became interested in child education after the dawn of the twentieth century, there has been a long standing tradition of child education and training in Anatolia. Just as people specializing in child education today are called pedagogues, Anatolian professionals were called “mürebbî” and “murebbiye” during the Ottoman period. A mürebbî, or governess, provided great support in child training to parents, and when parents fell short or needed guidance in any respect, mürebbîs were in the immediate vicinity, available to help.

Fathers were also important figures in childhood education, and the Anatolian children were living as honorable members of society. Besides, Anatolia was an admired center for peace during this period. A Western observer, A. Ubicini (1818-1884, Lettres sur la Turquie – Letters on Turkey), made the following note in his diary on the role of the father; it is a great example of the father-model which today’s pedagogy is seeking:

“I don’t know of any other country where children live with so much love, care and compassion. Oddly enough, all this compassion and care is deepened in the fathers rather than mothers. It is really something to see that an Ottoman Turk holds his kid’s hand and walks with him on the road on Fridays (holiday in Ottoman times) or on another holiday. He keeps his steps as small as his child’s. When realizing that the child is tired, he puts him on his shoulders or let’s him sit by him while he rests in a coffee house, and he speaks to him with a great compassion and care.”

Understanding the roots of Anatolian pedagogy

There are studies to understand the basis of childhood education in the Anatolian model. Pedagogue Adem Güneş provides a systematic approach called “Anatolian Pedagogy.” According to his model, Anatolian Pedagogy aims to educate children in a way that is more compatible with the true human nature. It abstains from any behavior or stress that will disturb the nature of children. The nature of children is like that of plain paper. Since whatever is initially imprinted on it will remain for rest of its life, parents should aim to leave good images on this clean page.

In addition, according to Anatolian Pedagogy, a child should not be afraid to make mistakes, and parents, as much as possible, should not interfere with issues arising from childhood. Instead, mistakes should be accepted as strong and easily remembered lessons that provide a path for kids to correct themselves. Furthermore, Anatolian Pedagogy states that every child should be treated differently. Because Anatolian Pedagogy puts an emphasis on the differences of children, kids are not treated equal, but treated justly. For example, if one child is emotional while another is more social, the way parents show their love, mercy, and care should not be the same for both. Anatolian Pedagogy also implies that parents should not buy their children the same type of clothes. In addition, parents should not have the same expectations for the future education of different children.

Anatolian approach to reward and punishment

The approach of Anatolian Pedagogy to punishment is mainly shaped by the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him. He educated kids not with punishment, but through mercy and compassion. Anatolian Pedagogy, thus, affirms that punishment will cause kids to lose self-esteem and will make them embarrassed. Moreover, Anatolian Pedagogy does not confirm giving rewards in order to change the unwanted behavior of kids. Thus, it aims to avoid the development of any artificial behaviors or false personalities in children.

The importance of living a child-centric life

Anatolian Pedagogy recommends that parents be tightly connected with their children. Interestingly, Anatolian Pedagogy advises parents to earn the love of their kids to avoid the common misconception that “your kids love you only because you are their parents.” From this perspective, mercy and love toward children should be unconditional. Kids must become aware of this, so that they do not fall into indebtedness.

Another aspect of Anatolian Pedagogy deals with the understanding of children’s emotions. Parenthood is not possible without this consideration. Parents in the Anatolian model were expected to adjust their lives according to their kid’s world – to live a kid-centered lifestyle. This also includes not disturbing the biological rhythm of children. A common problem of modern times is to live fast, and this may end up meaning “living without feeling.” Anatolian Pedagogy aims to prevent such carelessness.

Effect of culture on childhood education

Pedagogical advice cannot be independent from the traditions that compose a community. If cultural differences are not taken into consideration, the advice given for childhood education will be a new source of problems. The suggestions to solve similar problems in child training may even be different for families who live in the same region, but in different cities.

For instance, some habits considered as usual in a family from a metropolitan city can be unusual in a family from a rural city. If it is so different in the same country, imagine how pedagogical methods can differ from country to country? Would a German family and a British family have the same pedagogical perspectives? Could you compare the family structure and child training techniques in a French or Turkish family? In some cultures, it is essential that the child leaves his parents when he is 18, and he should be able to earn his own living, thus becoming an independent thinker who contributes to the social, economic, and intellectual welfare of the community. Under such conditions, the goal is to ensure that a child doesn’t have any emotional weaknesses. From this perspective, keeping a child’s emotions controlled is a positive. As a result, there are differences between this perspective and the Anatolian model.

These differences between Europe and Anatolia do not mean, “European pedagogy is bad,” and, “Anatolian Pedagogy is the best.” On the contrary, Europe defines its pedagogic standards by its own cultural values. European pedagogical approaches could be acceptable and valid for Europe. But if you try to apply them in Anatolia, or vice versa, they will likely be incompatible.

Each society should establish its own science of pedagogy from its own values. For this reason, pedagogical experts who understand their own cultural values should establish scientific theories for their own country and land. In the West, Piaget, Van der Horst, John Bowby, Alice Miller, and Maria Montessori have been influential; Sufi masters Mawlana Jalaluddin Rumi and Yunus Emre, who are marvels of love, compassion, and peace, offer great examples of Anatolian pedagogy that could inspire the world.

• Hatice Kocabas is a Psychology Student at FernUniversität in Hagen, Germany.
• Adem Gunes is the Chair of Child Education Department, Fatih University, Istanbul.
• Ali Fethi Toprak is a Senior Researcher, Texas Institute of Biotechnology at North American College, Houston, TX, USA

References

1. Montessori Schools. Retrieved from http://www.montessori.edu/FAQ.html on 03/04/12.

2. Montessori education. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori_education on 03/04/12.

3. Adem Güneş. Anatolian Pedagogy 1&2. Şebmen Dergisi. Retrieved from http://www.sebnemdergisi.com on 03/04/12.

4. Adem Güneş (Pedagogue). Pedagojide Anadolu Ekolü & Insanlığı zirvelere taşımış terbiye yöntemi. Retrieved from http://www.ademgunes.com/?p=271 and p=677 on 03/04/12.

A consocational democracy is a type of democracy which emphasizes the importance of power-sharing and decision-making among different segments in society. But is consociational democracy the most suitable form of democracy when it comes to establishing lasting peace in post-conflict societies?

Consocational democracy addresses problems in democratic state building that result from deep segmentation. These divisions as a result are easily defined and measured where real boundaries (political or otherwise) exist. As a result of these environmental and social conditions there exists a natural tendency for competition and the supporting of ethnically-based parties (Andeweg 2000).

The consocational framework is dependent on elite cooperation. This is the centerpiece of the model and is based on the premise that communal violence between groups is often exacerbated by elites so that when these elites have a voice in government, they have a vested interest in maintaining its integrity. Although elite meddling in conflict is the most potent, it is not the only incendiary in inter-group relations (Andeweg 2000).

Under the current model where a society has the characteristics necessitating a consocational framework, the sub-groups have two choices: to remain a part of the country or to separate. These two forces pull on individuals of each group in which decisions are often based on various factors. Those societies that do not cooperate are termed “centrifugal.” In this case, the sub-groups emphasize separation over integration. Consocationalism is a top-down integration/cooperation mechanism that seeks to overcome centrifugal forces (Andeweg 2000).

Loyaltiyes and state building

One of the forces that create these centrifugal tendencies is also one of the characteristics that make communal life possible i.e. group loyalty. According to A.A.M. Kinneging (2004) loyalty, “pertains to a bond that withstands the passing of time and the winds of change: a bond that is conceived of as lasting, permanent, unbreakable, even holy” (Kinneging 2004, 68). This definition of loyalty indicates how intractable it is when integrating many different groups with different loyalties under one government. In this case, as Kinneging points out, the community is higher than the individual. In ethnically homogenous countries this presents no problem and allows democracy to flourish at all levels. Often times this is not the case in heterogeneous societies where either the state enforces a loyalty to its institutions, such as in the republican liberal democracy model, while still maintaining individual rights or enforces it in such a way that violates individual rights in an undemocratic manner.

Loyalties typically follow racial or religious lines. They can even be more fragmented such as loyalty to one’s town or city. Evidence can be seen in the sport’s world. Loyalty is typically to a person or an institution (Healy 2007). Loyalty to the nation-state has been somewhat of a recent phenomenon. The lack of loyalty can be detrimental to state integrity when it is towards another group. The lack of loyalty between sub-groups is something that consocationalism does not address as it represents an administrative/electoral solution to a heavily divided society. It does not address the psychological/emotional element that loyalty forms a part of and which in essence is the backbone of society.

Lijphart envisioned consocationalism as a temporary solution in which it was only meant as a transitory phase to greater levels of democratic cooperation (Andeweg 2000). This of course assumes that through elite cooperation and living peacefully alongside each other under one roof, it is possible that these groups would eventually reconcile their differences and move to greater integration. Unfortunately, there is the other direction such as entrenched differences that only get worse with time that may stalemate/postpone the conflict i.e. not resolving the conflicts (Fox & Miller 2007). Still, consocational democracy is considered the best option for deeply stratified societies because it recognizes, among other things, that some sub-groups have a complete way of life that requires a certain level of autonomy from the state.

The risk in this approach is that these sub-groups may look at the government as a burden or unnecessary overhang on complete control of their affairs. In response, the state may have a few choices at its disposal that may either create incentives such as the consocational framework or force a state identity upon all sub-groups, essentially eliminating them.

Bosnia: Adversarial communities under one roof

Bosnia is composed of three adversarial communities that have existed since the 15th century. Primarily, these communities came into existence around a particular religion. These religions of interest in the Bosnian case are Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity and Islam. The Serbian people primarily follow Orthodox Christianity, the Croatians follow Catholic Christianity, and the Bosniacs follow Islam. These communities erupted into full-fledged war in the early 90’s when the Orthodox Serbs engaged in genocide against the Muslim Bosniacs (Kasapovic 2005).

These people were subject to the first consocational system of the world, the millet system which was implemented by the Ottoman Empire shortly after conquering the area that is now the former Yugoslavia. The millet system, which has roots in the religion of Islam, gave different religious communities their own autonomy headed by an elite (millet bashi) who was responsible for different religious and civil areas. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the various nation-states that emerged did not act so kindly on the remaining Muslim groups and either forced them to leave or massacred them. The Bosniacs represented a unique example as well as other indigenous ethnic groups who converted to Islam during Ottoman rule (Katsikas 2009).

These communities have historical differences that cannot disappear overnight. The Orthodox Serbs and Catholic Croatians owe their divide to the Great Schism in the 11th century between Constantinople and Rome (Norwich 1999). The Muslim Bosniacs and Orthodox Serbs owe their divide to Serb defeat at the hands of the Ottomans in the 14th century (Kinross 2003). Although present-day communities probably give little thought to these events, the mimetic transmission of hatred means that these communities are seemingly locked in an adversarial relationship.

After the 1995 Dayton Peace Accord, a consocational-type government was established. Kasapovic described it as an “asymmetrical confederation” in which the country is divided into two parts with one part being more consocational between Bosniacs and Croatians and the other representing a more homogenous state of Serbs. At the national level equal representation is given to the three groups, mutual veto exists, autonomy is given to each group, and consensus is maintained (Kasapovic 2005).

More than fifteen years after the Dayton Peace Accord there is peace, but as Kasapovic pointed out, this is only because all groups consented to peace. Kasapovic notes that the state is still highly unstable because there is no consensus on its organization and there are continuing external threats that may tear the country apart (Kasapovic 2005). This instability means that these groups, by and large, have not resolved their differences.

He argues that there are three reasons for this inefficiency of the model of consocational democracy, one “at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state, and one more at the level of the Federation as a state sub-entity: no consensus on the state, no consensus on the political system, no consistent strategy of international actors in establishing a democratic state, and the unfavorable two-segmental structure of the Federation with one segment outnumbering the other” (Kasapovic 2005, 9).

The fact remains that despite living in a consocational-type system for six centuries, the different groups that compose Bosnia’s adversarial groups have not cooperated at any level that would have caused them to avoid the deluge in the early 90’s. This indicates that although these people are living together under one country, they harbor distrust or hatred of those who compose the other group. The fact that they are all part of one country appears to have no influence on the perceptions towards the other group.

Considering that this conflict has been ongoing at varying intensities for several hundred years, an unfreezing process is needed. The concept of unfreezing has its roots with the organization theorist Kurt Lewin who proposed an unfreezing, moving/changing, and re-freezing process. In the process, values are changed and thus can be labeled change management. The re-freezing may have more clout with individual organizations, but the re-freezing creates an organized way of thinking akin to concepts of efficiency i.e. an established uniform identity (Levasseur 2001).

The involvement of religious leaders has importance in this case. Since these conflicts involved Christian and Muslim communities which are international religions, and since these conflicts also involved an international response, these local conflicts have implications that are not only local. International religious leaders should remember to be sensitive to religious sentiments despite their distance from Bosnia.

Haynes pointed out that one of the problems of the roles religious leaders face is that they lack the capacity to build a strategy for peace (Haynes 2009). As members of an international faith, these leaders would have access to a large network of resources that would facilitate them in their role as peace-makers. One of the aspects that may be appropriately addressed in Bosnia is training these leaders to both acquire these resources as well as use them appropriately. This would make their role far more influential than the elites.

The side effect is that many of these religious leaders may have instigated violence against the other or continue to preach hatred towards the other. These leaders need to either be isolated by the national government or reprimanded severely by those leaders of international representation. The globalized world makes all this possible. The world in this essence can either be a harbinger of peace or a catalyst for war at the local level.

Religious leaders should be engaged in dialog with each other as much as other community members are engaged in workshops both inventing solutions and implementing them. Once a healthy environment of dialog is fostered, then either naturally or through planned social action, inclusive networks should be developed. These networks can create cooperation and community.

Lastly, the existence of these networks means that the state as a reactionary entity becomes a mirror of that society. In this case, the consocational model of governance might work and if possible a more unified democratic format may be chosen. The result would be a multi-group democratic state with shared loyalties to the state, one’s own group, and to another group. This does not guarantee continued peace, but at least secures it much more tightly than as proposed under the consocational framework alone.

Hummel is a doctoral candidate at the School of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University.

References

• Andeweg, Ruby B. 2000. “Consociational democracy,” Annual Review of Political Science 3, no. 1: 509-536.
• Fox, Charles & Hugh Miller. 2007. Postmodern Public Administration, Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.
• Haynes, Jeffrey. 2009. “Conflict, Conflict Resolution and Peace-building: The Role of Religion in Mozambique, Nigeria and Cambodia,” Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 47, no.1: 52-75.
• Healy, Mary. 2007. “School Choice, Brand Loyalty and Civic Loyalty,” Journal of Philosophy of Education 41, no. 4: 743-756.
• Kasapovic, Mirjana. 2005. “Bosnia and Herzegovina: Consociational or Liberal Democracy,” Croatian Political Science Review 42, no. 5: 3-30.
• Katsikas, Stefanos. 2009. “Millets in Nation-states: The Case of Greek and Bulgarian Muslims,” Nationalities Papers 37, no. 2: 177-201.
• Kinneging, Andreas A. M. 2004. “Loyalty in the Modern World,” Modern Age 46, no. 1/2: 68.
• Kinross, Lord. 2003. The Ottoman Empire, London: Folio Society.
• Levasseur, Robert E. 2001. “People Skills: Change Management Tools – Lewin’s Change Model,” Interfaces 31, no. 4: 3.
• Norwich, John J. 1999. A Short History of Byzantium, New York: Vintage Books.

They are tiny, and there are billions of them inside you. Tiny machines, one thousand times thinner than a hair strand but strong enough to carry all kinds of material within your cells. Yes, there is a complex army of tiny machines inside your body performing an amazing array of functions while you sit at home sipping your tea.

Your heart is beating. Its lifelong duty is to pump blood to tissues to deliver essential nutrients. Transportation of nutrients continues from blood vessels to cells and then into subcellular compartments. Inside of a cell, there is a need for sophisticated biomachines which are responsible for transport. Did you know that you were equipped with minuscule motors that transported cargos in your cells? Or about cellular highways where molecular cargos are transported?

There are various proteins called “motors” in the cell. They can convert chemical energy to mechanical energy to produce force and motion in the cellular highways.¹ Amazingly, molecular motors are much superior to man-made motors in terms of energetic efficiency by hydrolyzing ATP to fuel enzymatic reactions. These molecular motors include rotary motors, polymerization motors, nucleic acid motors and cytoskeletal motors.

Rotary motors

Bacterial flagellum, used for swimming, acts as a propeller and uses a rotary motor. It has been suggested that this motor is similar to Fo motor found in FoF1-ATP synthase. FoF1-ATP synthase takes part in the conversion of chemical energy in ATP to proton gradient, or vice versa. This chemical reaction involves mechanical rotation of parts of the complex.

Polymerization and nucleic acid motors

Polymerization motors take role in polymerizations and these polymerizations generate forces for repulsion (Actin or microtubule polymerization), or separation of clathrin buds from plasma membrane (Dynamin).

DNA and RNA synthesis also involves the use of molecular motors such as RNA polymerase (RNA synthesis from DNA), DNA polymerase (DNA synthesis), Helicases (separation of double stranded DNA prior to DNA or RNA synthesis), Topoisomerases (removal of supercoiling of DNA), RSC, SWI/SNF, and SMC proteins (Chromatin remodeling and chromosome condensation). Moreover, there are specific viral DNA packaging motors that pack tightly viral DNA into capsids. separation of double stranded DNA prior to DNA or RNA synthesis), Topoisomerases (removal of supercoiling of DNA), RSC, SWI/SNF, and SMC proteins (Chromatin remodeling and chromosome condensation). Moreover, there are specific viral DNA packaging motors that pack tightly viral DNA into capsids.

Cytoskeletal motors

Dyneins, kinesins and myosins denote the three major classes of molecular motor that moves along cytoskeletal structures. Myosin is among the most prominent of motor proteins that takes role in muscle contraction. Kinesin operates on microtubules (long tubes composed of dimers of the protein tubulin, arranged to form 13 parallel tracks) to move cargos inside the cells away from the nucleus (toward positive end of microtubules) and play essential roles in the formation of spindle apparatus and axonal transport. Dynein is also known to transport cargo but in the opposite direction to Kinesin, towards the cell nucleus (toward minus end of microtubules). In addition, dynein is required to beat cilia and flagella.

How molecular motors move

Myosin and kinesin are structurally similar in terms of being dimeric with two motor heads, two legs, and a common stalk. The head regions control the forward movement by binding itself to actin or microtubule filaments. Movement is facilitated by the consumption of ATP by ATPase sites. It is fascinating how these motors translate chemical energy into motion and still be different to the movement of cars. There are different proposals as to how molecular motors move, such as walking (hand-over-hand model), inchworm model, and biased diffusion model.

The-hand-over-hand model suggests that ATP binding induces a conformational change in the forward head movements and keeps fixed, thus leading to the movement of the rear head forward and vice versa. This model, which is also known as the walking model, is similar to upright walking where one foot moves forward while other stay fixed, and vice versa. On the other hand, the inchworm model suggests that only forward head movements use ATP and leads while the other head follows. Studies on the Myosin VI with shorter legs suggested a biased diffusion model. In the diffusion model, the motor moves randomly to the next binding site in a forward direction. In order to find out which mechanism used by molecular motors, scientists measured how much of the head moves following staining with a fluorescent dye. Since molecular motor movements are so small (5-10 nM), optical traps and cantilever probes (>100 μm) were not useful to watch head movements. By increasing both photostability and brightness of organic dyes, Dr. Yildiz at UC Berkeley was able to measure head movements down to 1.5nM scale.

Kinesin: A molecular motor that walks

Kinesins are among microtubule-based motors recently shown to walk like a mountain climber by swapping its two motor units (analogous to feet) in a hand-over-hand mechanism rather than an inchworm mechanism. This recent discovery sheds light on how kinesin moves its cargos such as membrane components, messenger RNA, signaling moleculers, and others along microtubules. In addition, as suggested by findings of Dr. Yildiz, kinesin demonstrates an asymmetric walking where motor heads alternate with slow and fast steps. Further studies using advanced microscopy techniques (called FIONA) which allow nano scale detection of movement down to 2nM resolution demonstrated delicately that processive kinesin motor takes about 8 nM steps (eight-billionths of a meter) for each ATP molecule consumption with alternating 16-nm and 0-nm steps. Furthermore, kinesin is attached to the microtubule while it waits for ATP between steps. Since kinesin is used for long distance cargo transport on relatively big highways of a cell, it elegantly demonstrates a processive motor that reliably travels in a coordinated manner. Of course, not all motors will be moving like kinesin.

Dynein moves through uncoordinated stepping of ring domains

Another motor protein involved in long distance cargo transport is dynein. Dynein is a staggering giant which is much bigger and complex than kinesin and myosin motors. There are about 15 types of dyneins known to take role in cilia and flagella movement and 2 cytoplasmic forms. Cytoplasmic dynein is a homodimeric AAA+ (ATPases associated with cellular activities) motor that transports toward the microtubule minus end, acting opposite to kinesin. FIONA assay demonstrated that the heads moving processively but independently. This mechanism is quite different from the hand-over-hand stepping of kinesin and myosin, for dynein’s steps are not strictly coordinated and highly variable. Most of the time, dynein heads move alternatively with variable head-to-head distance of about 5-50nM. Each head of dynein mostly does not pass each other.

Elegant design, efficiency in transportation and being part of the living system makes molecular motors in the cells superior to man-made motors. Molecular motors travel on cellular highways in the cellular microcosm in the manner of dutiful officials of a king traveling in his domain in security via the fastest modes of transportation and easily cross provincial boundaries, demonstrating more evidently that the Sovereignty of the Eternal King is limitless. Indeed, the signs of His Dominion are reflected by each and every entity from the microcosmic world to macrocosmic universe.

Note

1 Cellular highways are composed of microtubules, microfilaments and actin filaments. Myosin moves along microfilaments through interaction with actin, but dynein and kinesin move along microtubules through interaction with tubulin

References

• DeWitt MA et al. Cytoplasmic dynein moves through uncoordinated stepping of the AAA+ ring domains. Science. 2012 Jan 13;335(6065):221-5. Epub 2011 Dec 8.
• King SM. AAA domains and organization of the dynein motor unit. J Cell Sci. 2000 Jul;113 ( Pt 14):2521-6.
• Wilhelm J. Walter & Stefan Diez. A staggering giant. Nature. Vol 482. 2 February 2012.
• Molecular motors and Motor proteins. Retrieved from Wikipedia on 3/31/2012.
• Yildiz et al. Myosin V Walks Hand-Over-Hand: Single Fluorophore Imaging with 1.5-nm Localization. Science 27 June 2003:Vol. 300 no. 5628 pp. 2061-2065
• Yildiz et al. Kinesin Walks Hand-Over-Hand. Science 30 January 2004: Vol. 303 no. 5658 pp. 676-678

“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.

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

What we know about the Universe

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

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

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

The expansion of the universe in the Qur’an

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

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

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

Other verses related to the Big Bang

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Conventional water and wind turbines cannot function properly in a whirling current; the working of turbines depends on the existence of a steady and regular flow. In order to be able to obtain energy from vortices, turbines would need to mimic the movements of fish, adjusting their position to the differing angles of flow. A mechanical device to be developed in this respect should perceive the angle of the current flow instantly and adjust itself accordingly.

Normally, wind turbines are set up in high and open places. However, in cities the eddies that are formed by winds moving around buildings and roofs prevent conventional turbines from working efficiently. In order to overcome this challenge, scientists are aiming to develop turbines that benefit from the dynamic principles apparent in the movement of fish, though without imitating the fish exactly. They hope that in this way it will be possible to produce energy from turbulent currents as well. The projects being devised aim to develop different types of turbines to work in air and water. The energy production of these turbines will naturally be relatively low in comparison to common wind turbines operating in strong winds. However, these new types will make it possible to produce energy from winds moving at less than 32 feet per hour, when conventional turbines do not function. So, the total annual energy they are expected to produce will be no less than the regular wind turbines. If scientists can successfully model the admirable engineering applied in the bodies of fish, they will be able to boost the efficiency of these devices dramatically.

Notes

1. For further information see Liao J. C. et al., “Fish exploiting vortices decrease muscle activity,” Science 302, 1566–1569, 2003.
2. Dabiri, J. O., “Renewable fluid dynamic energy derived from aquatic animal location,” Bioinspiration and Biomimetics 2, L1-L3, 2007.

The way scientific prediction generally tends to approach matters is as follows: “do this and you’ll see that”. The discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, one of the early successes of physics, still remaining fresh even today, is a particularly nice example: In the nineteenth century, by observing the trajectories of the planetary motion of Uranus, the most remote planet in the Solar system at that time, astronomers discovered that its trajectory was not exactly the way it should have been. Taking into account the gravitational action of nearby planets did not help either. By that time, however, Newtonian mechanics had already gained enough authority so as not to be immediately abandoned. To circumvent the problem, instead of abandoning gravity altogether, scientists proposed that there must be a celestial body, hitherto unseen, that was disturbing the trajectory. After elaborate calculations were made, the astronomers were told to direct their telescopes at a specific time at a specific region of the sky and they would see a shiny dot. They did as instructed, and the dot was present exactly as calculated. Significantly, it does not matter who was actually sitting by the telescope. Under the same conditions, a famous scientist or a lay person should be able to see the same. This is an example of what is called “objective reality,” the shining star in this case. In general, objective reality may be defined as anything which exists independent of the observer, implying that if something objectively real is encountered by observer 1, then reproducing the conditions of the first experiment, observer 2 should see it as well.

“Objective reality” is the scope of science and the science is unbelievably successful when dealing with it. The agreement between theory and experiment in the case of the so-called “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” for instance, is to the order of 1 to 100,000,000,000. To give a sense of this truly mind-blowing degree of precision, one can say that it is like sending a rocket to the Moon and predicting its landing coordinates up to the nearest millimeter.

This shows us the might of science, but what makes science so effective also sets the limits for the range of its applicability. The key factor for the conventional scientific method is the reproducibility or the regularity of the event. Whatever does not fit this condition finds itself outside the circle of phenomena that are conventionally called “scientific.” For example, ghosts are not scientific, although there are many more people who claim to have seen them than there are those who routinely observe, for example, the fractional quantum Hall effect, which is absolutely real, despite its exoticism. The number does not matter in this case. There is a certain prescription of how the quantum Hall effect should be observed, whereas there is no such thing for spiritual contacts. One has to be careful to distinguish non-scientific phenomena from non-existent phenomena. The concept of reality and existence itself is a subtle question and has traditionally been a philosophical battlefield that is heavily dependent on definitions; in any case, whatever the truth is, the fact that there is no 100% guaranteed technique of, for instance, summoning the spirit of the long-deceased Genghis Khan does not present sufficient evidence to rule out its possibility.

To illustrate what has been said up to this point, and to look on the subject from a different perspective, the following story might be of some use.

The pond story

Imagine Mr. Smith is sitting by the pond. To study its content our researcher has a sieve that he can use to scoop the water and see what is left inside. After some time he is certain that there is ooze in the pond. Later that evening, by the fireplace, he tells his wife, Mrs. Smith, about what he’d seen during the day at the pond. On the next day, to make sure her husband had actually spent his day the way he said he had, she takes the sieve and goes to the pond. With the first scoop, she gets some ooze and on the evening of the second day the ooze is elevated to the level of an objective reality. It is unimportant who is scooping the water, Mr. or Mrs. Smith. From now on whenever they want to watch the ooze, they just scoop the water with the sieve, and they are guaranteed to get some. In addition to this important discovery, Mrs. Smith also tells Mr. Smith about some rapidly moving shiny longish objects that she saw from time to time in the muddy waters of the pond. However, none of these, unfortunately, have ever made their way into the colander. That evening Mr. Smith has trouble believing the confusing story of his wife, as she doesn’t have much evidence to support it. At the end of the day, the self-confident ooze pioneer has convinced the excessively susceptible scooper that she has had a hard day, and shiny objects won’t bother her anymore. And so they lived a long and happy life. Actually long after, Mr. and Mrs. Smith Jr. discovered that the silver objects also existed objectively, for that, however, a sieve had to be upgraded to a net. These are called fish. But that’s a whole other story.

The moral is obvious: the fish here symbolizes some phenomena that are unobservable with the available accessible technology, but which do actually exist in the pond, which represents the universe; it is solely the problem of the master of the colander, who is of course identified with a researcher, that his gear is not advanced enough. At this point, one should avoid falling into another extremity, that is, denying science altogether, for Mr. Smith was right to a certain extent. At that point the fish, or to be more precise, a fish dinner which would be the manifestation of the fish, was not real for him at all. And this being so there wasn’t much point in talking about it. He preferred to talk constructively of what he could do at anytime with, to some extent, guaranteed success, that is, of what was real for him. Though, again, one should keep in mind that they should not be so opinionated to deny the existence of anything they cannot trap or measure. These ideas should always be kept in mind when thinking about the compatibility of metaphysics with the conventional, quantifiable material world.

The fact that science is based on positive knowledge is very inconvenient for proving the absence of something as opposed to proving the existence of it. To perform the latter involves locating the object or giving a concrete example of it. On the contrary, to prove the absence of something, the whole range of possibilities must be exposed. The task grows ever more difficult as the generality of the statement grows, ultimately becoming impossible.

While thinking of the universe and the role of science which is so successful in understanding it, one should be aware of the fact that science deals with the idealized models of phenomena, describing them with a certain degree of success, not the phenomena themselves. A good model has a small error, poor ones have greater error. A nice example illustrating this matter is the electrical model of a mechanical oscillator. For those who are not familiar with electronics, we can say that the capacitor and the coil act as a spring and the mass, respectively. The charge is to be associated with the expansion of the spring, the electrical current with the velocity of the block.

In the first approximation everything goes well: if we want to determine what the position of the block of the oscillator would be after 3 seconds, instead of oscillating the whole system, we can build a model circuit with the capacitance and inductance adjusted properly, and measure the charge accumulated on the capacitor after 3 seconds. However, once we begin to demand higher precision, we begin to encounter one problem after another. The capacitor might be leaking, hence it no longer ideally represents the spring; the coil has resistance and so on. Even if we somehow get ideal electronics, the oscillator has some air drag, and the spring does not ideally follow Hook’s law) [Hook’s law states that the force the spring produces is directly proportional to the degree it was stretched or compressed to]. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to determine what the oscillator would do exactly without letting it run. However, there is no reason to fall into despair: generally we don’t need to know what it does exactly; depending on the particular case, a fairly good approximation is fine for most of the applications we might ever encounter.

This is how science works. No one has ever observed the “free bodies” moving on a “straight line with constant velocity” that are mentioned in Newton’s first law, the so-called “law of inertia.” What we actually do encounter are the almost free bodies, moving on an almost straight line, with almost constant velocity. But that doesn’t mean, of course, that Newton was wrong: as long as we don’t force his laws into the subatomic region where quantum physics dominates or try to use them nearby the black holes where Einstein’s general relativity takes over, they work unbelievably fine. The rockets we send using these very laws make it quite well to the Moon.

There is an interesting aphorism which is ascribed to Sir Arthur Eddington, a prominent British astronomer: “The law of inertia is true as long as we believe in it.” Newtonian mechanics states that “An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force.” However, since no one has ever seen bodies that are totally isolated from “an external and unbalanced force,” we just believe in this law. Now imagine that someone has nevertheless succeeded in shielding away all the external forces. Being given an initial velocity it is expected to maintain this; but what a disaster: the body doesn’t do so! What should be done in this case? One choice is to renounce Newton’s first law altogether, the other is to say “Hey, what if I did not eliminate the forces completely, what if there is some other force, unknown to me? Both ways are good, but in the latter one you save the ability to describe the world, whereas in the first you are left with nothing. We assume the law of inertia is true and the world becomes describable. Actually, this is what one has to do to understand anything. You have to begin somewhere. State an axiom and assume it is true. Infinite skepticism just doesn’t work. “Cogito ergo sum” was Descartes’ axiom which he had to accept to begin with.

This being so, modern science in the way it exists now does not provide the only model for the Universe; instead, it just realizes one of the possibilities. In the same way that one can use either electrical circuits or a special computer program to model a mechanical oscillator, there is more than one way to deal with the Universe. For example, how can we explain that the parameters of the planet Earth happened to meet the criteria needed to support organic life so ideally? One can say it just happened to be this way by coincidence and we are very lucky. We are very lucky, for instance, that the magnetic field of the Earth stops deadly solar winds, that the ozone layer stops destructive ultraviolet radiation, that the atmosphere is the most transparent for radiation in the yellow-green part of the spectrum, which just miraculously happens to coincide with the intensity peak of the Sun spectrum, which, in turn is the spectrum part plants use for photosynthesis and that to which the human eye is the most sensitive, etc, etc, etc. And though the probability is ridiculously low, low enough to rule it out in normal practice, it is still not impossible, although it is extremely improbable. Or one can say it was God Almighty who created the planet this way so that we can live here. And if it was God Who created the Sun, the Earth, the human eye and the plants then this set of coincidences does not seem so improbable any more. Is there a way to find out which approach is the truth? As long as both are self-consistent internally and do not contradict physical observations, the answer is no. There is no way to choose one version over the other using pure logic alone. However, there is an empirical rule usually called “Occam’s Razor” which states that in case there is more than one explanation for some phenomenon, the one which is the simplest is the true one. Well, the Universe with God in it is the simplest, isn’t it? 

Janibek Alpishev is PhD candidate at Stanford University.

“Ever since the beginnings of modern science, four or five hundred years ago, scientific thoughts seem to have moved humankind and consciousness further from the centre of things. More and more of the universe has become explicable in mechanical, objective terms and even human beings are becoming understood by biologists and behavioral scientists. Now we find that physics, previously considered the most objective of the sciences, is reinventing the need for the human soul and putting it right at the centre of our understanding of the universe!” (Rae 2004)

The last century has witnessed a new scientific approach with the development of the quantum theory. The theory has been tested to such a degree that it has become the scientific theory on which the most experiments have been carried out of all time. Probably this is partly due to the fact that it is the most mind-provoking theory to date. Nevertheless, the new theory has passed all these tests and has been confirmed as being more complete in explaining the cosmos than any previous theory. The quantum theory has shown that the old approach of a mechanical universe was an oversimplification employed to explain the physics of the universe. One of the most important consequences of this is that the quantum theory refutes the main foundations of positivist philosophy. This philosophy sees the universe consisting of what we can observe or measure, with everything beyond not being real. This denial also applied to knowledge that came from religions, and this resulted in the present conflict between religion and science. However, today even modern science says that the universe cannot be limited to what we observe. The very basic principles of quantum physics show the possibility that the vast majority of life or the states of life are beyond the scope of our observations and that we have no way of knowing about them via physical means.

Although positivist philosophy dates back to the 16th century, it was August Comte who defined it in a systematic way in the mid-19th century. The Harper-Collins dictionary defines Positivism as “the view that all true knowledge is scientific.” Positivism includes the view of reductionism which claims that everything in the universe, including astrophysical systems, complex biological systems, social movements, cultural values, and belief systems can all be reduced to simple physical and chemical events. Probably one of the most unfortunate outcomes of this approach was the questioning of belief systems with the tools of the scientific method. In one of his articles Fethullah Gulen says:

“The massive influence of positivism and materialism on science and on all people of recent centuries makes it necessary to discuss such arguments. As this now-prevalent “scientific” worldview reduces existence to what can be perceived directly, it blinds itself to the far vaster invisible dimensions of existence.”(Gulen 2006)

Such arguments against religion that spring from materialism have gone worldwide, and all religious faiths have been questioned. Even the faithful has been confused by these arguments, consciously or unconsciously. Although scientific knowledge should be only one source of knowledge, it was considered to be the only source. In Huston Smith’s words, this was a “blank check” to science to make decisions (Smith 2001).

It should be clarified that the early founders of both classical and modern physics did not perceive science in a positivist way. Copernicus and Newton at the birth of classical physics and Einstein, Dirac, and Planck at the birth of modern physics, all had religious convictions and envisioned science as a part of knowledge. Einstein was even accused of being a theologian in disguise by some scientific historians. It was the positivist philosophy which took advantage of the scientific developments and used it against religion, resulting in the apparent conflict today. However, new developments in science have proven that the basic assumptions of positivism are no longer valid from a modern perspective. Thus positivism should be nothing but an outdated ideology.

From quantum physics to metaphysics

Quantum mechanical behavior emerges when one observes phenomena at microscopic scales. One of its novelties can be seen in that it offers a more comprehensive atomic model. The new atomic model has very important applications to our life, ranging from making lasers to producing computer chips. The early understanding of an atom was that there was a nucleus at the center and electrons circulating around it, like in the planetary systems (the Bohr model). Although this was a great achievement at the time it was proposed, later scientists realized that classical physics cannot explain the circulation of the electron around the nucleus. In such a model the electron should lose energy and eventually collapse into the nucleus.

In the quantum mechanical definition the electron is more like a wave around the nucleus than a particle. So the electron is not really a particle orbiting around the nucleus, but rather more like a cloud that is spread evenly around. Sometimes the electron is called a particle because it acts like a particle in some experiments. As seen in this example, in a quantum mechanical measurement we cannot find an answer to “what the electron really is,” but rather we find an answer to “how it responds to a particular setup.” The actual stuff is a neither a particle nor a wave. We are rather measuring one form of its behavior which is compatible with our experimental system. Then according to the quantum theory, there is no a way to completely understand this actual stuff with measurements.

Above we gave the famous measurement problem, which forms the heart of the quantum theory. Although what we are dealing with looks like a physical problem, “the measurement problem” has far reaching philosophical consequences. The basic problem is that we need to know what this actual stuff looks like so that we can have an answer to the question of “what it really is.” However, any explanation should be able to explain the transition from a quantum physical system into the macroscopic system in which we live so that we can have a meaningful model. Otherwise, paradoxes are inevitable (you can read about the famous Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment if you are interested.)

The most complete and satisfying answer comes from the Copenhagen interpretation (Frayn 2000). It was proposed by Neil Bohr, one of the prominent figures in the development of the theory. Debates lasting for months or longer, especially between N. Bohr and A. Einstein, ended up with the victory of Bohr’s ideas. According to the Copenhagen interpretation, the actual stuff is neither a wave nor a particle but is something not physical; rather it exists only in knowledge. This knowledge collapses into a physical state when somebody measures it. So the new theory suggests a very abstract approach to the universe as opposed to the old mechanical model. The famous astrophysicist Sir James Jeans wrote,

“The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine. Human mind no longer appears to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter.” (Jeans 2002)

Scientists think that the true picture of the actual stuff can never be completely understood in this physical universe because we are limited by our physical tools. There may be other states, but we have no tools to understand them or get to know about them since we are limited by the tools of this universe. This is the point where the new physics talks about other dimensions which are beyond the observable and measurable universe. But this is exactly what philosophy calls “metaphysics.” So we see that the new physics not only accepts the existence of other metaphysical realms, but it even says that they must exist for completeness!

The necessity of human consciousness

A concern comes to mind about what is unique in this measurement process that results in the ultimate transition from a knowledge system into a physical system. How can the detector in an experiment result in this transition? The answer from the Copenhagen interpretation is very surprising. The detector cannot be the cause for this transition, because it does not make any changes in the system before or after the measurements are carried out. That is, these tools we use to make the measurements do not change anything in the nature of the system. Not even the eyes of the observers or the brain that is making this measurement can do this, as they are no different than the experimental apparatus, except that they are more complex. They are just part of the experimental system in this chain, like mechanical detectors. The chain continues until it ends up in the human consciousness, which is something non-material as any physical identification would put it in the same category as the previous members of the chain. Then the unique role of the human action enters the system; measurement is part of the knowledge in the mind. With this measurement, the human consciousness becomes aware of it. This is the unique property that the human being has which cannot be attributed to any other objects and it plays a central role in the interpretation of the quantum theory.

We infer that human consciousness is something immaterial and behaves quite differently than any other entity in the universe. Interestingly, the distinction of the physical and spiritual side of human beings is found in the teaching of religions, which we now see in the context of modern physics. This is a very important reconciliation between science and religion and it is also reassuring that we are not like any other objects in the universe!

Is materialism coming to the end?

With the new developments in physics, a materialistic worldview seems to be a simple look at life and existence. We remember the classic statement of materialistic philosophy “I only believe what I can see or measure in the laboratory.” Quantum physics would respond to this by saying: “it is not that simple!” We see that there are no contradictions between the new physics and the teachings of religions. We do not know how God creates life in hereafter, hell, and heaven. But one thing we do know is that their existence does not contradict the modern scientific worldview. Also the realms of invisible creatures (like angels and the devil) and their interactions with our physical world cannot be understood with science. Modern physics says we should not seek knowledge of these through science. They can only be known by what is told to us in our holy books and by the prophets.

The extreme approach of materialism to the human being is that the human is the most complexly evolved biological mechanism in the universe and in theory its consciousness and other feelings can be reduced into chemical reactions. This approach is in complete contradiction with modern physics. Modern physics says the human being is totally distinguished from other beings with their non-material consciousness. So we see that modern science removes the human being from the ignorance of materialism and puts it into the center of the universe. This is the same thing that religions have been saying since the creation of Adam and Eve!

As people of the 21st century, we can see that the discoveries of modern science does not contradict faith. We see that modern science is widening its horizons by identifying metaphysics as being part of the reality. In the words of the 20th century scholar Said Nursi, “…the light of conscience is religious sciences. The light of the mind is modern sciences. Reconciliation of both manifests the truth. The student’s skills develop further with these two (sciences). When they are separated, from the former superstition and from the latter corruption and skepticism is born.” A similar statement by Einstein is “…I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

References

• Rae, Alastair. Quantum Physics: Illusion or Reality, Cambridge: 2004.
• Gulen, M. Fethullah, Questions and Answers about Islam, The Light, Inc., NJ: 2006.
• Smith, Huston. Why Religion Matters: The Fate of the Human Spirit in an Age of Disbelief, HarperSanFrancisco: 2001.
• Frayn, Michael. Copenhagen, Anchor:2000.
• Jeans, Sir James. The Mysterious Universe, The Macmillan Company, 1932.
• Henry, Richard Conn. “The Mental Universe,” Nature, 436, 7 July 2005.

For instance, those seeking scientific information limit themselves to concrete and physical knowledge. Furthermore, they have to form the mechanisms of causality from natural causes and then refine the resulting knowledge through a sieve of doubt. Likewise, those who seek religious knowledge, which mainly depends on belief, must learn the pillars of faith by searching and then using their minds and logic, rather than mere imitation, to check the information’s authenticity by consulting the primary sources. Religious knowledge is gained through belief and using the principles of reason and logic, rather than experimentation and observation, to analyze the resulting knowledge.

Human knowledge that can be known can be divided into three subgroups: that which is unknown, unknowable, and known. If we subdivide these further, the following classes emerge: the knowable that is known; the knowable that is unknown; the unknowable that can be known thorough the use of various means; and that which will never be known by humanity. This classification is based on having the means to acquire and learn information, as well as the type of information demanded.

There is other knowledge that belongs only to God, and that can acquired only via revelation (wahy), divinely inspired Prophets, and divinely revealed books. As the bulk of such knowledge has absolute meaning, its application, validity, and meaning can be acquired only after appropriate education and training. Since most religious information is like medicine, it must be applied at the appropriate place and taken in the proper dosage to give the greatest benefit. Otherwise, this information could lead people astray.

In today’s information age, useful communication is possible if we know what information we want and how to obtain it. Adherents of scientific ideologies and societies that view scientific and religious-moral information as contradictory and mutually exclusive should realize the differences and boundaries between the knowable, that which remains unknown by scientific methods, and the unknowable. We must understand that information seen as contradictory and mutually exclusive is actually complementary, for nature’s diversity reflects the principle of the “unity and entirety of differences.” Only this understanding will ensure peace and security among the different parts of society that represent the different types of information.

Scientific and religious (faith-related) information represent different types of information gained by various methods. At the same time, however, they form a “meaningful unity” in human life. The critical task is to synthesize these two types of information and then apply the results to one’s daily life.

The boundaries and characteristics of unknowable, long-time subjects in philosophy and epistemology have been (and still are) debated by philosophers for centuries. Based on this understanding, we will discuss the meanings of the unknown and the unknowable concepts of modern science.1

THE PROBLEM OF THE UNKNOWN AND THE UNKNOWABLE

In 1931, logician Kurt Godel shocked scientific circles with a new discovery: some basic mathematical propositions and premises, the common language of science, cannot be proven or refuted. He called this the Theorem of Uncertainty. In the 1980s, British mathematician Alan Turing used a digital computer (the Turing Machine) to prove that one could not give a correct answer before posing an abstract problem. Do these two discoveries tell us something about the place and grade of the unknowable in science?

Science seeks to explain and understand all of the universe’s elements and happenings. Scientific questions can be very general or very specific: Will the universe expand continuously? Will human activity engender large-scale change on the Earth? There is no prior knowledge or premise on which to base answers to such questions. Science, which uses mathematics as a means, is different from mathematics. All discoveries are made in mathematical fields by using models formed by manipulating symbols. Can we apply all appropriate mathematical findings to other sciences?

Ralph Gomery, head of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, states that we can understand science by dividing it into three parts: the known part of the scientific universe, the unknown, and the unknowable. The subjects taught in schools and universities form the known part of science. At the same time, exhibits in science museums and elsewhere are summaries of what has been discovered. Scientists and researchers feel the excitement of searching the unknown in order to make it known. According to Gomery, that which is now unknown will be knowable in the future, and the unknowable will remain unknown forever. The limits of science are determined by the subtle lines between what is unknown and what is unknowable. According to some, these boundaries are very rigid, predetermined, and cannot change (i.e., the boundaries of science and religion). Following are some unknown “facts” and questions that might be known and answered in the future.

Models that can forecast the Earth’s dynamic functions, and thus predict the currently unforeseeable nature of earth quakes, might be successfully developed. What negative ecologicial changes will be wrought upon the Earth through human production and consumption, and how can they be prevented or mitigated? Is there intelligent life in outer space? If so, how and by what means can we communicate with it? How does human consciousness develop? What is the relation between free will and the brain’s physico-chemical reactions? How can a national or global economy be kept stable without driving it into chaos? Can we prove which of these questions are unknowable?

According to Joseph Traub, Godel’s theorem only limits the power of mathematics; it has nothing to do with whether or not a scientific question is answerable. Traub believes that there are causes in science that make some questions unanswerable. Examples are insufficient archeological and historical data, as well as the first appearance of language; the fact of coincidental events and simultaneous discoveries, which make these events indistinguishable and hence their explanation harder (e.g., we cannot distinguish the cause-and-effect relations between events that took place isochronally in the first appearance of life); and insufficient sources, methods, and experimental designs to test the correctness and validity of today’s prevalent theories.

We must be careful when claiming that something is unknowable, for doing so without exposing the reasons may hinder scientific progress and development. On the other hand, many scientists accept the presence of that which is unknowable and unanswerable by science, and view science as trying to solve and understand the knowable universe.

DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF SCIENTIFIC REALITY

In America, scientists from various branches gather in periodical meetings at the Santa Fe Institute in an attempt to model a prototype university of the 21st century by drawing lines between the unknown and the unknowable. They emphasize that scientific truth and reality have five different aspects: the reality of the physical and concrete universe, the reality based on the mathematical modeling of the preceding reality, the reality produced and interpreted based on the depictions and descriptions of the preceding models, the virtual (cyber, imaginary) reality produced in a computer environment, and the reality produced by simulations in computerized environments. Thus, “reality” and “models of reality” are not identical.

Some researchers claim that there are only two worlds of reality: the physical universe (or nature) and computers. They also state that these two different worlds should be modeled differently. From this aspect, which reality or model is of interest becomes an important issue when scientists try to classify what is unknown and unknowable.

Let’s concretize these distinctions. Every living organism consists of proteins, which should be folded in a specific three-dimensional form to become functional. One or several of these possible foldings are functional; the rest are meaningless. The formation of folding in a living organism takes a few milliseconds. But scientists, even if they use the best supercomputers in existence, cannot simulate this process. Since the theories and algorithms of the computer environment are insufficient, there is no conformity between the model and reality, for the living system folds the amino acids properly. We do not have enough knowledge to model this amino acid structure in a computer environment, because there is no one-to-one correspondence between reality and the perception and visualization of the reality in the mind.

Niels Bohr summarized what could be done: “I cannot grasp reality, but [I can] produce a mathematical model that can predict reality.” This opened new doors to philosophy. Albert Einstein believed that there is a reality that can be defined by mathematical models. Today, a similar debate continues in scientific circles between Stephen Hawking (who defends Bohr) and Roger Penrose (who defends Einstein).

THE END OF SCIENCE?

The main argument of those who state that science has come to an end is as follows: The basic discoveries about the physical reality of the universe have been made. All that remains is to fill in its content. For example, subatomic particles have been discovered. Molecules that code life have been discovered, and hence new genes are being produced. The basic theories that enabled space technology have been developed. Perhaps future technological innovations will be limited to improving existing ones, rather than making new discoveries. Besides, science alone could not solve humanity’s problems or prevent bloodshed, although it received a considerable amount of financial support. Thus from now on, these sources should be used to discover the real nature of humanity and the sciences (e.g., social, religious, and moral) that ensure human welfare and well-being, for solely scientific information is not everything. It seems that we need religious and moral knowledge to use our scientific findings in the best interests of humanity. Today, ethics is a compulsory course in Western universities, and some scientists believe that research should focus on more concrete, answerable, and functional topics.

On the other hand, others believe that science has not ended and that many things remain to be discovered. They point out that scientific discoveries are not so numerous, and that new research areas appear by intermingling physical sciences with themselves and the social sciences. They stress that until now, scientific findings have been reached by deduction. Now, however, the dominant scientific paradigm is being transformed into systematic thinking, and the interaction of all things will be studied in database networks. This will engender new views of science and the universe. They also claim that those sciences that focused on the information of the particles will begin to focus on systems and understanding the nature of their interactions.

FOOTNOTES

1. “Modern science” signifies scientific information about the universe that is gathered by one’s five senses, observation, experimentation, and mathematical modeling and explanations. It does not include religious studies and knowledge.

REFERENCES

• Horgan, John. The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scientific Age. New York: Helix Books, 1996.
• Traub, Joseph. “The Unknown and the Unknowable.” The Third Culture. Interview. 1998.
• http://www.edge.org/documents/brockman.html.
• —. Information and Complexity. N.p: Cambridge University Press, 1998.