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

Observing Majorana fermions in the ferromagnetic atomic chains on a superconductor. Nadj-Perge et al. Science, October 2014.

In the universe, matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, they destroy each other in a flash of energy. In 1937, an Italian theoretical physicist named Ettore Majorana had proposed that there can be unique exceptions to this rule: a stable particle could exist in nature that is both matter and antimatter. Scientists have been looking for that indefinable particle, also known as the “Majorana fermion,” for seventy years. A group of researchers recently reported that they were able to detect the Majorana particle which behaves simultaneously like matter and antimatter. Researchers designed an experimental system allowing them to observe an emergent particle inside a material. They first generated an extended chain of pre magnetic iron atoms on a superconductor made of lead. Then, they cooled the material to -272 C, just about one point above absolute zero, and monitored it using a giant two-story-tall scanning-tunneling microscope, which can track electrical signal changes with very high precision. Finally, they were able to capture a glowing image of an electrically neutral particle at the ends of atomically thin iron wires. The Majorana particle was surprisingly stable and the opposing properties make the particle neutral so that it interacts very weakly with its environment. The discovery of the Majorana particle has exciting implications for several areas of modern physics, engineering, and astrophysics. For example, Majorana particles are very similar to neutrinos, as they both have very weak interactions with the matter. Neutrinos are thought to make up most of the dark matter that fill the Cosmos. Perhaps, neutrinos are simply Majorana-like particles and Majorana particles are also a candidate for what dark matter is. As an industrial application, Majorana particles can be utilized in quantum computing which aims to create computers to handle incalculable systems. The current quantum computing technology uses electrons, but they are known to be very unstable due to high interaction rates with surrounding materials. However, since Majorana particles are neutral and highly stable, they can be engineered into a variety of materials to produce more reliable and powerful quantum computing applications.

The Bitter Side of Artificial Sweeteners

Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut’s microbiota. Suez J. et al. Nature, September 2014.

There have been conflicting and confusing findings about the health effects of artificial sweeteners over the past several decades. Some studies found that they cause weight loss and others found the exact opposite. Some studies linked them to diabetes and other studies argued otherwise. A recent study provided a series of experimental evidences that artificial sweeteners disrupt the body’s ability to regulate blood sugar, and thus may cause metabolic diseases and diabetes. Researchers, using animal models and human studies, found that sweeteners significantly alter the gut’s microbiome – the collective name of bacterial colonies living in our intestines. The composition of our gut microflora plays a critical role protecting us from pathogenic bacteria, the metabolism of indigestible components of our diet, and modulating development and regulation of the immune system. Sweeteners – in the form of saccharin, sucralose, or aspartame – are found to alter the mix of microbes in our intestines and consequently change how our bodies metabolize glucose. Constant use of sweeteners in mice and human test groups caused typical glucose intolerance symptoms in which glucose levels rose higher after eating and declined more slowly than expected. Glucose intolerance can ultimately lead to serious illnesses like metabolic syndrome and Type 2 diabetes. Although this study will cause a lot of discussions and headaches in the food industry, the link identified between microbiome and glucose intolerance will definitely inspire novel therapeutic approaches to metabolic disorders such as diabetes.

Brainy Fingertips

Edge-orientation processing in first-order tactile neurons. Pruszynski JA and Johansson RS. Nature Neuroscience, August 2014

A new study found that neurons in human skin are able to perform advanced calculations that scientists thought only the brain was capable of performing. A group of sensory neurons that extend into the skin and record touch are called first-order neurons in the tactile system. Each nerve ending branches in the skin to form about 5mm2 elliptical receptive field, with up to 8 highly sensitive zones that are unevenly distributed within the field. It turns out that these neurons not only transmit information about when and how intensely an object is touched to the brain, but they also send complex information about the touched object’s shape. Researchers found that the sensitivity of individual neurons to the shape of an object depends on the layout of the neuron’s highly-sensitive zones in the skin. Computations that require untangling geometric shape information are classified as feature extraction computations in neuroscience and are typically attributed to the immensely complex circuits of the cerebral cortex. This study showed that neuronal populations localized outside of the brain, such as first-order tactile neurons, can have advanced processing capacity similar to brain neurons. These results can also potentially improve treatments for nerve injury and rehabilitation, as scientists previously assumed that the cerebral cortex was doing all the work.

In his book, Flew states, “I should point out, moreover, that this is not the first time I changed my mind on a fundamental issue. Among other things, readers who are familiar with my vigorous defense of free markets may be surprised to learn that I was once a Marxist …” Flew in fact consistently mentions throughout his book that it is not actually the first time he changed his mind. These statements may disappoint those readers who want to hear more reliable arguments on the question of God. However, as a philosopher, Flew is confident in his decision and leaves it to readers to decide how to deal with his reasons for changing his mind. Given the possibility of progress in philosophy, Flew considers it a principle to follow the argument wherever it may lead him. Therefore, before reading this book, one should keep in mind that the book has a philosophical perspective rather than a religious one. Philosophical thought is inherently unbiased (or unguided) and quite evolutionary as opposed to any given religion (say Christianity, Islam or Judaism), which usually has its own well-defined and self-consistent structure.

It is not possible in this short article to summarize all of the reasons which led Flew to believe in God in the later stage of his life. Below, we mainly discuss how Flew’s decision was influenced by the origin of the laws of physics. We also show how his final thoughts compare with modern Muslim scholars Nursi and Gülen, who have roots in revelations rather than philosophy. Then we explain why we believe Flew’s methodology is not safe as long as it stays within the territories of traditional philosophy.

Laws of physics and “mind of God”

When Flew discusses the origin of the laws of physics (or undeniable design in the universe), he gives statements from the founders of quantum physics, all of whom connect the laws of nature with the “Mind of God,” as described by Einstein. He refers to Max Planck, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrodinger, and Paul Dirac. Below, we only quote Schrodinger’s statement:

“The scientific picture of the world around me is very deficient. It gives me a lot of factual information, puts our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but is ghastly silent about all that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell a word about the sensation of red and blue, bitter and sweet, feelings of delight and sorrow. It knows nothing of beauty and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.

Science is reticent too when it is a question of the great Unity of which we somehow form a part, to which we belong. The most popular name for it in our time is God, with a capital ‘G.’ Science is, very usually, branded as being atheistic. After what we have said this is not astonishing. If its world picture does not even contain beauty, delight, sorrow, if personally cut out of it by agreement, how should it contain the most sublime idea that presents itself to the human mind?”

Nursi and Gülen, two great scholars of our modern times, have the following views on this. According to Nursi [2,3], only through the light of faith in God and His Divine Revelation, can humans understand their true essence, the universe that they reside within, their past, present, and their future. Otherwise, things and events surrounding them would be highly difficult to comprehend, because the only mechanism that would remain to interpret the purpose behind would be the ego equipped with limited knowledge and experience, which is too subjective to rely on and far from being convincing. Most of the time, the ego misguides people into the darkness and heedlessness. However, with the light of faith, believers do not fall into such catastrophes. Believers better understand and appreciate the universe and do not suffer as unbelievers do; rather they enjoy the whispering galleries in the universe and beyond.

Gülen’s perspective [2,4,5] is similar to Nursi. Although it might be possible for some brilliant scientists to discover how things work at the most fundamental levels of particles, it is impossible to fully comprehend how these particles actually constitute the whole in such a perfect harmony. This is because there is infinite knowledge of the Omniscient behind the scenes. Those who deny the existence of the Omniscient are shocked by the incredible harmony in nature and yet attribute it all to the creatures themselves. These limited, shortsighted perspectives and prejudices leave so many gaps in the quest for existence that the systems developed based on them cannot convince anyone, but rather open up greater questions in the heart, mind, and soul, all waiting to be answered. However, a person equipped with the former perspective can reach more conclusive results in very short times with much less efforts compared to those unbelievers who consume their lives to understand existence. Believers feel the signs of God in everything they explore and live their days as if in the avenues of Paradise. If the reason is integrated with the revelation, only then can it elevate us to the realms of the unreachable. It opens the doors to the true universe, which is otherwise hidden in darkness and chaos. With revelation, the universe turns into a great book of existence, telling about its Creator on every page. Then those struggling in emptiness and tyranny are awakened to humanistic ideals and the truth.

On the different pages of his book, Flew reminds the reader that scientists like Paul Davies and John Barrow have received the Templeton Prize for further developing the insights of Einstein, Heisenberg, and other scientists into theories of the relationship between the rationality of nature and the Mind of God. Flew draws attention to the existence of natural laws and cites Paul Davies, who says, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith the existence of a law-like order in nature that is at least in part comprehensible to us.” The critical question Flew asks is, “whose laws?”

Flew thinks, no matter what, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. He says, “the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.” Once the physical laws are set correctly, one can think of our resultant universe; however, the question that needs to be answered is ‘who set the laws and why did they set them this way?'”

Flew also reminds the reader of the following question related to the origin of life, a question that has not been answered: “How can a universe of mindless matter produce beings with intrinsic ends, self-replication capabilities, and coded chemistry?” He quotes from Paul Davies again, “The problem of how meaningful or semantic information can emerge spontaneously from a collection of mindless molecules subject to blind and purposeless forces presents a deep conceptual challenge.” Flew makes an important distinction between this question and what is being addressed by “evolution.” He says that the latter is dealing with the interaction of chemicals, whereas the above question is interrogating how something (chemicals) can be intrinsically purpose driven.

Nursi explains this as follows [6]:

“If you do not accept that the particles in your body are tiny officials in motion in accordance with the law of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One, or that they are an army, or the nibs of the pen of Divine Determining, with each particle as the nib of a pen, or that they are points inscribed by the pen of Power with each particle being a point, then in every particle working in your eye there would have to be an eye such as could see every limb and part of your body as well as the entire universe, with which you are connected. In addition to this, you would have to ascribe to each particle an intelligence equivalent to that of a hundred geniuses, sufficient to know and recognize all your past and your future, and your forbears and descendants, the origins of all the elements of your being, and the sources of all your sustenance. To attribute the knowledge and consciousness of a thousand Plato’s to a single particle of one such as you who does not possess even a particle’s worth of intelligence in matters of this kind is a crazy superstition a thousand times over!”

Here Nursi argues that the intelligence and consciousness that are exhibited in the universe can only be understood by the existence of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One. He guides these mindless particles toward a Divine Determining and in accordance with the law. Nursi also draws attention to a subtle point which is missing in the philosophers’ question above. The particles and the law they are bound to are created so intelligently and consciously that they do not only give rise to the sustenance of the current universe, but we can tailor them for our future sustenance and well being. To give an example, consider a 10 billion year old particle, an electron. How did this particle lead to today’s electronic revolution? How did it know it could function one day as part of a flowing current in a computer chip?

Pilgrimage of reason is not safe

In his book, Flew considers three evidences which require an Intelligence explaining not only its own existence but also that of the world. These are the laws of nature, life, and the existence of the universe. Flew admits that the journey to his discovery of God has so far been a pilgrimage of reason. He has followed the argument where it has led him. The arguments led him to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient being.

Although it’s quite impressive what Flew has gone through and he put forward reasonable arguments, no one can actually guarantee that his arguments will ultimately lead to Truth, since they can be neither proved nor disproved. Worse, a smarter philosopher or scientist may well appear in the future and challenge him. Then, how can we actually make sure that Flew is actually right in his arguments?

The answer is, “we can never be.” There is a need for a strong “point of support,” since science and philosophy alone, by definition, as admitted in Schrodinger’s statement above, cannot provide absolutely convincing arguments. If God exists and wants man to know Him, there is a need for a clear message immune from any kind of ambiguity and understandable by virtually anyone. Nothing would be clearer than direct revelations from God. Interestingly, there are, in fact, many verses in the Quran [7], for example, which draw attention to such clarity in God’s messages:

• “A.L.R. These are the Ayats of Revelation, of a Quran that makes things clear.” (The Rocky Tract 1)
• “We have already sent down to you verses making things clear, an illustration from (the story of) people who passed away before you, and an admonition for those who fear (Allah).” (The Light 34)
• “Thus we have sent down Clear Signs; and verily Allah guides whom He will!” (The Pilgrimage 16)
• “We have sent down to you Manifest Signs; and none reject them but those who are perverse.” (The Heifer 99)
• “A.L.R. (This is) a Book, with verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning), further explained in detail, from One Who is Wise and Well-Acquainted (with all things):” (The Prophet Hud 1)
• “A Sura which we have sent down and which We have ordained: in it We have sent down Clear Signs, in order that you may receive admonition.” (The Light 1)
• “This is the Way of your Lord, leading straight: We have detailed the Signs for those who receive admonition.” (The Cattle 126)

Revealing the Message of God

Flew finishes his book with a very beautiful analogy of a satellite phone discovered by an island tribe. The sage in the tribe suggests that the phone is a medium of contact with other humans. After some investigation, the tribe confirms that the phone is connected to a network which transmits the voices of intelligent beings that exist. They go even further and decipher the patterns and rhythms and their whole world changes. Similarly the discovery of phenomena like the laws of nature-the communications network in this parable–has led the thinkers to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind. Although Flew summarizes his pilgrimage in a very beautiful fashion with such a parable, we should agree, however, that the direct revelation of God through his messengers is the integral part of this communication network. Even Flew subconsciously acknowledges the role of the “sage” in his parable.

Acknowledgment: This article was produced in Mergeous [8], an online article and project development service for authors and publishers dedicated to the advancement of technologies in the merging realms of science and spiritual thought. The longer and live version of the article [9] is also available in Mergeous for interested readers.

References

1. A. Flew, “There is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind,” HarperCollins Publishers (New York, 2007).

2. Kainata Imanla Bakis, http://www.mergeous.com/projectcon.asp?aid=21

3. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, Sozler, Sayfa 281-299 (risaleinurenstitusu.org).

4. M. F. Gülen, “Islam’in engin ufku,” Yagmur, Sayi 30, Ocak-Mart 2006.

5. M. F. Gülen, “Marifet, Muhabbet ve Medyuniyet,” Kirik Testi, http://www.herkul.org/kiriktesti/?article_id=7978

6. Bediuzzaman Said Nursi, The Flashes, pg. 237 (translated by Sukran Vahide).

7. A. Y. Ali, The Qur’an Translation, Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc. (New York 2004).

8. Mergeous, Online article and project development service, mergeous.com

9. There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind, by Antony Flew (Review), http://www.mergeous.com/articlecon.asp?aid=16

Concepts like the number zero, negative numbers, complex numbers, matrices, and spatial geometry are inventions of mathematicians which were studied earlier and presented especially for the use of physicists. When mathematicians theorized the “Group Theory,” they were reported to have said, “Finally we have developed something that physicists cannot use.” However, this theory, which stemmed from intangible algebra, was found to be useful in investigating the symmetry of physical systems and had serious applications in particle physics.

If there were no mathematical advances, would physics and other sciences have developed as far as they have? What does it mean that sciences are found in such an interrelated state, and thus support each other?

The perfect relationship between physics and mathematics, as in the expression of many physical laws via simple mathematical equations, is truly amazing. The laws that describe the physical world – from equations expressing the laws of motion (like X=V.t, V=a.t, F=m.a h= (gt2)/2), to basic electrical equations (like V=I.R, P=I.V, E=V/d), going all the way to the equations that define gravitational forces and the expansion of the universe (like F=G.m1.m2/d2, V=H.d) – can easily be expressed through mathematics. Furthermore, this simplicity and plainness in creation of the universe fascinates many scientists. Einstein expressed this fascination when he said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”

One of the most important relations between mathematics and physics is that the independent study of intangible works of mathematics unexpectedly became one of the best tools to describe the physical world. Numbers, for example, are one of the greatest inventions of humanity. Humans have used them to quantify their properties. For thousands of years, people used numbers, but then the concept of negative numbers developed for seemingly no reason. For centuries, negative numbers were seen as nonsense. Of course there is not a square with a negative side length, a circle with a negative value area, or a classroom with negative number of students. However, negative numbers were found to be applicable in many areas of physics; they are now accepted as being as real as positive numbers. For instance, it is almost impossible to graph position-time, speed-time, acceleration-time, and the momentum-speed relation of objects without negative numbers.

Ellipses, parabolas, and hyperbolas (plane sections of cones cut in different shapes) were studied by Apollonius (BC 262-200), who was a contemporary of Archimedes. Interestingly these shapes were one day used by Kepler and Newton to describe the orbits of heavenly bodies like planets. Three dimensional pentagonal and hexagonal patterns, like those on the surface of a soccer ball, were also investigated by Archimedes. This shape has been found to be in exact configuration of a special carbon molecule composed of 60 atoms.

Likewise, the number zero, which was introduced by Muhammad bin Ahmad, in 967, led to many innovations in mathematics, as well as physics. Did al-Khwarizmi (780-850) know, when he found and utilized 1st and 2nd degree equations, that he was working on something mathematicians and physicists could one day never do without?

Imaginary numbers, as proposed against the main principles of arithmetic, also provides a very good example for this topic. We cannot think of a number whose square is negative in normal conditions. In other words, when a number is multiplied with itself, the resulting number is always a positive number. But mathematicians thought of a number that is negative when squared and continued various studies accordingly. Again, these studies have proven to be an important tool, especially in understanding electrical circuits by physicists.

Let’s finish our examples with ones from modern physics. Riemann (1826) was a mathematician who studied spatial geometry and proposed the concept of space curves. Mathematical equations designed by Riemann, pertaining to spatial geometry, were used by Einstein in 1908 to describe and formulate the concept of general relativity. Einstein also used Minkowski’s four dimensional geo-spatial continuum when developing his theory of general relativity.

There are many more examples. The famous Russian mathematician Friedman established a mathematical model that allows the expansion of the universe by improving Einstein’s model of universal geometry. This model was also later confirmed by the physicist De Sitter in discovering universal expansion and by Hubble in formulating the expansion. In addition, well before the discovery of quantum mechanics, Davit Hilbert proposed the complex vector space with a very different mathematical purpose known as “Hilbert Space.” This concept of space with an infinite number of dimensions is today used by quantum mechanics.

Sometimes physical realities can be foreseen via these invented equations. For example, Dirac proposed the existence of a particle known as the positron (or as we call it, the twin of the electron; it just differs by the charge) through his mathematical equation that he wrote in 1928. Four years later this particle was discovered by Carl D. Anderson, as predicted. To name, James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879), a famous physicist and mathematician, predicted the presence and speed of electromagnetic waves mathematically via his own equations. Later, these waves were detected by Hertz (1886) through experiments. Again, Maxwell calculated the speed of electromagnetic waves via his equations, and by revealing that it was equal to the speed of light, it was understood that light was also a type of electromagnetic wave. Nowadays, the particle called the “graviton,” which is supposed to be in charge of gravitational forces, and the “Higgs” particle, that theoretically fills space according to quantum theory, are waiting to be discovered.

The book of nature is written in such a way that it is expressible by mathematical language. Famous physicist Sir James Jeans (d. 1946) expressed this situation as follows: “From the intrinsic evidence of his creation, the Great Architect of the Universe now begins to appear as a pure mathematician.” Yes, the level of knowledge that is at play in the universe encompasses both physics and mathematics. The overall interconnectedness of sciences and the interdisciplinary character physics and mathematics point to an owner of this knowledge.

As a conclusion we can deduce that physics and mathematics, just like material and non-material worlds, are in fact intertwined with each other’s various dimensions. The physical face of the universe is the place where records are kept and concepts of matter like heavy or light, big or small, and soft or hard, exist. The mathematical face of the universe (as if spiritual) is the unseen side of events or materials that are hidden and intangible. In a way, this relation between physics and mathematics is a display of the material and spiritual sides of universe.

Nuri Balta is the Head of Physics department at Samanyolu Schools in Turkey. He is also pursuing a PhD degree in Physics at Middle Eastern Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

CERN, the most advanced physics laboratory on earth, announced on July 2012 that they had found a particle that behaved like the Higgs boson, a particle predicted almost 50 years ago to exist. This discovery has brought with it the possibility that the Higgs boson may be responsible for all the mass in the universe and that if it does really exist scientists can unravel the mystery and origins of the universe a little more.

Until the 18th century there was no precise distinction between philosophers and scientists. Philosophy and science merged when the ancient philosophers shaped science and improved scientific methods as we know today. Confucius, Plato, Aristotle, Avicenna (Ibn-i Sina) and Descartes are a few of the greatest known philosophers in history. Most of the prospering scientists in different disciplines have been inspired by their works. For instance, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilee, Isaac Newton, James Clerk Maxwell and Albert Einstein, all highly regarded physicists, were heavily influenced by the works of ancient philosophers. All of the aforementioned physicists tried to understand the physical laws that governed energy, time, and space. Even now, modern physicists are still trying to answer some of the most important questions: What is the nature of the universe and what is it made of? Are there undiscovered physical laws of nature? Are there extra dimensions of space? How can we solve the mystery of dark energy?

Today, in order to understand the composition of matter and how the universe was created, the most prominent particle and high energy physicists are designing huge particle accelerators and detectors. Particle accelerators, also known as atom smashers, are devices that use electromagnetic fields to propel a group of charged particles (ions) to high speeds and collides them with other moving particles or a stationary target composed of a bunch of particles (http://public.web.cern.ch). Particle detectors (radiation detectors) are used to detect, track, visualize and identify particles produced from reactions in accelerators. Scientists analyze the results of the collisions and try to understand interactions between the basic constituents of matter. This is the basis of understanding the components of the universe. The largest and most complex of these scientific instruments is located at CERN, the most advanced physics laboratory on earth. Egin Lillestol, a particle physicist from the University of Bergen (Norway), says that [1] there is nothing quite like CERN anywhere else on earth.

What does CERN stand for? CERN is the French acronym of Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire which means European Council for Nuclear Research. It was founded in 1954. It attracts physicists and engineers from all over the world. According to CERN’s sources, half of the world’s particle physicists, about ten thousand scientists, are either doing active research or visiting there. They all work together toward their common goals of advancing technology, answering questions for better understanding the material world and training future scientists. CERN has also seen the development of many practical scientific applications other than those involved with high energy and particle physics. For instance, the world-wide-web was invented at CERN to allow international scientists to communicate and share their ideas more easily. From 1954 to present, scientists at CERN have received Nobel Prizes in Physics including Sam Ting, Burt Richter, Jack Steinberg and Georges Charpak.

CERN hosts the largest and highest energy particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which is twenty-seven kilometers in circumference and about one hundred meters under the ground. The LHC enables scientists to collide two groups of particles such as protons and lead ions. Physicists analyze and study the particles that are created in the collisions to study conditions just after the Big Bang, the phenomenon that is believed to form the universe 13.7 billion years ago. Many people in the world are looking forward to see the results the LHC will be producing.

CERN: Black holes

Some people have expressed concerns about the safety of the collider at CERN. The biggest concern is whether or not an atom-smasher as big as the LHC could create black holes and destroy the earth. In 2003, LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) reported that the possible production of vacuum bubbles, magnetic monopoles and magnetic black holes at the LHC have no real risk. However, concerns about the safety of creating micro black holes in such a high energy particle accelerator have surfaced in the media for many years. Some media sites claimed that a black hole would be formed and destroy everything. Others announced that the LHC might cause earthquakes. According to the administrator of lhcfacts.org, a website in which scientists discuss the lack of safety at the LHC, the possibility of creating a micro black hole at CERN cannot be ignored, and there are two predictions about what that micro hole would be: according to the more optimistic outcome, the micro black hole evaporates before becoming a threat. According to the second prediction, however, the hole could grow quickly and endanger Earth. Eventually, the LSAG finished the discussion by reaffirming and publishing a second review which reports:

“The possibility of creating micro black holes at the LHC is at the rate of the order of one per second. These are harmless because they would quickly decay by hawking radiation (thermal radiation) according to standard calculations. They decay before even reaching the detector.”

Moreover, these kind of events, even with higher energies than those created in any man-made atom smasher, occur naturally and routinely in the universe. For example, ultra high energy cosmic rays (particles created in outer-space) come into contact with Earth’s atmosphere without any hazardous consequences. In brief, American physicist Karen D. Camarda said “If anything bad was going to happen, nature would have already done it.”

CERN: Higgs Boson

Another case which has dominated world news headlines mid-2012 was the Higgs boson, otherwise known as the “God particle.” What exactly is the Higgs boson and why is it called the God particle? The Higgs boson is a yet undiscovered particle which is taught to be a mechanism for how subatomic particles acquire mass. Most likely, it has a mass between the regions 115-130 GeV of energy. The Higgs mechanism was postulated by British physicist Peter Higgs in 1960s. The theory hypothesizes that the Higgs field, a kind of three dimensional frameworks, fills the universe. A particle borrows mass from the Higgs field when it moves through it. This is similar to the process that an electron undergoes as it gains mass when it passes through a positively charged crystal lattice of atoms. The “God particle” was coined as a nickname of the Higgs boson after Nobel prize winning physicist Leon Lederman published his popular science book in 1993 with the title of The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? Lederman said he gave the particle this nickname because it is “so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter” [2]. To explain further, the term “God particle” is more applicable to marketing than to science and theology. According to many scientists, calling it the “God particle” is inappropriate because it does not have any connection with God or any religion. Many wonder what will happen if scientists find the Higgs boson. Brad Hirschfield, President of the National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership said in his article [3] in The Washington Post:

“While not exactly a theory of creation, finding the God Particle would bring us closer to an understanding of the fundamental processes that govern physical existence.”

Furthermore, some scientists admit that exploration in this field will be far from over even after the Higgs boson is found. Instead, the discovery will open doors to newer and more complex questions. For instance, Michio Kaku, the co-founder of String Theory, asserts [4] that finding the Higgs boson is not enough. He says that “we are at the beginning, not the end of physics. The adventure continues.” In spite of these sentiments, some people, including myself, believe that the discovery of the Higgs boson might reveal a very large missing piece in the physics puzzle.

Acknowledgment: This article is produced at Mergeous [5], 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.

Kara is a freelance pop-sci writer pursuing a PhD in Physics.

References

[1] CERN, “A Unique Experience,” http://user.web.cern.ch/

[2] Lederman, Leon M. 1993. The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?: A Tale of Two Particles and the Ultimate T-Shirt, Bantam Doubleday Publishing Group.

[3] Hirschfield, Brad. 2011. “The ‘God Particle’ and God,” The Washington Post.

[4] Kaku, Michio. 2011. “The ‘God Particle’ and the Origins of the Universe,” The Wall Street Journal.

[5] Mergeous, Online article and project development platform, http://www.mergeous.com

[11] DOE/NSF, High Energy Physics Advisory Panel, Quantum Universe, The Revolution in 23st Century Particle Physics, 2003.

Shadowing effect: the game of who is taller

When sunlight falls on Earth, some shadowy areas do not receive it due to an elevated structure nearby. This causes the shadowy areas to have a different set of plants, which are usually shorter and smaller than the plants in the sunny areas. In brief, the shadowing effect is the input (here sunlight) reception behavior caused by height differences across a surface. The game here is that the taller ones grab more input than the shorter ones. In systems where the input is some kind of material falling on the surface, the most important outcome of the shadowing effect is slowly-rising columnar structures. The ultimate surface morphology depends heavily on the strength of the shadowing effect. Hills of snow following a heavy snow fall and forests with trees of various heights are examples of the shadowing effect.

Reemission effect: the game of reflections

When things bounce, they follow certain physical rules. When you throw something, it may stick or bounce depending on several factors. For instance, when the light falls onto a surface, some of it penetrates the surface and gets absorbed while the rest gets reflected. Reemission is another name for bouncing or reflection in physics, though the idea is not just equivalent angle reflection or equivalent reaction force bouncing.

Figure 1 illustrates the shadowing and reemission effects on a sample surface with hills. Falling particles will most often hit the hills first due to the shadowing effect. If the hill cannot grab the particle on the first hit, then the particle reemits, and it becomes possible for the particle to fall into a valley. In order for a particle to settle in a valley (e.g., particle B in Figure 1), it will have to go through a sequence of reemissions. Let’s say that a particle’s reemission probability (i.e., residual of the sticking coefficient) is p during a hit onto the surface. By simple math, if k reemissions are needed in order for a particle to settle in a valley point, then the probability of this valley point grabbing a particle is while it is for a hilltop under no shadow. In this very approximate model, k will be larger for a deeper valley point, thereby further reducing the grab probability. To get a quick sense of it, for p=0.5, the grab probability is 50% for a hilltop and 25%, 12.5%, and 6.25% for valley points with k=1, 2, and 3 respectively. Similarly, the parameter p represents the importance the of reemission effect in the growth of the surface. Higher p means more reemissions and a larger grab probability for valley points. That is, for p=0.9 (which means the material reemits 90% of the time), the grab probability is 10% for a hilltop; and 9%, 8.1%, and 7.3% for k=1, 2, and 3 respectively.

Intuitively, when the shadowing effect is dominant, the hills will grow larger and maybe merge with each other while sites at the valleys will remain short. The final surface will not be smooth but rough. Figure 2 shows this phenomenon on the macro scale for Tibetan forest growth under the shadowing effect, and Figure 3 shows it on the nano scale (1 nanometer corresponds to 1 billionth of a meter or about hundred thousand times smaller than the diameter of a human hair) for growth of nanostructures like nanorods (i.e., sticks at nanometer lengths). When the reemission effect is dominant, one can expect that the hills will get eliminated as the valleys will quickly grab the reemitted particles. In this case, the final surface will be smooth with evenly distributed growth.

Scientists have been using these effects to control the growth of the surface, especially recently for nanostructure growth. By changing the material characteristics (which affects the reemission probability) or the angle at which the atoms arrive at the surface (which affects shadowing), the scientist can control the dominance of the shadowing or reemission effects [3]. The final outcome of the nanostructures depends on other factors as well, such as (i) temperature of the substrate surface, (ii) energy of the particles, (iii) movement of the underlying substrate, and (iv) the initial pattern of the substrate as in Figure 3(b). By using a combination of these techniques, designers have been able to grow interesting structures such as nanosprings as shown in Fig. 3(b), or nanoballs as in Fig. 3(c). These nanostructures attracted the interest of researchers for various applications such as biosensors [4], engineering of light propagation [5], and microchip production [6].

A social perspective

It is not hard to see the role of shadowing and reemission effects on people and social growth as well. One typical tendency is that well-connected and well-known people or institutions are more likely to grab attention of newcomers to a society or a network. This phenomenon has been regularly observed in the growth of online social networks (e.g., Facebook) [3]. Similarly, wealthier people are more likely to receive a larger share of the aggregate social revenue, which yields a highly skewed wealth distribution. These social trends exist for valuable goods (i.e., “attention” in the former example and “money” in the latter) which have a high “sticking coefficient” and less reemission probability. A well-known phrase to describe this is “the rich get richer,” which Figure 3(a) clearly reveals, showing nanorod growth with a highly sticky material, silicon.

“Equal sharing” in societies is certainly achievable through a more dominant reemission effect. An analogy between reemissions and charity (or helping others) is plausible. Again, the social tendency has been to equally share (or reemit) items that are mostly commodity. Water, electricity, education, and health are examples of such commodities that people “reemit” in many societies, though even the water is not reemitted in some societies.

Conclusions

The interesting observation we would like the reader to recognize here is that shadowing and reemission effects take place at nano as well as at macro levels, and both play important roles in shaping formations or structures. Though these effects are mainly studied in physical structures, they certainly exist in unphysical structures such as societies. Sharing both physical wealth and knowledge is strongly advised for a strong community that lives in harmony. This is similar to the reemission effect during the growth of materials on the nano scale, in which reemission leads to smoother and denser films with structural integrity. On the other hand, when reemission is poor and the shadowing effect is dominant, it leads to isolated structures that look nicer but are structurally fragile (See Figure 3).

Dr. M. Yuksel is an Assistant Professor at the Computer Science and Engineering Department of the University of Nevada, Reno. Dr. T. Karabacak is an Assistant Professor at the Applied Science Department of the University of Arkansas at Litte Rock. Dr. H. Guclu is an Assistant Professor at the Biostatistics Department of the University of Pittsburgh.

References

1. T. Karabacak, H. Guclu, and M. Yuksel, “Network Behavior in Thin Film Growth Dynamics,” Physical Review B, 79(19), May 2009.
2. D. Winkler, “Patterns of forest distribution and the impact of fire and pastoralism in the forest region of Tibet,” In: G. Miehe and Y. L. Zhang, Editors, Environmental Changes in High Asia. Selbstverlag der Marburger Geographischen Gesellschaft, Marburg 135, pp. 201–227, 2000.
3. T. Karabacak, G.-C. Wang, and T.-M. Lu, “Physical self-assembly and the nucleation of 3D nanostructures by oblique angle deposition,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 22, pp. 1778, 2004.
4. J.-X. Fu, A. Collins, and Y.-P. Zhao, “The optical properties and biosensor application of ultra thin Silver films prepared by oblique angle deposition,” J. Phys. Chem. C 112, pp. 16784–1679, 2008.
5. D.-X. Ye, Z.-P. Yang, A.S.P. Cang, J.Bur, S.Y. Lin, T.-M. Lu, R.Z. Wang, S. John, “Experimental realization of a well-controlled 3D silicon spiral photonic crystal,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 40, pp. 1, 2007.
6. P.-I. Wang, S. H. Lee, T. C. Parker, M. D. Frey, T. Karabacak, J.-Q. Lu, and T.-M. Lu, “Low temperature wafer bonding by copper nanorod array,”, Electrochem. and Solid State Lett., 12, pp. H138-H141, 2009.
7. R. Kumar, J. Novak, and A. Tomkins, “Structure and evolution of online social networks,” Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 611-617, Philadelphia, PA, August 2006.

However, space and time are relative according to the theories of Special and General Relativity which were developed by Einstein. A time period which is two hours long with respect to an observer may be one and a half hours or three hours long with respect to another observer. Let us suppose that two events are happening in different places (say New York and Istanbul) but simultenously with respect to an observer who is in between. The same events, however, will not be simultenous with respect to an observer who is in motion. If the observer moves towards the event happening on his right, that is, he diverges from the one on his left, then he will perceive the one on his right as happening earlier than the one on his left. Contrariwise, if he moves towards his left, that is, diverges from his right, then he will perceive the one on his left as happening earlier than the one on his right. Distances in space are thus relative and varying with respect to observers’ positions.

Matter has a certain amount of influence over time and space according to Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (which he described as the theory he most enjoyed). Proportional to its mass, an object may cause changes in the geometry of space or in the acceleration of time. The curvature of space, for instance, is infinite near a black hole, which is regarded as a highly dense substance. Time is, however, constant and does not accelerate. This theory, with such peculiar outcomes, is mathematically perfect and coincides with observations conducted until now. Whether the universe is finite or infinite depends on the density of the material it contains, according to this theory.

Einstein’s theories, though they seem flawless, cannot explain how the universe started all by itself. All laws of physics lose their validity at the time of the Big Bang (the explosion at the creation of the universe) and all the questions relevant to that moment and its precedents remain unanswered. How come the Big Explosion happened? How did it happen? What was there before the explosion? We need to rely on quantum physics in order to answer these questions or at least to deal with their paradoxes and be able to say something about the formation of the universe.

Newton’s clock model or the deterministic model (that everything is realized in strict accordance with certain rules) is still influential in Einstein’s theories, whereas quantum physics (which explains the activities of atomic and subatomic particles) is a more revolutionary approach to matter, actively engaging the observer in processes and tying events to probabilities. It seems that developing consistent theories about the beginning of the universe may only be achieved by using quantum physics, which might also have something to say about the macrocosm. However, the issue of how the theory of relativity and quantum physics can be reconciled is not yet solved. Here, it seems that the theory of multiple or parallel universes may be an alternative solution, and hence, many issues have been hitherto paradoxical and unsolvable are now being explained within a rational and logical frame of reference.

What are multiple universes?

In the Many Universes Interpretation (MUI) developed by physicists like Everett in the 1950s, the paradoxes caused by quantum physics in our modes of thinking are being eliminated and the issue of how the universe functions is being reviewed by an all-new approach. A parallel universe is a realm that carries features identical to those of ours and comprises space, time, matter, galaxies, stars and human beings all identical to those of ours. It can even be said that these two universes are sharing the very same space and that they are positioned to coexist. The substances in these parallel universes are interrelated according to the laws of quantum physics. That is, there are a great many universes like ours. You may, for instance, be taking a walk in a forest in a parallel universe while you are reading this article in this one.

Alternative histories can help us to understand parallel universes. How would the world have been shaped if the Ottoman sultan Mehmet II, who conquered Istanbul, had also succeeded in conquering Rome? Or, what would be happening now if Hitler had won World War II? Each of these probabilities has been realized in a parallel universe. Any world which is imaginably different and any history which is conceivably alternative is present and available somewhere out there. We can understand these multiple universes when we also consider our preferences. A person who chose to study medicine, for instance, would later become a medical doctor. If he or she had chosen biology, they might later have become a research scientist. Or, a man who chose to marry a woman merely due to her physical beauty but did not have a happy family life with her might have enjoyed a happy family life if he had married a pious woman who was his social equal and compatible with him. Thus, different universes, that is, differing probabilities become available according to our preferences.

Parallel universes are often a theme in science fiction novels and films. In the popular television serial Star Trek, for instance, during a routine beaming up process from a planet to their starship “Enterprise,” Captain Kirk and his crew suddenly and accidentally find themselves in an ionized gas cloud. They find themselves inside an “Enterprise” that is almost identical to but surprisingly different from their own Enterprise. But, interestingly, the Mr. Spock in the new “Enterprise,” is an extremely cruel person. In fact, all of the crew are cruel in this alternative starship. Meanwhile, the cruel Captain Kirk and his cruel crew have been beamed up to the other (good) “Enterprise” and these bad men have been imprisoned by the good Mr. Spock there. Both Mr. Spocks understand, after a short while, what the problem is. The Enterprise, due to an ionized gas storm, has been directed to a parallel universe in which an identical “Enterprise” and its identical crew exists. The duplication is almost perfect except that good is bad and vice versa. Had the ion storm not formed a space-time interconnection, the two (parallel) universes would have never become aware of one another. The good and bad versions of the parallel Captain Kirks have replaced each other; while the bad Captain Kirk is being held prisoner inside the good Enterprise, the good Captain Kirk has found himself inside the bad “Enterprise” and soon noticed that he can covertly correct some errors without being noticed and by acting as if he was one of the bad character.

In the television series The Twilight Zone a woman meets her (parallel) double while waiting at the bus stop. Her double has apparently left her own universe and entered this one. This double wants to replace her and succeeds in doing this. The genuine woman is meanwhile sectioned to a mental hospital.

In the story “August 2002, Night Meeting” from The Mars Chronicles, a terrestrial person named Thomas Gomez who has settled on the planet Mars happens to meet a parallel universe there. He hears an elderly man as he is about to depart after taking gasoline for his vehicle: “You may return to your world if you will not accept Mars as it is. Everything is different here: soil, air, canals, aborigines (though I have not yet seen any of them, but heard their voices) and watches. Even my watch functions peculiarly and even the time is different here.”

Thomas then meets a Martian with gold-color eyes being carried by a machine that looks like a preying mantis peculiarly painted in bluish-green colors and greets him. The Martian greets Thomas in his own language. But neither understands the other. The Martian approaches and touches him, but Thomas does not feel him. They somehow start speaking the same language. As they try to shake hands, each one’s hand passes through the other’s as if they did not have hands at all. They can see each other, but cannot touch each other. They realize that they are in intersecting parallel universes. Each can sense his own body, but sees the other one as a ghost. They try to understand why they cannot touch each other while their universes mutually counter-influence. But they cannot find the answer. As he looks at his environment, the Martian sees a beautiful city full of marvelous things, while Thomas sees only desolate, unpopulated, ancient urban ruins. He shouts at the Martian, “All of these canals are empty!” The Martian replies,”The canals are full of violet-colored flowers.” They finally understand that what they are experiencing is something related to time. However, they cannot discern who is in the past and who is in the future. Each of them thinks that his own world is the real one and the other one’s is a realm of fancy.

Such peculiar-sounding tales contain some reality in the light of new physics.

New Physics: How do we know multiple universes exist?

One of the best explanations of quantum physics is the “double slit” experiment. In this experiment, a coherent light source which is emitting particles (photons and electrons for instance) illuminates a thin plate with two parallel slits cut in it, and the light passing through the slits strikes a screen behind them. When both slits of the thin plate are open, an interference pattern of alternating bright and dark bands is observed on the screen. However, a periodic pattern does not result as the pattern that forms when one slit is blocked is directed over the pattern that forms when the other slit is blocked. Or, when a measuring is conducted in order to determine the slit through which a particle has passed, the particle is behaving as if it is certainly passing through one of the slits, but this is distorting the pattern.

We can deduce, from this experiment, that the tendency of the particle changes when either one or both slits are open. Quantum physics explains this peculiar incident as the mutually-influencing of the probability of particle’s passing through one slit with the probability of the same particle’s passing through the other slit. That is, the particle, though being a single one, is behaving as if it is passing through both slits. The only logical way of developing a reasonable postulate is to consider that the particle passes through one slit in one world (i.e., universe) and through the other one in another world. So, these are the parallel universes which we have been trying to explain since the beginning. When the particle hits the screen, these universes unite again and become a single universe.

Another striking example which discloses the existence of parallel universes is the “thought experience” known as “Schrödinger’s cat.” The Austrian physicist Schrödinger devised this clever thought experiment: A cat sits in a steel chamber with a flask that contains a poisonous substance. There is also a small amount of a radioactive substance with a 50 % probability of decaying and thereby triggering a mechanism which will smash the flask, release the poison and so kill the cat. On the other hand there is also the 50 % probability that the radioactive substance will not decay, the poison will not be released and the cat will not die. Now, according to quantum physics, the cat will be 50% dead and 50% alive, that is, there is a superposition of states (the cat is both dead and alive) until the sealed chamber is opened and the cat observed. Naturally, such a thing is against logic and incomprehensible. The multiple universes (multiverse) model, however, explains this complicated situation more easily by saying that the cat is alive in one universe and dead in another.

Black holes and cosmology

Black holes, which came to the attention of science because of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity, are space-time structures that absorb everything including light. They form as a result of the collapse of stars which are three to four times bigger than the sun and which have fully consumed their energy. The structures of space and time become distorted due to the terrifying magnitude of a black hole’s gravity as it is approached. Some physicists argue that black holes are passages between parallel universes and we would find ourselves in another universe if we could pass through one.

Belief in the existence of such a great number of universes also sheds light on cosmology, the science dealing with the creation of the universe and its structure. Possibly the most vital of the subjects that cosmology rarely touches on is the fact that the structure and composition of the universe are so delicately devised that it enables living species and conscious creatures to exist and survive in it. Only a single one among the many possible universes has been selected and made inhabitable for living and conscious species. If the universe had had rather different characteristics, these species would not have been able to live in it. The gravitational energy in the universe, for instance, is almost identical with the expansion energy of the Big Bang, and very delicate balances are observable in the constants of the laws of physics. By thorough observation, we can deduce that everything has been devised and prepared for our existence.

The multiple universes (multiverse) theory asserts that all possible universes exist. According to this assertion, there are universes in which no conscious species exist. The reason why we perceive that everything has been devised in this way in our universe is because we believe that we cannot survive in another one which is not devised with the delicate balances that enable the survival of living species. In fact, all this reminds us that there may exist unseen realms and worlds different than ours. The existence of beings like angels and jinns which cannot be observed by worldly eyes and the fact that the believers are those who believe in the unseen are mentioned in the Holy Qur’an. The existence of people like Khidhr who lived in realms of life different than ours, various prophetic miracles, saintly powers and the true prophetic dreams (ru’ya-i sadiqah) that give true prophesies all inform us that there are other realms beyond the visible one. Thanks to the new physics, the life in the grave, the life in the realm of barzakh (the intermediary life between the mundane and eternal worlds), the dimensions of paradise and of hell and their levels which we cannot explain in concrete terms, the realms in which we will either be punished or rewarded at existential co-ordinates beyond our imagination all seem more easily comprehensible today.

In fact, the principles of faith such as fate, death, the hereafter, the resurrection and doomsday do not need support from the cold and positivistic viewpoints of the physics with which we are familiar today. However, the fact that the idea of parallel universes was initially used in science-fiction works and only later dealt with in quantum physics might lead us to an important conclusion: We are witnessing today that many events which we could hardly imagine in the past (for instance, saving audio-visual recordings in huge computers and later presenting them as witnesses) are becoming quite common and ordinarily achievable in the real world. Likewise, the possibility that all our deeds which we perform throughout our lifetime might be saved by recorders in unknown metaphysical universes has become more easily acceptable and comprehensible. Today’s imaginings might be the realities of one day in the future. Everything conceivable or inconceivable to us may be possible, for the One who created things is God, Who is Omnipotent and All-Knowing. Additionally, as He has informed us about all these phenomena in His Divine Revelation the Qur’an, of which even not a single word has been changed, we do not feel the least doubt. We shall experience how smoothly our souls transcend from this realm to another (as if passing from one room to another) when death knocks on our door one day. Certainly, we should never forget that the ease or difficulty of these experiences and the sights that we shall encounter in other realms will all depend on and be created out of our deeds in this mundane life. And, as we say “all praise and thanks be to God” in return for an apple that we eat here, we will witness, only when we face the reality, how this gratitude of ours will turn out to be a heavenly reward (a tree or a palace) in a different universe.

Salih Adem studied Biophysics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign until 2001 and philosophy at the University of Maryland at College Park until 2004. Adem is now freelance writer on physics and philosophy.

We can use electron or tunnel microscopes to extend our observations. Moreover, we discover that the great forces which help to keep together all the parts, from the biggest to the smallest, are active all the time just in order to make the wall stand still. This tells us that the wall has been built according to pre-determined calculations and geometry. So we can extrapolate this and imagine the creation of matter first as a sub-atomic particle, after that as a nucleus,¹ an atom and a molecule and continuing on. This situation clearly shows that at first matter (a kind of raw material) was created in a way that we cannot explain with causes. This matter was then subjected to construction by the Divine Knowledge, Will, and Power in the framework of the relationship of cause and effect in the universe. Today, we know that, starting from the molecule and going into more detail, that in the atomic system there is the atomic nucleus, and in the nucleus there are nucleons (protons and neutrons) and quarks in each nucleon; these tiny particles are kept together by very high forces (strong nuclear force). In other words, as the sizes of things get smaller in this physical world-from the galactic scale to the subatomic scale-the force required to keep things together becomes greater, in inverse proportion to the size. There are four kinds of forces known in the physical world: gravity, weak nuclear force, strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force. Gravity is the weakest of these forces, while strong nuclear force is the strongest. Gravity, the natural force by which all objects are attracted to each other, operates between immense objects like stars, medium-scaled things like planets and small things like apples. Gravity is 1,040 times weaker than the strong nuclear force that is used to keep the sub-atomic particles, such as the proton and quark in the nucleus, together. It is still a matter of debate in quantum physics if sub-atomic particles (those that are smaller than the electron) have a physical entity that we call a “body,” even though their existence has been proven and they have been named.

Can sub-atomic particles give information about the actual nature of matter?

Sub-atomic particles

It has been determined in research that has been carried out since the 1930s, as a result of collisions in particle accelerators, that the quark is the smallest particle. Another, theoretical, way to obtain the quark would be to heat matter to a trillion degrees Celsius and, break the matter down as much as possible. But in today’s conditions this is not possible. Therefore, the theory of Big Bang first came about as an idea that said: “There must have been extremely hot temperatures, or more accurately, there must have been very great and sudden explosions that caused these hot temperatures during the first creation of matter.” This idea has been widely accepted among physicists. At the end of the 20th century, it was realized that the same situation is valid for anti-matter. It was also obvious that matter and the organization and continuity of its mirror image, anti-matter, cannot be explained by mere coincidence.

Studies on matter and anti-matter

Matter can be defined as the intensified condition of energy and which can be converted to energy again (E=mc²). The reactions of fission and fusion² mean the transformation of the one-thousandth or one-ten thousandth of a mass into energy (the rest is transformed into other masses). However it is possible for matter to combine with anti-matter and be transformed into energy with 100% efficiency. So what is anti-matter? In 1931, Paul Dirac started to make predictions about the existence of a strange group of particles that he called anti-matter, as a result of theoretical studies.³ After Carl Anderson of the California Technology Institute carried out studies that supported Dirac’s ideas began to attract attention. But not liking publicity and being a retiring type, Dirac did not encourage the media to become interested in this subject-he had earlier turned down the Nobel Prize. Today, Dirac’s name is known only by those who are expert in the subject, but anti-matter is one of the deepest secrets of modern physics. It is not difficult to understand anti-matter, in spite of the fact that it is often presented as a very complicated subject. In some cases, the particles of anti-matter are the same as those of matter-for example, mass. In anti-matter the situation of properties such as electrical charge,⁴ magnetic moment,⁵ and spin,⁶ which are related to the main particles, is the opposite of the main particles of matter. The greatest difference is that the electrical charges are opposite. The nucleus of anti-matter is negative, not positive. In its orbit there are positrons with positive charges, not negative. The existence of anti-matter has been proven with particle accelerators.

Physicists have been able to obtain very small amounts of anti-matter by breaking down the sub-atomic particles with a speed close to that of the speed of light in CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva) and in the Fermi Laboratories (USA). Just as the system of matter was created from very small sub-atomic particles, anti matter was also created from very small anti-matter particles. The only difference between them is that their charges are opposite. As soon as the very small and very fast main particles of both matter and anti-matter come into existence, they cannot survive long and immediately become energy (in one-billionth of a second) and disappear with the ambiguous physical aspects; this is because they are not suitable structurally or functionally for the conditions of the universe, which has already cooled. In order to determine this, particles without mass or those with very small masses which were obtained after collisions in the particle accelerators were kept in very special conditions; the lightest matter in the universe, that is hydrogen, and the anti-matter of hydrogen (anti-hydrogen atoms) were synthesized (a hydrogen atom is the proton itself). However, all these processes are very expensive. The life of nine anti-hydrogen atoms that were produced in CERN in 1995 was just 40 nanoseconds (one forty-billionth of a second). One million anti-hydrogen atoms were produced in the same laboratories. Their total weight was just one quadrillionth of a kilogram (Weed, 2003). As of 2005, the yearly global production of anti-hydrogen atoms was approximately one hundred billionth of a kilogram and it costs one quadrillion dollars to produce on ounce (28.3 grams) (Berman, 2005). In almost all Big Bang models, it is estimated that equal amounts of matter and anti-matter were created in the time-space universe that existed 14 billion years ago. Taking into account the scale of the universe, the fact that everything was created in pairs seems logical. But apart from the anti-matter that “appears and disappears” in particle accelerators, there is no trace or mark of this. All the anti-matter that is thought to have been created with matter at the beginning seems to have disappeared in less than a second, even if the universe came into being with the Big Bang or something else. So where has all this anti-matter gone and how did it happen? The studies to understand this continue. One of them is related to the radioactive beta decay of weak nuclear force, which is accepted as one of the four fundamental forces. During this decay, a neutron in the atomic nucleus becomes a proton, but the time in which it does this is unpredictable. Meanwhile, an electron and a particle called the anti-neutrino⁷ are emitted from the neutron. In some rare isotopes, we see double beta decay. In this process, both neutrons in the nucleus decay at the same time, which means that they are converted to protons, with two electrons and two anti-neutrinos are emitted at the same time. Physicists have been experimentally observing double beta decay for more than 20 years. However, Hans Klapdor-Kleingrothaus and his colleagues from the Max Planck Nuclear Physics Institute (Heidelberg) say that they have been observing a different version of double beta decay and claim that no anti-neutrino appears in this experiment. This process was predicted by the Italian physicist Ettore Majorana in 1937, but he found it impossible to prove it. The Heidelberg team now says that they have succeeded this. The important thing about the matter and anti-matter relationship is this: if one or two anti-neutrinos are emitted from the nucleus during a normal beta or double beta decay, this means that there is a neutrino in each neutron. On the other hand, in double beta decay, in which no anti-neutrino is emitted, an anti-neutrino appears as a result of the decay of the neutron and is absorbed by another neutron without being able to be emitted; this is contrary to well-known laws. Did the Divine Power hide anti-matter in this way? If the results are correct, double-beta decay that does not emit anti-neutrino apparently indicates that the neutrino, which is hidden in the structure of the neutron, has a different place among the fundamental particles of matter.

Physicists state that the interactions and decay of matter and anti-matter are dependent on special laws, such as the preservation of energy and the number of leptons.⁸ These laws say that the duration of the exchange of matter and anti-matter is equal to time dating back to the beginning of the universe (the Big-Bang). When we look at the emission of a neutron, we can see that anti-neutrinos indicate the same number of neutrons that at the beginning each absorbed a neutrino. The results attained by the team in Heidelberg may help us to explain why the universe is full of matter and not anti-matter and why there is no visible anti-matter.

Why matter and anti-matter?

It is difficult to store anti-matter in great quantity and it is also dangerous and costly; if anti-matter comes into contact with matter, both disappear and release a great deal of energy. Dirac thought that anti-matter masses could be hidden in remote places of the universe. At this time this was a reasonable hypothesis, as a galaxy created out of anti-matter could not have been differentiated from a normal galaxy. Spectroscopic analyses at that time did not reveal any differences. But today it has been claimed that anti-matter is infrequently found in outer-space. The contact between electrons and positrons produces gamma rays with an energy equivalent to 511,000 electron volts. If anti-matter were galaxies to exist, they would interact with the usual particles that swim through intergalactic space and would cause gamma ray circles around existing galaxies. These kinds of circles were looked for, but nothing was found. We live in a new universe of matter (Berman, 2005). Marc Lachièze-Rey, the French astrophysicist, says that, “If there were any antimatter asteroids in our galaxy, they would emit x-rays that we would be able to detect as soon as it disappears with its material,” (Poirier & Greffoz, 2001). The current explanation of the physicists about the domination of matter over anti-matter in the universe has the laws of physics arranged in favor of matter. When a team from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (2004) determined a minor but distinctive difference in the behaviors of some matter and anti-matter particles, this explanation was supported. This result implied an arrangement in which the material side overpowered the laws of physics. In terms of the causes operated being dependent on these laws, a universe that includes so much anti-matter would be very dangerous; when matter and anti-matter contact, the result is the transformation of matter into energy (E= mc²). It means a release of energy 143 times greater than a hydrogen bomb. If a marble that weighs an ounce collides with an equivalent anti-marble, 50 billion times a trillion erg of energy is released as a result of this reaction; this is enough to light all the electric bulbs in the US for a day. (Berman, 2005). In fact matter and anti-mater are similar to one another. Nobody has been able to explain why matter is dominant over antimatter instead of the other way round. Today, theoretical and experimental physicists predict that the half of the universe has been lost and the last time that it was seen was at the time of the creation of the universe. Matter and its opposite-charged anti-matter demonstrate that there was a certain predestination at the beginning of Creation, to be more exact before the Creation, in terms of knowledge, power and creating. This means that matter and anti-matter cannot exist by themselves. All the causes from the beginning were gathered to reveal a “universe of matter” (not a “universe of anti-matter”) that we can spiritually and intellectually comprehend. Anti-matter and matter demonstrate that they were created with a knowledge, will and power that existed before the creation. Otherwise, how could the first subatomic particles like hadrons, then the protons and the neutrons, then the atomic nucleus, after that the atomic system and the molecules in the sea of quarks, which are thought to be the most transparent, the most scattered, but at the same time the most fluid state (this is what can be predicted by looking at the results of particle collision experiments) of matter that appeared as the result of the Big Bang and under very great temperatures (trillions of degrees Celsius), have been formed? How could the laws that operate as the causes of this universe, a realm of symmetrical matter and antimatter, and then the structures and functions that became dominant have been formed? Could the sea of quarks (maybe the ether), which is the basis of matter, have been transformed by itself into organizations of new matter in the shape of nucleus, atomic system, and molecule only as a result of a decrease in temperature?⁹ Even if the temperature decreased, the sea of quarks could have remained the same, considering its structure. The cause and effect relationship-which we explain with the present physical laws-about temperature changes or about different states of matter may not have existed. Could the quarks have established this law? If the existence of matter and space¹⁰ occurred as a result of the Big Bang and a heat of trillions of degrees Celsius; how, when, for what reason and in which physical realm did this accumulation of energy happen? If there was no physical realm before the explosion, does physics stem from the metaphysics? Yes! The universe was created from nothing. Even if we search for the answer to this question in terms of the exact sciences, we again arrive at the same answer. The universe was created! These questions are not being asked for the first time. However the “hand of science” cannot grasp metaphysics (or pre-physics). Another interesting point here is this: the events on the large scale of the galaxy or even of the universe are trying to be understood by studies on a small scale (such as with sub-atomic particles) and by collisions in accelerators. We can say that small particles contain the index of the entire universe. Moreover, the studied particles do not individually exist. They were in the conditions of the high temperature. We can also say that, if we go in depth in sub-atomic particle studies, the existence of the particles that have very small mass (one quadrillionth of a kilogram) or those with no mass, are very rapid and have a very short life; this makes us think that matter can be created out of nothing at any moment and can be transformed into larger particles that have a greater mass. Most importantly, if we had not seen the activities in the sub-atomic realm we would not be able to understand that God’s Knowledge, Will and Power have penetrated everywhere at all times. If the sub-atomic realm had been static and inactive, God forbid, we would think that this realm was left to its own devices or that the Divine Power could not reach here. If God had not created such small, quick particles that can come into existence at any moment and be transformed into something else, we would not be able to comprehend the greatness of His Power and the intricacy of His Knowledge and Calculation.

References

• Berman, B., “What’s the Antimatter?” Discover, Vol 26, No 10, October, 2005.
• Weed, W.S., “Startrek,” Discover, Vol 24, No 8, August, 2003.
• Poirier, H. & Greffoz, V., “Asteroïdes: La menace se précise,” Science & Vie, No 1006, July, Paris, 2001.

Notes

1. This before and after relationship is valid; Our Creator, Who created the time, is not bound by time.
2. The slow chain reaction fission (the division of atomic nucleus) is the working principle in nuclear plants and it is the working principle of atomic bomb as a rapid chain reaction.
3. In 1928, Paul Dirac also predicted the existence of the positron, the anti-particle of the electron. This prediction was proven by physicist Carl Anderson at California Technology Institute in 1932.
4. The electrical charge is the application of the force of a matter on another matter, and the unit is the coulomb (C). A body is charged with electricity as a result of friction, induction, or chemical change. The charge itself shows an electron unit on the body (negative charge) or loss of electron (positive charge). The static electricity that we see when putting on an acrylic sweater or combing our hair is the result of the loss or gain of an electron from surface atoms. A charge flow, such as the passing of electrons from a copper wire, is electrical current and its unit is the ampere (A).
5. Magnetic momentum is the effect that happens dependent on the length and force of the magnet.
6. Spin is the natural angular momentum of a sub-atomic particle, such as a proton or neutron, of an atomic nucleus, an atom or a molecule; spin continues to exist even if the particle becomes inactive. A particle, in a certain state of energy, has a spin peculiar to itself as well as having an electrical charge and mass.
7. The neutrino is one of the three uncharged main particles (and one of the three uncharged anti-particles) belonged to leptons and it has a very small mass (almost zero). The three types are electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino. The anti-particle of an electron neutrino is the anti-neutrino that is emitted during the beta decay of a nucleus.
8. Being one of the fundamental particle types that are not affected by strong nuclear forces, leptons correspond to the electron, muon, tau and the neutrinos of these three particles and also to the six anti-particles of these. In July 2000, direct proof of the tau lepton was obtained in the Fermi Laboratories. The muon, on the other hand, is a fundamental particle similar to the electron except for its mass. It is 207 times greater in mass than the electron. Its half-life is two millionthof a second. It is transformed into electrons and neutrinos at the end of this period of time. Although it is thought that the muon is a meson in origin, it has not been classified as a lepton yet. Meson is an unstable sub-atomic particle group consisting of a quark and anti-quark. Its existence was determined by cosmic radiation and it is emitted by a nucleus that has been exposed to the bombardment of very high-energy particles. The sub-class of hadrons, mesons, includes kaons and pions. Their existence was predicted by the Japanese physicist Hideki Yukawa in 1935.
9. It seems that the existence of matter and anti-matter causes the high temperature present at the beginning to drop and the combination of the sub-atomic particles (nuclear synthesis). The encounter of matter and anti-matter causes high energy. Therefore, we can understand that a very large explosion (the Big Bang) and very high temperatures were the conditions at the beginning of time.
10. Today physicists accept that matter was created out of nothing and in the space in which it was embedded.

“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.

When speaking of a huge emptiness in between the elementary particles, the French philosopher Jean Guitton (1901–1999) gives the following example:

Think of the proton of the oxygen nucleus as the size of a pinhead; then the rotating electron would draw a circle that traverses the Netherlands, Germany and Spain (assuming that the center of this orbit was France, as Guitton lived there). Therefore, if all the atoms that make up my body were close enough to touch one another, you wouldn’t be able to see me at all. [I] would be a particle of dust, just one thousandth of a millimeter.

If we could enlarge an apple to the size of the world, each atom, proportionally, would be the size of a football. We would then be able to learn everything about the atoms by taking one of those atoms and examining it in our hands, wouldn’t we?

No, we wouldn’t!

It isn’t this easy. Even if an apple were to be the size of the world, it would still be too small to attain enough information about its atoms. If we want to see the nucleus of the atom, we must enlarge it to the size of a town, not a football. Then the nucleus, which is the size of a football, is in the middle, and one of the electrons, orbiting 1 kilometer away, would be no larger than a walnut.

Now let’s apply this example to the hydrogen atom, which is the smallest atom. If the nucleus of a hydrogen atom were enlarged to the size of a football then the atom itself would be a sphere with a diameter of 2 kilometers.

Quantum field

The discovery of the atom is in fact the discovery of empty space. It might sound strange to hear the words “huge” and “emptiness” in the same sentence when talking about the atom.

One night, a pessimist, an optimist, and a physicist were looking at the cloudless sky. The pessimist said, “What a great emptiness,” while the optimist said, “There are countless stars.” The physicist, on the other hand, couldn’t say anything, because he wasn’t sure whether what they had seen was a vast amount of objects or a vast field of emptiness.

The developments in modern physics in recent years have changed concepts such as, “substance,” “particle,” and “vacuum.” Vacuum is usually defined as “the living environment, life breath, or energy” of the universe.

The vast vacuum that physicist sees in the sky is what we call the quantum field

The quantum field is formless and shapeless. It is the field of all forms and the basic essence of the universe. The durable and solid substance that we call a particle is the condensation of this field into small units. The quantum field is the environment of activity, transportation, and communication, all at the same time. It is noteworthy that this approach is very close to the ancient approach that claims that space is full of ether.

Albert Einstein defined matter as the space region in which this field was extremely condensed. According to the understanding of the new physics, both the matter and the field of the matter are the same thing.

According to quantum physics, all matters in space are like islets in an ocean, and are connected to each other through subjacent earths. In the concept of a quantum field, space is a stable integrated whole and unity of waves and these interactions happen in “waves.”

Vacuum is not emptiness

The vacuum was once believed to be a place with nothing inside it. However, the universe has a beginning, and everywhere in this universe was once a single place that later came into existence. Therefore, it is impossible for a place in which “there is nothing” to exist in the universe. In brief, subsequently, there must have been something everywhere that has been created. Just as there is no dry place in the sea, there cannot be any emptiness in this sea of existence that was created out of nothing. Underlining this truth, quantum physics defines the universe as a whole and says there is no emptiness in the absolute sense. In other words, the universe in which there is no “empty” space is a world that has been “called into being.”

If everything around us, even human beings, consists of atoms, most of which are made up of emptiness, and if in fact the actual physical structures that compose our bodies are so few, then why can’t we go through walls or closed doors, like cartoon characters? What makes matter so solid and durable?

In fact it is not easy to answer this question. Electrons are created in small places, like atoms, and have been given phenomenal speed. An electron moves at 1,000 kilometers per second (that means it rotates one million times around the nucleus). As a result of this phenomenal speed, the atom becomes a tough and solid mass. We can compare this to airplane propellers that appear to be a solid and flat surface when spinning.

The amazing electron

The features of electrons, such as being able to pass through two holes in an obstacle at the same time (no other particle can do this) have astonished scientists and brought out a metaphysical dimension that are beyond the wave nature of light. The granular structures of subatomic particles contradict the understanding of matter. According to the findings of quantum mechanics, the particle is in fact nothing but a dynamic effect and movement. The particles can be composed of energy or they can be entirely converted to energy. The classical concept of elementary particle is becoming obsolete in today’s world.

Nevertheless, the changes in our perception of matter do not necessarily mean matter is unreal. The truth is that particles of matter do not have a constant reality or an independent essence, in contrast to what has been assumed. Whatever seems to be or is reflected as matter, energy, or value, or whatever we call it, is nothing but the manifestation of the Divine Names of the Creator Who created “nothingness.”

Think of a shadow play. The image that the audiences see on the curtain, which is far from the source of light, is not “real.” The real thing is another object that is in front of the source of light or behind the curtain. What we see is the reflection of the object itself or its movements. If we don’t know how this play has been staged, we may think that the image on the curtain is real. Even though there is an image on the curtain, it does not have its own existence and is not real. In the same way matter exists but its existence and its being in this condition is not something under its control.

Before the realm of the quantum was discovered, Newtonian physics had accepted matter as being solid, durable, and constant. Everything we touch, such as walls, trees, and all the objects we see have the solid and durable condition of matter. But if one looks at an object through an electron microscope, they will see that 99% is vacuum and 1% is light. We can form circle of light if we swing a light source in a dark room. If we add a second, third, and fourth source, and move them so that they can form illuminated spheres, someone who is observing from a distance will perceive a three-dimensional sphere instead of a two-dimensional illuminated circle. Thus, we can understand that by increasing the number of spheres we form a three-dimensional model of matter. According to quantum physics, matter found in the universe is pretty much like this example. In short, matter does not consist of a combination of solid particles. There is almost no difference between the “building stone” of human beings and the image of human on television. And we can say that just as the television broadcast disappears when there is a power cut, it is also possible for this universe, which seems so permanent, to disappear with one command.

A television broadcast is constantly being renewed through the transmission of pictures and sound by means of electronic signals. As in the example above, if our existence is like the image on television, then can we say that the universe is also being renewed every second like a TV broadcast?

None of the objects we see (trees, birds, humans, etc.) take their existence from the concrete reality of the matter that we perceive. Thus, they must receive their existence from the power and the names of the Creator Who creates everything out of nothing and keeps it in perpetual motion. In brief, although created out of nothing, existence is being created all the time.