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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur’an 51:47)

In astronomical terms, this is a very short distance. It is estimated that within our own solar system the distance between the Sun and Pluto, the ninth and usually farthest planet from the Sun, is about 4.6 billion miles (7.4 billion kilometers) at aphelion (the point of the orbit that is farthest from the sun). It may be hard to believe that the Sun, Pluto, and all the intra-planetary bodies were once one giant mass. But this is what the Solar Nebular theory, the most popular account for the creation of solar systems, postulates.

The Solar Nebular Theory & the Holy Qur’an

According to the Solar Nebular theory, the emergence of a solar system begins with cosmic gas. A large cloud of gas and dust (a nebula) – believed to have initially come into existence through a slow process of conglomeration – slowly starts to lose peripheral matter as it slowly rotates. This collapse, as the theory goes, happens gradually as the force of gravity pulls the nebular matter inward (toward its center of gravity), overpowering the force of expansion due to gas pressure.

As the cloud collapses, it starts to spin faster in conformance with the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. The combination of the increased spin and the attraction of gravity cause the nebula to flatten into a spinning pancake-like structure with a bulge at the center. Slowly, the heavier regions within this evolving structure begin to contract gravitationally and condense. Eventually, the sun forms the center and planets form around it, rotating in the same direction and along the same plan (with exceptions, for example, in our solar system, Venus, Mercury, and Pluto spin “backward” – perhaps due to collisions during the formation stage). The centripetal force, a corollary to gravitational force, prevents the planets from drifting out of orbit. It is a very delicate balance.2

It is reported that Kant and Laplace presented the Solar Nebular hypothesis in the eighteenth century³Yet, this hypothesis that consists firstly of the coalescing of planetesimals* to form the solar nebular cloud, and then the differentiating of this cloud into planets, appears to have been referred to in the Qur’an since the seventh century. For example, in 71:14, God may be alluding to the phased nature of the birth of the Solar System. Verses 15 and 16 are further quoted to give the context of this Qur’anic revelation, i.e. the creation of the Solar System:

Seeing that it is He that has created you in diverse stages? See you not how Allah has created the seven heavens one above another? And made the moon a light in their midst, and made the sun as a (Glorious) Lamp? (71:14-16)

In 41:11 there is a verse about stage one – the formation of the nebular cloud; and, in 21:30 about stage two – the cleavage of the nebular cloud into our solar system:

Then He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth:

“Come you together, willingly or unwillingly.” They said: “We do come (together), in willing obedience.” (41:11)

Have the unbelievers not beheld that the heavens and the earth were a solid mass, then We separated them . . . (21:30)

The Arabic word sama (plural samawat) is routinely translated as meaning “heaven” (also sometimes as firmament) in the mainstream translations of the Qur’an. However, in our context here, sky would be a more accurate term. [The Qur’an refers to Heaven itself (the place where good deeds will be rewarded) as either Janna or Firdaws, but never as sama.]

On several occasions, the Qur’an refers to seven skies (seven heavens) being stacked one above the other (as if in levels), for example, in 71:15, as quoted above. There is no consensus among Muslim scholars as to where these seven heavens lie. But if we look at our solar system we find that it consists of an average sized star that we call the Sun and nine planets orbiting the Sun. These planets in outreaching order are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto. “Above” the Earth, therefore, there are six planets and seven interplanetary skies; there are also seven orbits, beginning with the Earth’s orbit, up to Pluto’s orbit.

In my opinion, however, the seven skies oft-noted in the Qur’an refer to these seven interplanetary “skies,” and not to the orbits. The Qur’an is rather explicit when reference is made to celestial orbits, and the Arabic word falak (aptly translated as orbit) is then used:

It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) floats along in (its own) orbit (according to Law). (36:40)

The fact that the sun “swims” in its own orbit – at the formidable speed of about 140 miles per second (225 km per second) – was finally realized in the 1910s when the American astronomer Harlow Shapley characterized our existence in the universe⁴Humanity was in for an “astronomical” surprise.

Our sun, it turned out, is but one of over 100 billion stars that make up our galaxy (the Milky Way) and that rotate around the galactic center (the center of our galaxy) in a near circular orbit. Most of these stars are closer to the galactic center than our sun. The distance from the center of our galaxy to the Sun is about 26,000 light-years (a light-year is about 6 trillion miles or 9.5 trillion kilometers and it is the distance that light travels in a year). The Milky Way itself measures about 100,000 light-years across.5 

It is not permitted to the Sun to catch up the Moon, nor can the Night outstrip the Day: Each (just) floats along in (its own) orbit (according to Law). (Qur’an 36:40)

This discovery closed the chapter on the heliocentric (sun-centered) model of the universe as popularized by Nicolai Copernicus in the sixteenth century and which held sway until well into the twentieth century. We live in an average-size solar system in a universe that is comprised of a potentially infinite number of galaxies.

My point is that most of the cosmological revelations in the Qur’an pertain to the creation of our solar system. Conventionally, 21:30, for example, is often ascribed to the Big Bang theory for the creation of the universe. It seems to me that these verses may be interpreted as referring to the creation of our solar system. Yet, all cognitively defensible interpretations of the holy text are equally valid. This is a component of the miraculous nature of the Qur’an – its fixed text but flexible interpretation. And, I would argue, the same can be said for the Bible.

Relativity

So, in this spirit, let us resume our celestial reflections. Could it be that the six-day creation account found in both the Bible and the Qur’an starts here (i.e., six days for the formation of the Solar System or even our galaxy and not necessarily for the creation of the whole universe)? Which begs the question, are these days necessarily days as we know them? Is it explicitly stated in either of the holy books that a day is necessarily made up of twenty-four hours? The answer is no. Let us review two key verses from each book. Cross-referencing between the two holy books is not unwarranted. Muslims believe that it is the same God who revealed both books.

He Who created the heavens and the earth and all that is between, in six days, and is firmly established on the Throne (of Authority) . . . (Qur’an 25:59)

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Bible, KJV Genesis 1:1)

Reference is made to the creation of “the earth.” There is no compelling reason to assume that the six-day narrative pertains to the creation of the whole universe. Reference may be to the creation of the Solar System or just the Galaxy. Second, there is no particular reason to theorize that the six days are days as we know them now.

Let us ask a simple question here, what is a day? It is the time it takes the Earth to revolve around its axis (24 hours). Given that the Milky Way is a gigantic spiral disk with a bright, central bulge, what would be a day for our galaxy? The time for it to revolve around its axis (galactic center) is estimated to be 225 million years.6

It is estimated that up until now the Sun has completed 20 revolutions around the galactic center – that is a time span of 4.5 billion years (the estimated age of our planet); or, if we look at it in another way, 20 days. Six days in this sense, therefore, is equivalent to 1.35 billion years. We must also wonder whether the time it takes the Earth to revolve around its axis has been twenty-four hours since “day one.” Ultimately, time is a relative measurement.

Einstein’s 1905 theory of time and space, Special Relativity, proposed that distance and time are not absolute. The ticking rate of a clock and the length of a “yardstick” depend on the motion of the observer. The closer you approach the speed of light – about 186,000 miles per second or 300,000 kilometers per second – the slower your watch seems to be ticking relative to others. Another way to put it is, the faster you travel through space, the slower you travel through time. Imagine a vehicle capable of such maneuvering – this is, in effect, a time machine.7

It may not be very helpful to think about this too much, but if you have seen Paramount Pictures’ 2002 sci-fi movie Clockstoppers, imagine: you, moving at a speed approaching the speed of light, would see everyone else as if they were the ones functioning in “hypertime.” This notion of a “hasty” human attitude is reiterated in the Qur’an; and, the whole idea of time relativity is also suggested several times in the Qur’an. Two examples follow. When looked at in the light of Relativity, these verses make perfect sense and are quite revealing:

Yet they ask you to hasten on the Punishment! But God will not fail in His Promise. Verily a Day in the sight of your Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning. (22:47)

The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a Day the measure whereof is (as) fifty thousand years. (70:4)

Further, Relativity posits time and space as being one insolvable unit called space-time, as the fabric of the universe, as it were. As such, time and space as we know them only started from the moment the universe was conceived… with a “big bang.”

The Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang theory (BBT) is the most popular scientific theory on the origin of the universe. Its most popular version, the -inflationary universe,- presented by Alan H. Guth in 1980, postulates that the universe was created some fifteen billion years ago in an escalatory manner from a cosmic explosion of a -Primary Nebula- (singularity) – that is, an infinitely condensed matter – that cast matter in all directions. The theory holds for an initial expansion rate faster than the speed of light⁸Guth”s inflationary notion came into being in order to account for the fact that if the initial explosion was linear, as held the traditional version of the theory, first theorized by George Lemaitre in 1927, it would not explain the differential interstellar and intergalactic distances. The distances are such that some celestial regions could never have been in proximity at any point in time if the expansion had always simply proceeded at the speed of light⁹The big bang could not have happened at a particular place in the universe, because before it happened, as the theory goes, there was no universe. Rather, there was nothing, except for the singularity which started it all. Quantum mechanics tries to explain how, before spacetime, subatomic particles in this singularity interacted to produce an unfathomable amount of energy which was the initial spark of creation. It is believed that every particle has its anti-particle (as every matter has its anti-matter) that is a complete opposite (for example, in charge, spin, etc.). When these two antagonists meet, they annihilate each other in a tremendous burst of energy that would humble a nuclear explosion. Einstein”s famous relativity equation E=mc2 (where E denotes Energy, M mass and C the speed of light) suggests that energy and matter are interchangeable. Thus, matter was created from this primary explosion which kicked off a rapid expansion of space, and (we think) space has been expanding ever since. In the early 1920s, Edwin Hubble observed that galaxies were moving away from each other at a rate proportional to the distance between them. As galaxies moved away from us, the light they emitted was red-shifted. That is, light waves shifted to longer wavelengths (a phenomenon known as the Doppler Effect). The faster the object moved, the greater the shift. From these observations, Hubble formulated the Hubble”s Law, which helped cosmologists determine the age of the universe, and proved that the universe was expanding¹⁰The Qur’an explicitly foretold this fact: It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (51:47)¹¹The BBT also predicted the existence of residual cosmic background radiation (the glow leftover from the explosion itself). This radiation was discovered in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, who later won the Nobel Prize for their discovery.12

Omega & the Universe

If the universe is expanding, then it inevitably emerged from an ever-smaller mass. Go back long enough (to time zero) and you have the singularity that exploded with a -big bang,- By the same token, Einstein”s 1915 theory of General Relativity offers the antithesis scenario for the BBT. If the gravitational force pulling the matter of a massive star inward exceeds that of its gas pressure, it will collapse onto itself creating a -black hole.- Does a similar -black- fate await the universe? In Stephen Hawking’s Universe documentary, Hawking contends that the concept can be extrapolated to the whole universe. If the universe has too much matter, it will eventually collapse onto itself under the influence of its own gravitational force. This bleak scenario is called the Big Crunch. By contrast, if the universe has too little matter, it will continue to expand indefinitely stretching ever thinner and colder. This bleak scenario is called the Big Chill. If the amount of matter present (i.e. the average density of our universe) is equal to a certain hypothetical value, the -critical density,- a state of perfect balance occurs, leading eventually (albeit hypothetically) to a static universe. The ratio of the average density to the critical density is known as Omega. In a state of perfect balance, corresponding to a flat geometry of the spacetime -fabric of the universe,- Omega equals one¹³Now imagine if in the instance following the big bang, Omega was anything but one. The universe would have either quickly collapsed onto itself (Omega >1), or quickly headed to a big chill (Omega <1). This predicament is known as the Flatness Problem. Guth”s inflationary notion again comes to the rescue. It posits that the initial rapid expansion caused spacetime to flatten, forcing Omega toward one, regardless of what its initial value actually was. In other words, even if the pre-inflation spacetime was curved like a sphere (Omega>1) or hyperbolic like a saddle (Omega<1), the initial expansion thrust forced it into flatness (zero curvature). As it stands, we can only detect too little matter in the universe and our best estimates of Omega lie well below one. We have observed that not only is the universe expanding, it is doing so at increasing rates. Is the universal matter being slowly transformed into energy, thus driving us faster toward the Big Chill? To counter this bleak scenario and in their quest for idealism (Omega equals one), scientists are on the look out for some undetectable -dark matter- that would tip the scales. In the final analysis, it is generally believed that the universe is infinite in time and space and is destined to expand forever. But things get murky when we talk about forever. How long is forever? We can conceptualize what eternity means, even though we cannot comprehend it. Can we say the same of God?

The Convergence of Philosophy, Religion & Science

With this debate of an expanding universe comes the open/closed universe debate, with all its philosophical and scientific controversies. The consensus among scientists is that this is an open universe, expanding and not limited in space. This means that astrophysicists cannot apply the laws of thermodynamics to help decipher the mysteries of the universe, as these only apply to closed systems. Of special interest is the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Law of Increased Entropy), which states: -Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out.-¹⁴Thus, had the universe been closed, the Primary Nebula could not have formed or existed in the first place, unless -someone- had introduced it into the system. Moreover, the mathematical precision that governs the universe certainly defies the Law of Increased Entropy. To admit creation, one has to first admit the existence of a moment when the universe did not exist. Both science (especially the BBT) and religion agree on this point. Science says energy can neither be created nor destroyed (Principle of Conservation of Energy), or simply put, nothing comes from nothing. So, there must have been a master source of energy and matter that started it all: where did the primary nebula come from? I employed the investigation philosophy employed by the fictitious detective character Sherlock Holmes while reflecting on this celestial quandary: when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. I came up with the following argument that vindicates the existence of God: If there is nothing in the universe, then the existence of God is not required. But there is something. And since nothing comes from nothing, there was an original very first something. This very first something is the originator of everything else; and it is a unity. It must be the most supreme something to ever exist because it needs nothing else to originate. And since it was there first, before everything else, before time itself, and its existence is independent of anything else, it will therefore be there after everything else. And since nothing can overwhelm it, it is omnipotent. And since it exists in no defined locality, it is omnipresent. This most supreme something is God, the originator and creator of everything else.

Conclusion

Whether you choose to believe cosmological theories, no matter how skeptical you are, you must concede that there was an originator for everything. The precision and order (and can we dismiss the mesmerizing wonder of the cosmos?) that govern our solar system and sustain the universe is indicative of an omnipotent guardian. In fact, the very laws of physics are clarion proof of order, not randomness. Order needs a maintainer. God gave us ample revelations; His holy books are too accurate to be dismissed as coincidental. Above all, He gave us intelligence, curiosity and the power to reason. The inquisitive mind of the human and our insatiable appetite for knowledge promise magnificent scientific breakthroughs to unimagined realms and dimensions. We have come a long way since the last opposition. But we are still crawling, attempting to decipher the complex and exquisite codes of the universe and life.

Footnotes

1. http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/allabout/nightsky/nightsky03.html
2. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/solarsys/ nebular.html
3. http://home.earthlink.net/~meteordust/wsn3F06.html
4. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/programs/html/prog-content_1-4.html
5. http://www.seds.org/messier/more/mw.html
6. http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/AngelaChan.shtml
7. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/relativity/ index.html
8. http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo41.html
9. http://islamonline.net/English/Science/2002/10/ article11.shtml
10. http://www.edwinhubble.com/hubble_bio_001.htm
11. http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/ equilibrium01.html
12. http://www.physicscentral.com/action/action-01-4b.html
13. http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/ FlatnessProblem.html
14. http://www.secondlaw.com/two.html * planetesimals: Any of innumerable small bodies thought to have orbited the sun during the formation of the planets.

During the Renaissance, science began to develop rapidly. New discoveries about how the universe functions were termed scientific laws, even though they were actually descriptions of what had been observed. Moreover, they were believed to be the main causes. Science gradually became the ultimate explanation of existence, and caused many people to reject religion as obsolete.

All of this changed with the beginning of the twentieth century. Modern physics showed that the universe functions completely differently from what we see in daily life. The basic laws of mechanical physics, once thought to be the creator of the action, turned out to be valid only under certain approximations. The concept of absolute space-time was replaced with a relative and dynamic one. We discovered our limitations in measuring certain physical quantities, and that some particles cannot be observed directly. We recognized that physical laws are not deterministic, and thus cannot predict how a system’s state will change over time. All they can do is present possible alternatives.

Such drastic changes in our understanding forced many to reconsider science’s claim to provide the final explanation of the universe. Today, new discoveries are termed scientific theories. We know that much remains to be discovered, and are expecting more surprises. It also is becoming increasingly harder to claim that one day we will produce a complete description and resolve all mysteries.

In this article, we will illustrate some of the changes in our understanding of the universe and scientific philosophy by analyzing a simple physical event: a falling rock. Since it is an ordinary event, one may think there is nothing mysterious about it. It seems to be a completely deterministic event with no exceptions. One also may think that there is a simple reason for the rock to fall down: the attractive force between objects with mass. As we will see, however, the story turns out to be completely different.

Newton’s Law of Attraction

From experience, we know that a rock left in the air falls to the ground. We also know from astrophysical observations that the Earth circles around the sun. In these examples, the main interaction between the rock and the Earth, or between the Earth and the sun, is called gravity. Through observation, we know that gravity has an attractive nature. Let’s consider the following question, which science should be able to answer if it is the ultimate explanation: Why does a rock fall down?

A nineteenth-century physicist would reply: “A very simple question! Newton’s law of attraction. Objects with mass apply an attractive force to each other, the magnitude of which is proportional to the objects’ mass and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the objects. Since the Earth and the rock both have mass, they are subject to this law. This is why a rock falls down.”

But this only describes a falling rock. Many who believed this claimed that there could be no change in this scenario, and especially no room for a Creator Who actually let the rock fall down. But, we ask, how do masses apply their forces to each other? Why is this force proportional to mass and inversely proportional to distance?

We do not have to pursue this argument, for we know that the so-called final explanation is incorrect. If the nineteenth-century physicist could have observed more carefully, he or she would have realized that Newton’s law of attraction could not answer all questions involving gravity. For instance, why is light, a particle without mass, deflected by gravity? Such a physicist also could not calculate correctly Mercury’s perihelion around the sun.

We now know that objects with mass do not apply attractive forces to each other. In describing gravity, Newton’s law of attraction can be used as an approximation when gravity is weak. What we see or feel as gravitational attraction is explained more accurately, but completely differently, by the theory of general relativity.

The Theory of General Relativity

What does the theory of general relativity say about a falling rock? According to it, objects with mass curve space-time, a dynamic object, in a definite manner. In this curved space-time, a free particle that is affected only by gravity moves in a geodesic path. In the space-time curved by the Earth, the geodesic path for an object with mass can be calculated through the Earth’s center. As it has mass, a rock should follow this geodesic path. Thus it moves through the Earth’s center, and we see it as falling down.

This description is radically different from the one derived from Newton’s law of attraction. Space-time is considered dynamic, rather than absolute, and is affected by matter. Also, a falling rock is in free motion and is not acted upon by any of force belonging to the Earth.

The general theory of relativity can describe many physical phenomena related to black holes, gravitational collapse, gravitational radiation, and the large-scale structure of the universe that Newton’s theory cannot. It also covers Newton’s law of attraction in a weak gravity approximation, and fits with observations made so far.

However, it has some problems. Starting from its basic principles, it can be proven that the theory cannot describe some physical phenomena properly. Equations governing the dynamics of space-time and matter allow an initial, ordinary configuration of matter to end up in a state that can no longer be analyzed by general relativity. This final state is called a singularity. A black hole’s formation by gravitational collapse is an example of this.

Thus general relativity is also an approximate description that is sensible under certain conditions. Our understanding of gravity and a falling rock is much improved when compared to the past. But this is not the end of the story.

There is another important reason why general relativity is not the final theory of gravity. Other than gravity, three known interactions occur between matter: electromagnetic, strong, and weak. These interactions can be observed in the atomic world, and are described successfully by quantum theory. The basic principles of quantum theory are very different from those of general relativity.

Quantum Theory

While general relativity is deterministic, quantum theory is indeterministic. In general relativity, a system’s state can be specified in the usual physical terms, for instance, by giving positions and velocities. In quantum theory, a system’s state is described in abstract mathematical terms by a vector in a Hilbert space, which has no a priori relation with the physical world. Furthermore, positions and velocities can no longer be known together. The formalisms of two theories are very different and contradictory.

At first, this seems to be a philosophical problem. On a large scale involving planetary distances, quantum effects are negligible and gravity dominates other interactions. But on an atomic scale, gravitational interactions are generically very weak and can be neglected when compared to other interactions. Therefore, quantum theory and general relativity seem to be complementary for a large-scale general relativity. However, quantum theory provides appropriate descriptions on an atomic scale.

Based on these ideas, one may claim that the rather deep philosophical conflict between two successful theories is, for all practical purposes, harmless and unimportant. But this is incorrect, for in some cases both gravitational and quantum effects are not negligible. For instance, a black hole may have an atomic size, which can be described properly by quantum theory. On the other hand, since black holes naturally involve strong gravitational interactions, general relativity plays a crucial role in their description. This is an important feature of black holes, one that makes them interesting objects to study.

The quantum theory of gravity describes both gravitational and quantum effects properly. Apart from the fact that there are few candidates (like string theory), we still do not know this theory’s basic principles, which should cover the principles of quantum theory and general relativity. The two main obstacles to this are that sophisticated (and as yet undeveloped) mathematics are needed to attack theoretical problems, and that direct experimentation is impossible, since such experiments involve energies that cannot be produced on Earth.

This simply means that we do not have a complete description of a rock falling, one of the simplest physical events one can imagine. On the other hand, why is a rather deeper question then describing the event. It seems that such classical deterministic theories as general relativity can answer this question if some basic principles are assumed. But these basic assumptions can be questioned, and it is hard to claim that they are immutable. As discussed earlier, the basic principles of Newton’s theory turn out to be sensible in an approximation involving weak gravity. The existence of such nonphysical states as singularities imply that a similar conclusion holds for general relativity. Therefore, even in classical deterministic theories, the question of why cannot be answered honestly.

The situation in quantum theory is completely different. In classical theories, a system’s state changes over time and in a definite manner. In quantum theory, however, only probabilities of possible changes can be calculated, and the system may change according to one of these alternatives. Furthermore, among the possible alternatives, classically forbidden ones may be present. More important, according to basic quantum theory principles, the question of why a specific alternative is chosen cannot be answered in scientific terms.

It is interesting to see the implications of quantum theory’s uncommon features for our simple example, since the unknown quantum theory of gravity should have all of these indeterministic features. According to general relativity, all rocks left free in the air fall in exactly the same manner. But this description is not completely correct, for general relativity is not the final theory of gravity.

By roughly analyzing the same event from a quantum theory point of view, one can see that, due to seemingly strange quantum effects, a rock left in the air may go up as well as down, although going up is forbidden by general relativity. This seems to conflict with daily experience, and one may wonder why we always see objects left free in the air as falling down but not up. The reason is that for macroscopic objects like rocks, quantum effects are generically very small and a system’s state changes, most probably, as classically expected. Stated differently, the ratio of rocks going up to the ones going down is incredibly small. This is why we believe that every time we let go of a rock it will fall down. However, this does not rule out exceptions.

Conclusion

In this article, we analyzed a simple event to illustrate some of the changes in our understanding of how the universe functions. Many physicists used to believe that the order around us could be explained by assuming simple physical laws. However, the more we learn about the universe, the more we encounter new principles and new surprises-and the more we recognize our ignorance. Furthermore, modern physics states that the universe does not function according to strict causality and determinism.

In light of these developments, it is clear that we should renew our understanding of physical laws and the idea that they have a role in creating the action and the order around us. Being the most fundamental natural science, this conclusion of modern physics also influences other sciences. Therefore, science should be accepted as an important tool for seeking and seeing the beauty of the created order around us, and nothing more.

References

• Hawking, S. W. and G. F. R. Ellis. The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time. USA: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• Wald, R. M. General Relativity. Chicago; University of Chicago Press, 1984.

For centuries scientists had accused religion of being a collection of dogmas and religious people of being dogmatists. However, only with the demonstration of the limitations of classical physics did they realize that they too had become dogmatically attached to their theories. As Bertrand Russell put it: ‘Newton’s law reigned for such a long time and explained so many things that no one believed that it would ever need correcting. But eventually it became apparent that correction was needed. Let there be no doubt about it, one day these corrections will need to be corrected.’ Science advances, if and when it does, by trial and error. In spite of this, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity which replaced the classical physics of Newton’s Law is treated in many circles as if it were absolute truth, and the fact that it will need revision is kept hidden from sight. It is quite probable that eventually it will give way to a new theory.

It seems that going to extremes in the pursuit of a single idea is a constant trait of human beings. Whereas, while there is a share of truth in each of these great ideas, they are not the only means nor the only expressions of truth. If we think of truth as a light at the centre point of a circle or a straight line, we see that the light will be reflected ray by ray to an infinite number of points on the circle’s circumference or along the straight line. Each point is touched by a ray of the truth and therefore each can be said to be true. However, the fact is that only the light of the truth in the centre never changes, since it is absolute in contrast to each point which is only a relative truth. What gives the relative truth its particular dimensions and properties, its relevance, is the nature of the receiving point, its own properties, time and conditions. This is true for the natural sciences, as much as for the social sciences; indeed, it also applies to fields of Islamic learning such as tafsir (commentary on the Qur’an) and fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence).

But we may ask, Is there no permanent, absolute truth? Yes, this truth exists but it does so on the spiritual rather than the visible, external dimension of things. In fact, from one view even in the principles which relate to the spiritual dimension of things there are exceptions. These principles are not absolute, universal laws because, in their relevance to the visible, external dimension, they operate as general principles, that is, they admit exceptions. In respect of this difference between absolute and general laws, even science cannot affirm its laws, for example the law of cause and effect, absolutely. For this reason scientists say, ‘If the universe is in T1 condition at this moment, it cannot be concluded that a little later it will be in the same condition.’

We have already mentioned that the difference between absolute and general principles can be seen in the social sciences and even in the Islamic sciences like tafsir and fiqh. In the Realm of Unity, single and indivisible truth opens the door to countless relative truths in this material and quantitative world. For example, the Qur’an mentions good works as being virtues, as inherently and always of value. This is so, and yet we know that what are virtues under certain conditions and according to certain people may not be considered virtues under different circumstances, at a different time, by others. An administrator’s seriousness of manner may be considered to be dignity at work, but haughtiness at home. A weak person’s self-respect before a strong person is a quality to be praised, but the same quality in a strong person before a weaker one is considered undesirable. In the same way, what is an act of sin for one person can be a meritorious act for another. For this reason it was said, ‘Pious deeds of ordinary righteous people are the sins of those near to God.’ Again, an act that earns a single merit for one person can earn a million merits for another. Again for this reason, as long as there is no conflict with the essential literal meaning of a word and the rules of eloquence are considered and the rules of the Arabic language are not violated, the understanding of every authorized interpreter of every verse in the Qur’an can be listened to with respect.

The most obvious example of the manifestation of the relative truth of general principles in history is in the sphere of justice. In the absolute, justice would see personal rights and public rights as equal. But sometimes there is such a disturbance of the peace that it is not possible to protect either the rights of the individual or of the public, let alone both; sometimes, even fundamental rights to life and Islam’s basic principles are endangered. During such times relative justice, which sacrifices the individual’s rights for the sake of the public good, becomes necessary and application of it becomes absolutely mandatory. In Turkish history the administration by sultans and even the killing of sons and brothers in the Ottoman dynasty were demanded by relative justice, which, by virtue of the necessity of compelling circumstances, gains authority as if absolute justice.

In this earthly world there is such variety and abundance of colours, shapes, properties, times and conditions, that it is not possible to avoid relativism altogether. It is a reality of this world. Having understood that, we do also need truths which are at least close to absolute so that we can guide our lives by them. The absolute truth is that in the universe there is no real effect created by causes, and everything is in Cod’s hand. It is not predictable with certainty what will happen next, and our lives and the life of the world actually consist of this moment. Living this truth consciously together with faith and surrender to God, from the perspective of free-will given to man, we have also to give due recognition to the experience that causes do operate relatively reliably, though not absolutely, in this life. Because of this, the causes wrapping absolute reality like a shawl or veil, a veil of familiarity or habit, make life livable and thereafter, all technology and sciences get constructed on this veil. This is the broad region of human actions and observations where Newton’s classical physics has precedence over Einstein’s relativity physics.

Relativity is an important matter that reminds man of his vulnerability. The highest station a person who is climbing the ladder of Divine knowledge can reach by means of his heart is the station of amazement. As the greatest human being said, ‘We did not know You as we should, O Known One!’ and ‘How could I see Him; what I saw was light.’ Similarly, the scientist solves one problem, but opens the door to many new ones, and his trust in the century-old foundations of science suddenly falls through. The moment he says that he has found the truth, he sees that everything slips from his grasp. The fact of relativity makes him exclaim, ‘The only thing I know is that I don’t know anything,’ and this leads him, like a moth flying around a light, to eternally flap his wings around the light of unchangeable truth.

Relativity shows that absolute truth lies only in Revelation and never begins with man. It can be directly known only by Revelation. Therefore it is clear that man has an absolute need for religion and definite revealed knowledge. It has been seen in innumerable fields of activity that two people cannot agree on even a simple matter; thus, absolute truth can never derive from man and can only come from God. Man’s duty is to organize his living and dying according to the God-given truth at the point of belief. Understanding that human beings can only attain partial truth is also an acknowledging of the space separating multiplicity from oneness. In pointing to and yearning for the oneness beyond multiplicity, this understanding functions as one of the important proofs of oneness.

Relativity is an important measure for managing (learning to live peaceably with) the differences among professions, temperaments, schools and sects that have arisen in philosophy, teaching methods and religions. All dispositions, sects, schools and methods have a portion of the truth and none of them are absolutely wrong or false. The important thing is for them to be able to unite around a common point. When we look to the past and catastrophes from the perspective of fate, and when we look to the future responsibilities and divine orders from the perspective of free-will and opportunity, then it is possible even to reconcile the conflict between the fatalists and the proponents of unconditioned freedom of will.

The essential thing is to live believing that absolute truth when it touches upon this world, when it becomes relevant for us, is relative to us, conditioned by the points, circumstances, conditions receiving it. In the analogy given above, countless relative truths reflect the absolute truth located at the centre point of the circle or the straight line at innumerable other points according to the properties, colour and design of each. As long as people recognize, acknowledge, and defer to their own distance from the absolute truth, and don’t go beyond their human limits, unmanageable conflicts will not arise. But when people lose this sense of proportion about themselves and their capacity to know and propose the truth, when they take what is relative for what is absolute, they fall into errors with catastrophic consequences.