Chapter Six: Nothingness Does not Produce

Chapter Six

Nothingness does not produce

﴾Or were they created from nothing, or were they the creators?﴿*

The Second Proof of the Existence of an Absolute God: Nothingness Does not Produce

God Almighty alluded to this in the Holy Quran by His saying: ﴾Or were they created from nothing, or were they the creators?﴿ Quran Chapter “The Mount” 52:35.

The summary of this evidence is as follows: The universe is not old [without a beginning], but rather it is new, because it is changing. Anything that is new is preceded by nothingness, so it must have an originator. This is because absolute nothingness is comprised of nothing, and thus it does not produce. It is absolutely impossible for something to come from nothing, meaning, for something to come from absolute nothingness.The universe or universes, or the new existence is a “thing”, so it could not have come from absolute nothingness. Therefore, the new existence (the universe or universes) proves that it has come from an old existence that has no need of it or any other existences. So if we were to say that its originator is old and is not preceded by nothingness, then we would be proving the existence of the Almighty. If we were to say that He is new as well, then He would require an originator and would not be the first. This is because it would mean that the thing exists and doesn’t exist at the same time. So if it were anything other than Him, a chain would be formed. This chain cannot be infinite in every respect and aspect, because the world is new, finite, and it has a beginning. Since the chain is finite, at least with respect to having a beginning, it must end at an old originator, which proves the existence of the Almighty. What we mean by “new” is something preceded by nothingness (its non-existence), which means it has a beginning.

What we mean by “old” is something that is not preceded by nothingness and has no beginning. Oldness in this context is not related to time. Rather, it is a true oldness that has nothing to do with the dimension of time and its existence or nonexistence. Something that is old cannot be subject to events because that would make it both old and new at the same time, which is a contradiction, so whatever is subject to events is new.

What we mean by the absolute infinite is something that’s not limited [in every respect and aspect] so there is no beginning and no end, regardless of the dimensions of time and space and their existence or nonexistence. We do not mean the “infinity” found in certain equations, such as:

1+ ½ + ¼ + 1/16… = 2 It is true that the left-hand side of the equation extends infinitely. However, it does have a beginning, just as a flat universe does. It is true that it is also supposed to expand infinitely. However, it has a point from which it began. The issue of this evidence (nothingness does not produce) is bigger than terrestrial life, so it is not related to Darwin’s theory. We can summarize by saying that “the effect indicates a cause” doesn’t mean that every effect indicates God directly but rather, that the chain of effects and causes must end up at an original (old, eternal, and self-existent) cause, because nothingness does not produce. This cause is God Almighty and life on this earth is just a small link in this chain. Consequently, any debate to refute this evidence must be about the origin of matter and proving that it came from nothingness, or nonexistence, This has not been proven by anyone. Actually, scientists have more or less proven that the big bang is the beginning of the physical universe. As a matter of fact, there was a cause behind the big bang. As such, the sequence of causes will continue after it until they end at the original cause, which is God Almighty. God willing, we will discuss next the standard model or the big bang, and how it demonstrates the existence of God.

Explaining the Existence of the Universe

Among the hypotheses and theories that explain the existence of the universe are the following:

There is the hypothesis that states that the universe is eternal. With the advancement of physics and observation methods, this hypothesis or theory is now obsolete. It no longer bears any scientific value, for it has been scientifically established with conclusive evidence that the universe is new and has a beginning. Therefore, the discussion of eternity should be focused on the primary cause from which the universe emerged. The discussion of this issue will follow, God willing.

There is also Hoyle’s theory or hypothesis and his attempt to explain why galaxies move away from each other in terms of cosmic time having no beginning. This theory has also become obsolete as a result of everything that has been established through observation and measurement, in favor of the standard model, as will be shown.*

There is the theory that the universe is new and, along with all of its components, was brought into existence directly by a god. This is a traditional religious theory, adopted by some of the interpreters of religious scriptures, such as those who believe that the earth does not spin around the sun. The falsehood and invalidity of this theory has also been demonstrated. Physicists now know-with a reasonable degree of scientific accuracy―when and how the Earth, Sun, Milky Way, and many other galaxies came into existence, as well as when the universe as a whole came into existence, how it currently moves, and some of the possibilities concerning the future of the universe.

The Big Bang Theory:

The big bang theory has been proven with abundant scientific evidence, including mathematical proofs and equations. The general theory of relativity itself, following Friedmann’s solutions [to Einstein’s field equations], predicts the standard model or the big bang, and that size of the universe was zero or infinitesimal.†

The evidence also includes observational evidence and measurements such as the reddening color of galaxies, which means, based on the Doppler effect, that they are diverging and the universe is expanding; and evidence such as cosmic background radiation. Details about how astronomers and theoretical physicists have finally settled on accepting the standard model, or the big bang, will follow. Quantum Theory-Quantum Mechanics At the beginning of the twentieth century while investigating the reason for blackbody radiation, Max Planck developed the quantum theory. Planck explained electromagnetic energy as being discrete quanta that can be emitted or absorbed, rather than as a continuous wave as he had imagined. Therefore, according to Planck’s theory, energy is absorbed or emitted from an atom in specific quantities, which are the quanta.*

According to Planck’s equation, the energy of a particle relies on the frequency:

E= vh E: energy v: frequency h: Planck constant used to describe the quantum h = 6.62606896 X 10-34 j·s or h = 4.135667516(91) x 10-15 eV·s

Figure 21: electromagnetic wave spectrum and frequencies and the relationship between energy (or heat).

In 1905, Einstein included an application of the quantum theory to light in one of his research papers. He explained light to be quanta (photons) rather than continuous waves as was previously thought. This research had a profound impact on the revolution of quantum mechanics, as well as on the idea that the particle theory and wave theory complement each other in terms of describing the quantum. Subsequently, Einstein’s presentation established the wave-particle duality of light (photons) and, later on, the particle-wave duality of matter (e.g. electrons).*

The traditional classical theory for explaining the atom fails in many areas that include the following:

In the Rutherford model of the atom, the fall of the electron into the nucleus leads to the collapse of the atom. The negatively charged electron, assuming that it is stable, would be attracted by the positively charged nucleus and would fall into it, and the atom would spiral down until it falls into the nucleus and the atom collapses.

The classical theory does not explain the movement of the electron to another level, or from one orbit to another, or its movement at a particular moment.

It also does not explain radioactive decay or fission of the atomic nuclei and the release of particles such as the Alpha particle (which consists of two protons and two neutrons, i.e., a Helium nucleus emitted by an unstable nucleus) or the Beta particle (an electron emitted during the decay of a neutron) outside of the domain of the nucleus at a particular moment.

The solution to these problems began when Bohr used the quantum theory to explain what occurs in the atom. Initially, Bohr explained the atom-partially-on the basis of quanta. He assumed that the electron emits or absorbs a specific amount of energy, and thus moves to a lower or a higher level.

Thus, successive steps were taken on the path to quantization, because classical mechanics cannot explain what occurs in the atom, nor can it be used alongside quantum mechanics to fully explain the atom. Thus, the quantization of the atom continued, and as we shall see, nothing has remained from the classical form of the atom, i.e. electrons orbiting the nucleus.

Nevertheless, Bohr’s model of the atom, in which he incorporated quantum mechanics and upon which he built the periodic table, is beneficial to understanding chemistry. This is because it is only concerned with knowing the state of the electrons inside an atom when they are shared or exchanged with another atom in order to achieve stability (stability is represented by the hypothetical outer electron shells of the atom being full). That is why Bohr’s atom is usually studied, even though it does not reflect the reality of the atom or how electrons are formed within it.

Then came Louis de Broglie’s description of electrons and physical particles behaving in a wave-like manner, as well as photons and energy waves that behave in a particle-like manner. It is clear from this description that classical physics can no longer explain that all particles behave in a wave-like manner, just as it is clear that the orbits of the electrons in Bohr’s atom are not a true description of what is actually in the atom.

Sir Arthur Eddington summed up the situation brilliantly in his book The Nature of the Physical World, published in 1929. “No familiar conceptions can be woven around the electron,” he said, and our best description of the atom boils down to “something unknown is doing we don’t know what.”… But the point is that although we do not know what electrons are doing in atoms, we do know that the number of electrons is important. Adding a few numbers makes “Jabberwocky” scientific-’Eight slithy toves gyre and gimbal in the oxygen wabe; seven in nitrogen…if one of its toves escapes, oxygen will be masquerading in a garb properly belonging to nitrogen.”

This is not a facetious remark. Provided the numbers are unchanged, as Eddington pointed out more than fifty years ago, all the fundamentals of physics could be translated into “Jabberwocky” (Gribbin 1984, 92).

Subsequently, Heisenberg accurately described the atom or the behavior of the particles of the atom, and this was called matrix mechanics. He then focused on the mathematics and what can be observed, such as spectral lines, discarding the traditional description of the atom.

Then Paul Dirac developed quantum algebra, which is more inclusive.*

It has been accepted that the electron also behaves like a wave as de Broglie explained. This allowed Schrödinger to describe quantum mechanics with waves and to develop wave mechanics, perhaps in an attempt to provide a semi-classical solution for quantum.†

Thus, there were equations of two different types: one considered electrons to be particles, while the other considered them to be waves. Both types of equations were used to describe what can be measured in quantum mechanics. What is routinely used and studied is wave mechanics, or Schrödinger’s solution, because it is easier to understand and closer to the traditional form than Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics. Nevertheless, it was later discovered that the two solutions are equivalent, and that Schrödinger’s wave solution did not solve the problem of wave jumps with a classical solution as he had hoped.

First, the waves themselves turned out, on close inspection, to be as abstract as Dirac’s q numbers. The mathematics showed that they couldn’t be real waves in space, like ripples on a pond, but represented a complex form of vibrations in an imaginary mathematical space called configuration space. Worse than that, each particle (each electron, say) needs its own three dimensions. One electron on its own can be described by a wave equation in three-dimensional configuration space; to describe two electrons requires a six-dimensional configuration space; three electrons require nine dimensions, and so on. As for the blackbody radiation, even when everything was converted into wave-mechanical language the need for discrete quanta, and quantum jumps, remained. Schrödinger was disgusted, and made the remark which has often been quoted, with slight variations in the translation: “Had I known that we were not going to get rid of this damned quantum jumping, I never would have involved myself in this business.” As Heisenberg put it in his book Physics and Philosophy, “… The paradoxes of the dualism between wave picture and particle picture were not solved; they were hidden somehow in the mathematical scheme.”

Without doubt, the appealing picture of physically real waves circling around atomic nuclei that had led Schrödinger to discover the wave equation that now bears his name is wrong. Wave mechanics is no more a guide to the reality of the atomic world than matrix mechanics, but unlike matrix mechanics, wave mechanics gives an illusion of something familiar and comfortable. It is that cozy illusion that has persisted to the present day and that has disguised the fact that the atomic world is totally different from the everyday world. Several generations of students, who have now grown up to be professors themselves, might have achieved a much deeper understanding of quantum theory if they had been forced to come to grips with the abstract nature of Dirac’s approach, rather than being able to imagine that what they knew about the behavior of waves in the everyday world gave a picture of the way atoms behave (Gribbin 1984, 116-17).*

Bohr eventually came to the conclusion that the quantum particle is similar to the electron in that it has a dual nature. This means that it behaves like a wave under some conditions and like a particle under others. Its true nature is unspecified: it is neither a particle nor a wave. It is not possible to create an experiment where it behaves with a dual nature-as a particle and a wave-simultaneously. The nature of the particle and that of the wave complete each other, or in other words, they exhibit complementarity..

The famous double-slit experiment makes this clear. When a single electron is emitted from a source toward a plate with two slits, passing through the slits and reaching a screen on the other side, if the two slits are being observed, the electron will behave like a single particle and pass through only one of the slits. However, when the two slits are not being observed, an interference pattern is recorded on the back screen, which means that the electron has passed through both slits. So in one instance, the electron behaves like a single particle and in another, as a wave, or a group of ghost electrons. In other words, it as if the electron, when emitted from the source, transformed immediately into a cloud of ghost electrons, with each one qualified to be our real electron. When we observe it, we see one of these ghost electrons or forms of the electron and perceive it to be the real electron while the others disappear. In due course, we will discuss how the remaining forms of the electron disappear.

Max Born subsequently developed a method for understanding Schrödinger’s waves using what is called the wave function, which is a solution for knowing the probability of the existence of a particle (such as the electron) in a certain position. It is likely for the electron or particle to be in any position, whereas the wave function only calculates the probability of this particle being in a particular position.*

Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, or indeterminacy principle, which is the most important discovery in quantum mechanics, was introduced later on.

So in this manner, physicists like Einstein, Bohr, Max Born, Schrödinger, Pauli, Heisenberg and Dirac developed Planck’s quantum theory until it became a comprehensive theory for explaining particle mechanics (at both the atomic and subatomic level). According to quantum mechanics, the electron can be found in any position within the atom, so it is more like clouds or fog that is spread throughout the atom than it is to a particle or even a wave.

Quantum mechanics had the solution and answer to questions revolving around the atom, the behavior of electrons, and the nucleus. However, on some occasions, the answer was that there was no definite answer to some of the questions, or that there was more than one possibility, or that it just happened to be the way it was for no reason. The principle of causality that many questions in classical mechanics are based on does not have the same presence in the quantum mechanics that Bohr and his group adopted at the time. Quantum events can happen for no reason, and they can happen at a particular time for no apparent reason.

Like the people who studied radioactivity in those days, Einstein believed that the actuarial tables were not the last word, and that later research would determine why a particular transition occurred exactly when it did, and not at some other time. But it was at this point that quantum theory really began to cut loose from classical ideas, and no “underlying reason” for radioactive decay or atomic-energy transitions to occur when they do has ever been found. It really does seem that these changes occur entirely by chance, on a statistical basis, and that already begins to raise fundamental philosophical questions.

In the classical world, everything has a cause. You can trace the cause of any event backward in time to find the cause of the cause, and what caused that, and so on back to the Big Bang (if you are a cosmologist) or to the moment of Creation in a religious context, if that is the model you subscribe to. But in the world of the quantum, such direct causality begins to disappear as soon as we look at radioactive decay and atomic transitions. An electron doesn’t move down from one energy level to another at a particular time for any particular reason. The lower energy level is more desirable for the atom, in a statistical sense, and so it is quite likely (the amount of likelihood can even be quantified) that the electron will make such a move, sooner or later. But there is no way to tell when the transition will occur. No outside agency pushes the electron, and no internal clockwork times the jump. It just happens, for no particular reason, now rather than then (Gribbin 1984, 65-66).

Heisenberg has introduced the uncertainty or indeterminacy principle, which is perhaps the most important principle of quantum mechanics. It states that it is impossible to measure a pair of quantum properties precisely. The position and speed of quantum particles, for example, would be impossible to determine simultaneously and with precision. The higher the certainty in knowing the position of a particular quantum is, the lower the certainty in knowing its speed or momentum at that very same moment. We can also say that it is not possible to know both the field value and its rate of change with precision at the same moment. This is an intrinsic characteristic of quantum mechanics and it is a mathematical result that is confirmed by experiment.

This collection of ideas-uncertainty, complementarity, probability, and the disturbance of the system being observed by the observer- are together referred to as the “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics, although nobody in Copenhagen (or anywhere else) ever set down in so many words a definitive statement labeled “the Copenhagen interpretation,” and one of the key ingredients, the statistical interpretation of the wave function, actually came from Max Born in Göttingen. The Copenhagen interpretation is many things to many people, if not quite all things to all men, and itself has a slipperiness appropriate in the slippery world of quantum mechanical slithy toves. Bohr first presented the concept in public at a conference in Tomo, Italy, in September 1927. That marked the completion of the consistent theory of quantum mechanics in a form where it could be used by any competent physicist to solve problems involving atoms and molecules, with no great need for thought about the fundamentals but a simple willingness to follow the recipe book and turn out the answers (Gribbin 1984,121).

In quantum mechanics, the massless photon-which represents energy-is no longer merely a wave, but rather a particle too. And the electron, which has mass, is no longer merely a particle, rather, it also behaves as a wave. In fact, even the wave is no longer a real wave-it is a concept represented by the wave function. We shall discuss the true reality of the wave function in due course. The electron emitted toward a plate with two holes or slits can pass through both of them simultaneously. The only way to determine which one it passed through is by observing and monitoring the two slits. According to the Copenhagen interpretation or Bohr’s group, the observer has an impact on the system and causes it to assign a position to the electron.

I shall provide an example aimed at facilitating our understanding: Let us assume that we have a source that is emitting particles- electrons, for instance. When the electron leaves the source, it becomes a group of ghost electrons, and one of them is our real electron. Here, the word “real” is hypothetical. This real electron is only identified when we look at it. In other words, it is real when we observe it. This means that, if you imagine turning your back to the electron, what is behind your back is a group of ghost electrons, one of which is the real one. However, it is unidentified, meaning that any electron can be the real one. Now imagine that you turned around to look at this group of electrons. This is when the wave function collapses and you will not see them. Instead, you will only see our real electron. What happened is that they all disappeared except for one, which is the one that you have observe. Regarding the reason for their disappearance, there is no definite answer to this question.

In quantum mechanics, there are multiple answers. One of them is that the observer somehow affects the system in such a way that he solidifies the particle at a particular position, meaning that the observer has an impact on what he observes.

Another answer is that the group of ghost particles that accompanied our particle-which we observed-exists in different universes. What happens is that, when we look at it, we see one of the particles in one of these universes, and this observation veils the rest from us. That is why we do not see them nor do we see their impact on the experiment screen.

The world seems to keep all its options, all its probabilities, open for as long as possible. The strangest thing about the standard Copenhagen interpretation of the quantum world is that it is the act of observing a system that forces it to select one of its options, which then becomes real.

In the simplest experiment with two holes, the interference of probabilities can be interpreted as if the electron that leaves the gun vanishes once it is out of sight, and is replaced by an array of ghost electrons that each follows a different path to the detector screen. The ghosts interfere with one another, and when we look at the way electrons are detected by the screen we then find the traces of this interference, even if we deal only with one “real” electron at a time. However, this array of ghost electrons only describes what happens when we are not looking; when we look, all of the ghosts except one vanish, and one of the ghosts solidifies as a real electron. In terms of Schrödinger’s wave equation, each of the “ghosts” corresponds to a wave, or rather a packet of waves, the waves that Born interpreted as a measure of probability. The observation that crystallizes one ghost out of the array of potential electrons is equivalent, in terms of wave mechanics, to the disappearance of all the array of probability waves except for one packet of waves that describes one real electron. This is called the “collapse of the wave function,” and, bizarre though it is, it is at the heart of the Copenhagen interpretation, which is itself the foundation of quantum cookery. It is doubtful, however, that many of the physicists, electronics engineers, and others who happily use the recipes in the quantum cookbook, appreciate that the rules that prove so reliable in the design of lasers and computers, or studies of genetic material, depend explicitly on the assumption that myriad ghost particles interfere with each other all the time, and only coalesce into a single real particle as the wave function collapses during an observation. What’s worse, as soon as we stop looking at the electron, or whatever we are looking at, it immediately splits up into a new array of ghost particles, each pursuing their own path of probabilities through the quantum world. Nothing is real unless we look at it, and it ceases to be real as soon as we stop looking.

Perhaps the people who use the quantum cookbook so happily are comforted by the familiarity of the mathematical equations. Feynman explains the basic recipe simply. In quantum mechanics, an “event” is a set of initial and final conditions, no more and no less. An electron leaves the gun on one side of our apparatus, and the electron arrives at a particular detector on the other side of the holes. That is an event. The probability of an event is given by the square of a number which is, essentially, Schrödinger’s wave function, ω. If there is more than one way in which the event can occur (both holes are open inside the experiment), then the probability of each possible event (the probability of the electron arriving at each chosen detector) is given by the square of the sum of the ω’s, and there is interference. But when we make an observation to find out which of the alternative possibilities actually happens (look to see which hole the electron goes through) the probability distribution is just the sum of the squares of the ω’s, and the interference term disappears-the wave function collapses.

The physics is impossible, but the math is clean and simple, familiar equations to any physicist. As long as you avoid asking what it means, there are no problems. Ask why the world should be like this, however, and even Feynman has to reply, “We have no idea.” Persist in asking for a physical picture of what is going on, and you find all physical pictures dissolving into a world of ghosts, where particles only seem to be real when we are looking at them, and where even a property such as momentum or position is only an artifact of the observation. It is scarcely any wonder that many respected physicists, including Einstein, spent decades trying to find ways around this interpretation of quantum mechanics (Gribbin 1984, 172-74).

But what is it that is varying in an electron wave? The answer came from a theoretical study of how free electrons behave when they are fired at atoms. It is natural to describe an electron traveling through empty space as a wave packet, a little bundle of electron waves that travel along together, like the pulse of light waves produced by a searchlight that is turned on only for an instant. The Schrödinger equation shows that, when such a wave package strikes an atom, it breaks up; wavelets go traveling off in all directions like sprays of water when the stream from a garden hose hits a rock. This was puzzling; electrons striking atoms fly off in one direction or another but they do not break up-they remain electrons. In 1926 Max Born in Göttingen proposed to interpret this peculiar behavior of the wave function in terms of probabilities. The electron does not break up, but it can be scattered in any direction, and the probability that an electron is scattered in some particular direction is greatest in those directions where the values of the wave function are largest. In other words, electron waves are not waves of anything; their significance is simply that the value of the wave function at any point tells us the probability that the electron is at or near that point.

Neither Schrödinger nor de Broglie were comfortable with this interpretation of electron waves, which probably explains why neither of them contributed importantly to the further development of quantum mechanics. But the probabilistic interpretation of the electron waves found support in a remarkable argument offered by Heisenberg the following year. Heisenberg considered the problems that are encountered when a physicist sets out to measure the position and momentum of an electron. In order to make an accurate measurement of position it is necessary to use light of short wavelength, because diffraction always blurs images of anything smaller than a wavelength of light. But the light of short wavelength consists of photons with correspondingly high momentum, and, when photons of high momentum are used to observe an electron, the electron necessarily recoils from the impact, carrying off some fraction of the photon’s momentum. Thus the more accurately we try to measure the position of an electron, the less we know after the measurement about the electron’s momentum. This rule has come to be known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. An electron wave that is very sharply peaked at some position represents an electron that has a fairly definite position but a momentum that could have almost any value. In contrast, an electron wave that takes the form of a smooth, equally spaced alternation of crests and troughs extending over many wavelengths represents an electron that has a fairly definite momentum but whose position is highly uncertain. More typical electrons like those in atoms or molecules have neither a definite position nor momentum.

Physicists continued to wrangle over the interpretation of quantum mechanics for years after they had become used to solving the Schrödinger equation. Einstein was unusual in rejecting quantum mechanics in his work; most physicists were simply trying to understand it. Much of this debate went on at the University Institute for Theoretical Physics in Copenhagen, under the guidance of Niels Bohr. Bohr focused particularly on a peculiar feature of quantum mechanics that he called complementarity: knowledge of one aspect of a system precludes knowledge of certain other aspects of the system. Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle provides one example of complementarity: knowledge of a particle’s position (or momentum) precludes knowledge of the particle’s momentum (or position).

By around 1930 the discussions at Bohr’s institute had led to an orthodox “Copenhagen” formulation of quantum mechanics, in terms that were now much more general than the wave mechanics of single electrons. Whether a system consists of one or many particles, its state at any moment is described by the list of numbers known as the values of the wave function, one number corresponding to each possible configuration of the system. The same state may be described by giving the values of the wave function for configurations that are characterized in various different ways-for instance, by the positions of all the particles of the system, or by the momenta of all the particles of the system, or in various other ways, though not by the positions and the momenta of all the particles.

The essence of the Copenhagen interpretation is a sharp separation between the system itself and the apparatus used to measure its configuration. As Max Born had emphasized, during the times between measurements the values of the wave function evolve in a perfectly continuous and deterministic way, dictated by some generalized version of the Schrödinger equation. While this is going on, the system cannot be said to be in any definite configuration. If we measure the configuration of the system (e.g., by measuring all the particles’ positions or all their momenta, but not both), the system jumps into a state that is definitely in one configuration or another, with probabilities given by the squares of the values of the wave function for these configurations just before the measurement (Weinberg 1992, 72-75).*

The most important argument of those who say that the universe came from nothing comes from quantum mechanics, particularly the uncertainty principle. According to the uncertainty principle, empty space cannot be completely empty, as its emptiness means that fields such as the electromagnetic field must be completely zero. This conflicts with the uncertainty principle, which states that the field value and its rate of change cannot be simultaneously known.

Between the Determinism of Newton and the Probability and Uncertainty of Quantum Mechanics:

In Newtonian physics or classical physics, matters are determined with precision. There is no probability, doubt, or uncertainty. Thus, we can accurately determine the speed and position of objects. This allowed Laplace to take Newtonian mechanics to the furthest extent possible. Laplace came up with his determinism principle, according to which, if we know the speed or momentum and positions of every particle in the universe at a specific time, we can determine their speed and positions at any given time, both in the past and in the future. This means that we can know the future. This is called the principle of determinism. It is clear that there is no room left for the unseen or for a god to intervene and change things. The situation is determined and is not susceptible to intervention. This is the case to the extent that there is not even room left for the free will of man, because matters move toward predetermined and inevitable endings.

The success of Newton’s laws and other physical theories led to the idea of scientific determinism, which was first expressed at the beginning of the nineteenth century by the French scientist the Marquis de Laplace. Laplace suggested that if we knew the positions and velocities of all the particles in the universe at one time, the laws of physics should allow us to predict what the state of the universe would be at any other time in the past or in the future (Hawking 2001, 104).

However, quantum mechanics, which dominates the physics of today, cannot tell us the precise speed and position of a single particle, let alone all particles. Thus, things have become completely different. The particle can be in any possible position, while its speed can be any possible speed. As such, there is no longer complete determinism in quantum mechanics, meaning there is no longer any possibility of knowing the future precisely, since there is more than one possibility. What remains of determinism in quantum mechanics is evolution of the wave function.

Therefore, we can state that quantum mechanics, which is used by the proponents of “a universe from nothing” to deny the existence of a god, has become a means for proving the free will of man, and that humans can intervene in creating their future. Man is not forced or compelled to follow a path laid out for him by inescapable universal determinism. Moreover, man can affect the events that he observes surrounding him. In fact, man perhaps has an effect on the universe- the entire universe is a quantum system, and humans observe it.

Some determinism provided by the evolution of the wave function remains in quantum mechanics. The possibilities provided by the wave function evolve deterministically, meaning that classical determinism no longer exists, having been replaced by a mix that we may call semideterminism.

As Max Born had emphasized, during the times between measurements the values of the wave function evolve in a perfectly continuous and deterministic way, dictated by some generalized version of the Schrödinger equation. While this is going on, the system cannot be said to be in any definite configuration (Weinberg 1992, 75).

It is certain that, following the advent of quantum mechanics, determinism in Newtonian physics no longer exists, even if most people, in their daily lives, know of nothing but Newtonian physics and its determinism. However, after the advent of quantum mechanics, can it be said that what people know is reality?!

Thus, we have more than one possibility for the future, and we cannot define any of them deterministically. ﴾God erases what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Thunder” 13:39.

However, these possibilities are governed by the deterministic evolution of the wave function. Through observation, we recognize one of them to be a reality that we have obtained.

It is neither free will nor determinism. Rather, it lies between them (Al-Kafi 1944, vol 1, 160).

Special Theory of Relativity:

Prior to the theory of relativity, it was believed that there was something in space called the ether, in which light moved and to which the speed of light-regarded as constant relative to the ether-was attributed. When more than one observer moving within the ether measures the speed of light, they should be measuring different speeds of light. Accordingly, if you measure the speed of light while moving toward the light source, you should measure a higher speed than if you were to measure it moving perpendicularly to the light. However, the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that this isn’t true. Rather, the speed of light is constant in all directions.

The speed of light remains constant regardless of the speed or direction of the observer. Whether you are standing still, running away from the light or moving toward it, in all cases you will measure a constant speed of movement of light photons in your direction. The speed of your movement will be neither added to or subtracted from the speed of light when determining the speed of photons approaching you. However, in Newtonian physics, if you move toward a particular object, your speed will be added to its speed in order to know the speed at which it is approaching you, while it will be deducted if you run away from it. This means that the speed of light is a universal constant that must be taken into consideration in the laws of physics. On this basis, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which was published in a research paper in 1905, invalidated the ether and the incorrect results derived from it. It also invalidated the idea of absolute time that is unrelated to space. Therefore, the movement of objects became located in spacetime and not in just in space alone.

According to the special theory of relativity, the dimension of time became one of the four dimensions that are connected to one another. Thus, there is time and the three spatial dimensions. This is how the constancy of the speed of light is explained: light has reached the maximum speed possible in the dimensions of space, and it has no additional amount of movement left to allow it to move in the dimension of time. This means that the faster things move, the less time they have. For example, if a person travels in a vehicle at a certain speed, and he has a timer to measure the duration of the journey, and someone who is standing outside is also measuring the duration of the journey, the person inside the vehicle will record less time than the one standing next to the vehicle. The faster the vehicle travels, the less time the person inside the vehicle will record. This difference cannot be observed at the simple speeds we usually deal with. However, it is quite noticeable with speeds that are equal to a large fraction of the speed of light. When the object moves at the speed of light, time stops for it, meaning no time will be recorded. No object with mass can move at the speed of light. However, some material particles can be accelerated in a way similar to that used in particle colliders in order to reach speeds close to the speed of light. It has been observed that their ages double and increase very significantly. This means that when they move at a high speed, their time slows down significantly.

This also applies to the dimensions of space. For example, if you measure the length of a stationary vehicle, and then measure the length of the same vehicle as it moves at a particular speed in a direction perpendicular to the direction of measurement, you will record a smaller length for the second measurement. This is not observable at low speeds because it is a very small fraction. However, it is absolutely observable at speeds close to the speed of light.

The meaning of the above is that if there is more than one moving observer, they will measure different time periods for a single event, and no measurements by one of them is considered more accurate than the other, because the measurements are relative.

The constancy of the speed of light in the dimensions of space means that light has no remaining speed that allows it to move through time. It has reached the maximum speed possible in the dimensions of space. This means that time stops for photons, as they do not age, meaning that, in relation to the photons of light, the past and the future are the same. Thus, the photons of the cosmic background radiation, which has fallen behind the big bang (as will be clarified later), are now the same age they were at the moment of the big bang. If we were to assume that a person could move at the speed of light (although this is impossible as no object with mass can move at the speed of light), the same thing would happen with him. Time would stop for him, his age would remain constant and, from his perspective, the past and the future would become the same, meaning he would see the past and the future at any moment he wished.

The result of special relativity is that there is no longer a threedimensional universe with an independent amount of time. Rather, the universe is four-dimensional and time is one of its dimensions.

We have time and space that together form a single connected fabric, where the movement of objects in one of its dimensions affects their path in its other dimensions. Thus, the movement of objects in the three dimensions of space affects their path in the dimension of time.

The constancy of the speed of light, which allowed Einstein to correlate the spatial dimensions with the dimension of time, and to see them as intertwined as a whole that forms the universal spacetime fabric, also led Einstein to discover that the mass and energy of a particle are equivalent and intertwined. This was one of the most significant results of the special theory of relativity. Einstein formulated the equation of mass-energy equivalence as follows:

E² - p²c² = m²c4 E² = m²c4 + p²c²

Whereas:

E= Energy c=speed of light p=momentum

When momentum is equivalent to zero, the equation becomes as follows:

E2 = m2c4

Which means:

E = mc2

This last form is the one that is most commonly used. Through mass-energy equivalence, it can be proven that the maxi-

mum speed is the speed of light, and that nothing with mass can move at the speed of light because the energy of its movement is added to a mass (by converting it via the law of equivalence). This means that the mass of an object increases the faster it moves. Therefore, it too requires greater energy in order to move. This energy is also converted to mass, which is added to its own mass-and so the adding continues. If we assume that it moves at the speed of light, its mass is infinite, regardless of its initial mass. Therefore, it requires infinite energy in order to move. That is why, according to the law of equivalence, an object with a mass cannot move at the speed of light. Only light, particles, or waves that have no mass (such as photons) move at the speed of light.

Quantum Entanglement and Multiple Universes:

The introduction of probability and the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics caused Einstein to take a negative stance toward quantum mechanics. Einstein leveled several criticisms at the uncertainty principle, including his rejection of probabilities and uncertainty with his famous statement: “God doesn’t play dice.”

He presented some of these criticisms at scientific conferences. They were responded to as follows:

Following the previous inconclusive Solvay debate, Einstein had realized with no doubt that metaphysical scruples would get him nowhere. He needed a specific, quantitative demonstration that something was amiss, and by the time he arrived in Brussels, he thought he had one. He intended to prove to Bohr and his disciples that the uncertainty principle, now hailed as a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics, could not be the final truth. He had found a way around it, a way to get more information out of an experiment that Heisenberg’s rule would allow.

The experiment, of course, was not a real one but another example of that favorite Einsteinian device, The thought experiment. It was a test that could not by any stretch of the imagination be done in anyone’s laboratory, but it was one that the laws of physics permitted. More to the point, according to Einstein, the laws of physics in this case proved that the experiment would yield better results than Heisenberg would allow. It was so simple as to be incontestable.

Imagine some photons in a box, Einstein said, and equip the box with a shutter operated by a clock. Let the shutter open for just a moment, at some precisely specified time, so that a single photon escapes. Weigh the box before hand and weigh it again afterward. From E=mc2, the change in weight gives the energy of the fleeing photon. One version of the Heisenberg principle says that the more accurately you try to measure the energy of some quantum event, the less well you can know the time at which it occurred. In Einstein’s new argument, so it’s author believed, that restriction didn’t apply. He could measure the energy of the departed photon, and he knew the time it left the box, and he could make both those measurements independently, as precisely as he wished. He could beat the uncertainty principle, Einstein triumphantly declared.

Léon Rosenfeld, a Belgian physicist who would the following year become Bohr’s assistant in Copenhagen, didn’t officially participate in the Solvay meeting but came to Brussels anyway to observe the contest. He arrived at the university club, where the participants were staying, just in time to see a beaming Einstein, “followed by a court of lesser fry,” returning from the sessions. Einstein set down and with evident pleasure described his anti-Heisenberg thought experiment “before all those admiring people.”

Then Bohr arrived, looking “absolutely like a dog who has received a thrashing, with a hanging head.” He and Rosenfeld had dinner together, with other physicists dropping by their table. Bohr was “terribly, terribly excited,” insisting that Einstein couldn’t possibly be right, that it would mean the end of quantum theory. But he was unable straightaway to put his finger on the flaw. Later in the evening he cajoled Einstein in the same way, but he serenely paid no attention.

But the next morning it was Bohr who was beaming. Overnight it came to him that Einstein had committed the ironic error of neglecting one of the consequences of his own theory of general relativity. Suppose, Bohr said, the box containing the photons was suspended on some kind of spring balance to gauge its weight. At the moment a photon escaped, he reasoned, the box, reduced in weight, would recoil slightly against gravity. This has two serious implications. First, the slight bouncing of the box produces uncertainty in the measurement of its mass, which translates in the uncertainty in the deduced energy of the escaping photon. Second, and more subtly, the motion of the box produces a change in the rate at which its clock turns. This is because, as Einstein had proved a decade and a half earlier, a clock runs at a changing rate as it moves in a gravitational field.

Bohr explained with satisfaction that the product of these two uncertainties, in energy and in time, was exactly what Heisenberg’s principle said it should be. Einstein, chagrined to see that his eagerness to prove Heisenberg wrong made him overlook his own physics, had no choice but to admit defeat. Bohr did not gloat. In his later account of these events, he could not bring himself to say bluntly that he was right and Einstein was wrong. He emphasized instead Einstein’s repeated acuteness in putting his finger on exactly those points where classical and quantum physics most strikingly take leave of each other. He lauded Einstein’s influence in pushing the quantum physicists-he meant chiefly himself-to lay bare the characteristics and undoubted oddities of their still-new subject. Bohr’s mannerly praise aside, the fact remains that the crush- ing blow Einstein took at quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle swung by its target, doing no damage and leaving no mark. Although Heisenberg, Pauli, and the rest had only taken a peripheral role in this intellectual dual, “we were all quite happy and felt that now the game was won,” Heisenberg said later.

Defeated in his latest attempt to prove that quantum mechanics was flawed, Einstein reverted to his earlier, more fundamental complaint. Quantum mechanics might be logically coherent-but it could not be the whole truth. Chance, probability, and uncertainty, he insisted, arose from physicist’ inadequate understanding of the world they were trying to portray with their theories. The mischievous arguments of Bohr , Heisenberg, and the rest amounted to nothing better than a papering over of difficulties whose true resolution lay elsewhere. He was still convinced that one day a fuller theory would be found, and quantum mechanics would be consigned to history, along with so many other failed hypotheses (Lindley 2008, 168-171).

Another of these criticisms was Einstein’s argument, shared by two other researchers, called the EPR paradox.

On Quantum Entanglement and What is Required From It:

In 1935, working with his young Princeton colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen, Einstein published his last and most famous blast against quantum theory.

“Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” the paper asked in its title. The question was rhetorical. The answer was clearly no, according to Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen.

The EPR argument is an elaboration of what Einstein had fretted about at the fifth Solvay conference in 1927. There he had seized on Born’s assertion that a quantum wave function can describe only the probability of a particle being one place or another. That’s all very well, said Einstein, but at some point probability must turn into certainty. An electron hitting a screen, in the example he chose, has to land at one place in particular. And when it lands, must not the quantum wave describing it somehow change instantaneously all across the screen?

No one then had seemed to see what he was getting at. The argument was indeed vague and metaphysical. But Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen now claimed they had made the objection concrete, turned it into a specific and demonstrable problem. They could pinpoint, so they argued, how quantum mechanics took leave of common sense.

First, in the old, true Einsteinian style, they needed to make absolutely clear what common sense amounted to. Any acceptable theory, they declared, must deal in what they called “elements of physical reality.” By this they meant such things as position and momentum, the traditional kinds of quantities the physicist, by time-honored habit, regards as unarguable pieces of information about the physical world.

Very well--but what, actually, constitutes an element of physical reality? It was not an issue scientists had ever spent much time worrying about. So Einstein and his colleagues proposed a formal definition, one that has become famous or notorious, according to one’s perspective. If, they said, “without in any way disturbing a system, we can predict with certainty…the value of a physical quantity, then there exists an element of physical reality corresponding to this physical quantity.

Think, for example, of the position or momentum of an electron. If you have a way to determine either property without in any way affecting the electron’s path or subsequent behavior, then you are entitled to say that the electron’s position or momentum is a definite fact, an undeniable datum. An element of physical reality, in other words.

Having set the argument up to their liking, Einstein and his colleagues then proceeded to demonstrate how quantum mechanics runs into trouble. They imagined two particles zooming away in opposite directions from some common origin, with the same speed, so that as soon as you measure the position or momentum of one, you automatically know the position or momentum of the other.

They conceded that an observer making measurements of one of the particles would run afoul of the uncertainty principle. Measure its momentum, and lose knowledge of its position, or vice versa, just as Heisenberg dictates. But now Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen played their trump card. The whole point of their setup was that any observation of one particle tells you something about the other, and that’s where strange things begin to happen.

Measure the first particle’s position, and you immediately know the position of the second-even though you haven’t looked at it directly. Or measure the first particle’s momentum, and you also know the second’s--again, without looking at it. Which means, the authors eagerly concluded, that both the position and the momentum of the second particle must be “elements of physical reality.” Because these properties can be determined without disturbing the particle in question, they must have definite, preexisting values. It cannot be, they argued, that a measurement on the first particle only then causes the second particle’s characteristics to materialize out of a quantum fog- -because nothing has actually happened to the second particle.

And the larger implication, they went on, is that Heisenberg’s vaunted uncertainty principle does not, after all, mean that physical properties are fundamentally indefinite until measured. Rather, particles have definite properties, and the uncertainty principle is an admission that quantum mechanics cannot fully describe those properties. Which means, Einstein and his young collaborators concluded, that quantum mechanics is not telling the whole story--just as Einstein had long insisted. It was a partial theory only, an incomplete portrayal of the underlying physical truth (Lindley 2008, 188-191).

That’s why Einstein fixed on EPR-type experiments as a deep indication that quantum mechanics couldn’t be right-because in such situations it seems that some elusive but instantaneous influence connects the quantum behavior of two particles no matter how far away from each other they fly. This uncomfortable long-distance connection, like so much else that’s strange about quantum mechanics, arises because of the inescapability of uncertainty. Because the outcome of a measurement on one particle cannot be completely predicted, the second particle has to remain linked in some way, so it seems, in order that measurements on it remain coherent with observations of the first (Lindley 2008, 218).

The two particles in the above example are linked because they have one source and the sum of their momentum is known. Thus, if someone were to measure the momentum of the first particle, they would know the momentum of the second particle at the same moment. If they were to measure the position of the first particle, one would know the position of the second particle at the exact same moment-regardless of the distance between the two particles. However, according to the uncertainty principle, if someone attempted to measure a characteristic of either one of them (such as momentum), there would be a change in the position of the particle measured. Since the sum total is known, the second particle must change―regardless of the distance between them-in order to preserve the sum total.

This means a number of things, including the following:

The observer, or the measurement process, is no longer significant in the identification of the second particle’s characteristics. The is because we now know its characteristics without measuring it directly.

This also means that the second particle’s characteristic, which we know without directly measuring, is one of the elements of the physical reality. In turn, this means that particles have specific characteristics, unlike the supposition of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle ”that physical properties are fundamentally indefinite until measured.”

Furthermore, a consequence of combining quantum entanglement and the uncertainty principle in this example is that information transfers much faster than the speed of light. For example, when we measure one of the characteristics of the first particle, we do not need time to know the characteristics of the second particle; we actually know them at the same moment. This means that, if the measurement process affects the first particle, the second particle must be affected directly in order to preserve the sum total, although it is not the one being measured. This means that quantum mechanics violates the law of special relativity, which does not allow anything to move at a speed greater than the speed of light. This undoubtedly indicates an obvious flaw in understanding the universal reality.

The truth is that, even after proving that quantum entanglement is a physical reality through practical experimentation, the problem remains unsolved because it would either be that:

There is a problem with the assumption in Einstein’s special relativity theory that prevents movement at a speed greater than that of light within this universe.

Or, that quantum mechanics, as Einstein wished to believe, “is not telling the whole story …it was a partial theory only, an incomplete portrayal of the underlying physical truth.”

I believe that, in order to solve this problem, we can hypothesise that the information transferred between the two particles is transferred between them in a different universe-one in which they have a phantom existence-and that this other universe allows for things to transfer therein at a speed greater than that of light.

We can rephrase the problem Einstein presented: the two particles alongside the measurement process are considered to be a system. Therefore, our knowledge of the position of the second particle, by mere measurement of the position of the first particle, means that if the “physical properties are fundamentally indefinite until measured”-as the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics states-then, by observing the first particle, we caused an instantaneous change in the wave function of the system as a whole. Consequently, this causes the second particle to have a specific position, or speed, or, as Einstein asserted, “must not the quantum wave describing it somehow change instantaneously all across the screen?”

This moves the discussion to how realistic the wave function is. The issue of the instantaneous transfer of the wave function’s changes in space-in other words, without needing any time period-means that they transfer at infinite speed, which is impossible in our universe. According to Einstein’s special relativity theory, the speed of light cannot be exceeded, let alone by an infinite speed. Speed is distance divided by time. In this case, regardless of the distance, the speed is infinite and information is transferred immediately and instantaneously, meaning that time is equal to zero. In other words, we may state that the dimension of time has disappeared from the universe in which the wave function information transfers. Without a doubt, this means that-if special relativity is correct-this information transfers in another universe, the laws of which permit these things that are impossible in our own universe. It further means that this other universe must be affecting our universe and be connected to it, and that the things in our universe have a phantom existence in that universe, as they can communicate therein and transfer information among themselves at an infinite speed. Alternatively, perhaps we and the beings in this universe are phantoms of more sophisticated realities that exist in a universe more sophisticated than ours.

Quantum mechanics has opened the door in cosmology for the idea of multiple worlds or universes that can affect one another.

If the above research was not sufficient for proving the existence of the human soul or spirit, it certainly makes a reasonable person ask themselves how realistic it is for our existence to be exclusive to only this universe and that we are mere bodies created from the material of this universe. Isn’t it possible that these multiple universes are lighter than this universe, and its particles finer than the particles of matter and energy in our universe, such that they allow transfer at a speed greater than the speed of light, which is [the speed that] this universe’s particles of energy or photons move? In this case, can our universe not be a mere phantom existence of a more sophisticated universe?!

Quantum entanglement or inseparability has dimensions that are far greater than a case of two particles or photons emanating from a single origin. The entire universe is a quantum event that goes back to a single origin, at the time of the big bang. In the past, some of the particles were adjacent and adherent to one another. Thus, a particle at the extremities of the universe or in the body of another living being was perhaps, on some day and at some moment, adherent to a particle that is in your body right now, and you might be affected when it is affected, and likewise you can, in some way, affect things via quantum entanglement.

You deem yourself a small body while the greatest world dwells within you (Al-Hawari 2003, 175).

Schrödinger’s cat and the Observer’s Effect on the System

The argument or paradox of Schrödinger’s cat is represented by the following thought experiment:

Assume that you have a box that contains a cat, a poisonous substance in a glass bottle, a radioactive source, and a Geiger counter. What happens is, if radioactive decay of an atom from the radioactive source occurs, and the Geiger counter records the existence of a particle, the bottle of poison breaks and the cat dies. These things were arranged for a time period such that there is a 50 per cent chance that one of the atoms in the radioactive material will decay. Therefore, the only way for us to know whether the cat is dead or alive is by looking inside the experiment box. The condition of the cat depends on whether or not the atom has undergone radioactive decay, which cannot be predicted as it is subject to possibilities. Thus, we have radioactive material that-according to quantum mechanics-may or may not have decayed, meaning that both issues have a phantom existence until we look inside the box at the cat, and so the wave function collapses. At that point, due to our observation, one of the two possibilities will be determined. Consequently, we have radioactive material that has decayed and not decayed, and a bottle of poison that is broken and unbroken, and a cat which is dead and alive at the same time. What determines its fate is our observation and the collapse of the wave function as a result of this observation.

Schrödinger’s experiment shows that there is a flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation: the cat cannot be imagined to be dead and alive at the same time, as is presumed in the experiment. Therefore, the cat is dead and alive until the wave function collapses as a result of our observation of the system, and a condition is assigned to the cat: either alive, or dead.

A prolonged debate continued over this paradox, which Schrödinger attempted to demonstrate in the Copenhagen interpretation:

So, unlike the EPR experiment, the cat-in-the-box experiment really does have paradoxical overtones. It is impossible to reconcile with the strict Copenhagen interpretation without accepting the “reality” of a dead-alive cat, and it has led Wigner and John Wheeler to consider the possibility that, because of the infinite regression of cause and effect, the whole universe may only owe its “real” existence to the fact that it is observed by intelligent beings. The most paradoxical of all the problems inherent in quantum theory is a direct descendant of Schrödinger’s cat experiment, and it jumps off from what Wheeler calls a delayed-choice experiment (Gribbin 1984, 208).

We can state that Schrödinger’s thought experiment has highlighted the oddity of quantum mechanics that we have learned about previously. If quantum mechanics represents the laws of reality, and there is not the slightest flaw in the Copenhagen interpretation, then the experiment has highlighted the oddity of the reality of the universe we live in. The result we have reached at this point is that, should the wave function collapse due to the observer or the recording of the quantum event by the observer, as the Copenhagen interpretation states, it would mean that, if it were not for the existence of the human being or the intelligent being, there would be no universe. The universe owes its existence to our observation of it, as the entire universe is a quantum system with a wave function and many possibilities. It only exists when we observe it and the wave function collapses and appears in reality. This issue means that we humans-or let us say intelligence―represent the axis for which the universe was brought into existence.

If not for you, I would not have created the galaxies.*

Do We Observe Things or do We Create Them through Observation?!

When we discuss quantum mechanics, we are not referring to another universe or a science fiction story. Rather, we are talking about our bodies and everything that surrounds us. Our bodies and everything around us consist of quantum particles governed by the laws of quantum mechanics, which are foreign to our classical perceptions. The laws of quantum mechanics have been proven by experiments and machines have been designed on the basis of these laws, as these laws govern the entire universe.

The axis of quantum mechanics revolves around the issue that reality is what we record through observation-or let us say that reality is identified as reality when we observe it. This means that our observation is what identifies it as reality and, as such, removes it from the realm of possibility. This issue may be foreign to our simple human perceptions in this universe, as it means that we identify even the past when we observe it. These words may have no meaning within the framework of our daily lives, because we only observe the present-or at least that is what we believe. However, at the level of our universal observation, we observe cosmic background radiation, which is a radiation (photons) left over from the big bang, having a temperature of 2.73 Kelvin, while this radiation is approximately 13.7 billion years old. This means that we not only observe the past, but we also observe the beginning of time in our universe, as well as observing the furthermost point on the axis of time.

John Wheeler presented the delayed choice thought experiment, which is along the lines of the double-slit experiment on a plate. In this case, we arrange a system for identifying the passing of the photon or electron (any quantum particle) from one of the two slits. However, rather than doing this by observing the two slits, we observe the particle after it has passed through the two slits in a way that identifies its passing through one of them, and we cover the observation system’s lens with strips of film arranged like a venetian blind. If closed, they do not allow the photons to pass, while if open, they do allow them to pass. Consequently, the passing of the particle through one of the slits is identified. If we release the particle with the strips open, we are conducting an experiment as if we were observing the two slits and watching the particle pass through one of them. However, if the strips are closed, the experiment becomes comparable to the classic double-slit experiment: the particle arrives at the screen and we will find an interference pattern showing us that a single particle passed through both slits simultaneously. However, let us assume that we do not determine the position of the strips that we placed over the lens until the particle has passed through the area of the two slits, and then afterwards we decide the position of the strips, be it open or closed. Thus, the state of the particle in the past, that is, when it passes through the two slits, will be determined on the basis of our delayed decision. Therefore, it will either be the particle that is identified (a single particle) that passed through one of the two slits, or a group of phantom particles or wave bundles that passed through the two slits together, meaning that the single particle passed through both slits at the same moment.

In other words, we in the present have decided, through our choice and observation, upon the state of this particle in the past.

Phrased more simply, this particle has more than one past, or more than one history, as it can pass through either one of the slits or both of them together, and thus we have determined one of its histories for it and made it a reality through our choice and observation of it in the present.

If the matter is as such, meaning that observation in the present identifies, determines, or creates the past, and we know that the entire universe, including us, is a quantum system, and that the universe began with a quantum event, we can also say that, by our observation of the cosmic background radiation, we created (identified or determined) the big bang, and we created a particular past or history of the universe, excluding the other multiple possible histories of the universe.

Alternatively, let us clearly state that, through our observation, we caused the existence of a certain history (past) of the universe that is suitable for the formation of matter and galaxies, a universe in which we can be created, exist, and live-one history from among several that are otherwise unsuitable for the formation of matter, and galaxies and our eventual appearance within them.

This means that our existence, according to this interpretation, is a condition for the existence of the universe we live in.

We can understand from this that we, humans, are the main purpose of existence.

You deem yourself a small body while the greatest world dwells within you. You are the clear book-by your letters the concealed is exposed (Al-Hawari 2003, 175).

Quantum Mechanics and Causality

In a rare plain statement, Bohr said that quantum mechanics demands “a final renunciation of the classical idea of causality.” But if classical causality and reality have gone out the window, how are physicists to think instead? To that, Bohr had no clear answer, except to recommend his philosophy of complementarity which in effect meant embracing contradiction rather than trying to resolve it (Lindley 2008, 193-94).*†

The conformity of the predictions of quantum mechanics with reality, which has been proven by experiments and observations, supports the validity of the theory of quantum mechanics. However, the problematic issues remain difficult to explain.

There is no apparent reason for the overlapping reality to disappear and the reality that we measure to remain when we carry out the measuring or observation process as in the double slit experiment.

The instantaneous change of the wave function remains unexplained as shown in the EPR argument.

Invalidating causality would be running away from the solution rather than a solution in itself.

As a matter of fact, invalidating causality poses a major flaw in the reasoning and philosophy of what quantum mechanics states. The law of causality is almost self-evident. Reasonably, causality cannot be invalidated because nothingness does not produce, as nothingness is comprised of nothing in order for it to produce. In other words: you cannot give what you do not have.

Here, all that can be stated is that the cause of these quantum events is unknown within the framework of the universe in which we live. It cannot be stated that there is no cause at all, as there is nothing that can take place without a cause. This conflicts not only with rational evidence, but also with all the observed phenomena or observations in this universe on a level greater than quantum events. Science relies on observations, which have a major role in proving many scientific theories. Therefore, the result of observations in this universe, which agree with the fact that every event has a cause, cannot be ignored unless the issue has nothing to do with science, as is the case with people who try to promote atheism by any means possible.

So not only is the Copenhagen interpretation fully vindicated for all practical purposes by the experiments, it looks as if there are developments in store as far beyond those that quantum mechanics has already given us as those developments are beyond classical devices. But still the Copenhagen interpretation is intellectually unsatisfying. What happens to all those ghostly quantum worlds that collapse with their wave functions when we make a measurement of a subatomic system? How can an overlapping reality, no more and no less real than the one we eventually measure, simply disappear when the measurement is made? The best answer is that the alternative realities do not disappear, and that Schrödinger’s cat really is both alive and dead at the same time, but in two or more different worlds. The Copenhagen interpretation, and its practical implications, are fully contained within a more complete view of reality, the many-worlds interpretation (Gribbin 1984, 233-34).

It cannot be said that there is absolutely no cause for these quantum events. This conclusion goes against the truth of causality that reason dictates. At the very least, we see this in everything that surrounds us. Therefore, decisive evidence is still required in order to prove that there is no reason for quantum events, and this evidence is absent as long as there is no certainty that all existence is no more than our universe we live in. In fact, today, many theoretical physicists and astronomers present theories of multiple universes with the possibility that they affect one another.

The many-worlds interpretation was presented by Hugh Everett to resolve the wave function collapse problem and disappearance of the alternative reality or other possibilities at the time of observation or measurement. According to the Copenhagen Interpretation, the other possibilities-each representing an alternative reality to the reality we observed and measured-disappear “just like that”, without a logical reason or explanation. However, in the many-worlds interpretation they do not disappear. Rather, they are all real events, yet each event is particular to some universe, and when we measure or observe, we identify one of them as a reality in our universe. This reality prevents us from seeing or measuring the alternative reality whose effect may appear when we do not measure it or observe it. This is comparable to the case of interference in the double-slit experiment when we don’t monitor the two slits, and the single electron appears to have passed through both slits simultaneously and perhaps even collided with itself as well.

Currently, in the many-worlds interpretation, we assert that what passed through the first slit is a real form of the electron, and what passed through the second slit is also a real form of the electron. However, each of these two forms exists in a different world, and because we are not measuring and observing it, it appears on the background screen as an interference pattern. This means that virtual phantom particles from several worlds passed through the two slits, and they are all forms of the same, single electron. However, they are forms of it in those worlds. As for when we measure the electron and observe the two slits, we only see one electron passing through one slit. This is because our observation of it and turning toward it prevents us from observing and measuring its other forms that are within other worlds. This means that it is as if when we observe the electron in this world we turn our backs to it in the other worlds. For that reason, we observe it or measure it only in this world.

So uncertainty upsets the old order not just on the smallest scales, in the way we can find out about individual elementary particles, but also on the cosmic scale, in terms of the way causality and probability connect up across vast distances. A true quantum theory of gravity would-presumably-make sense of all these difficulties.

But it hardly seems likely, at this stage of the game, that in a quantum theory of gravity uncertainty would fade away. All the evidence suggests that it’s here for the duration. There can be no going back to the old days of absolute determinism, when, as the Marquis de Laplace hoped, knowledge of the present would bring complete knowledge of the past and the future.

Cosmically speaking, that may be a good thing. The Laplacian universe can have no moment of birth, because any set of physical conditions must arise, logically and inevitably, from some prior situation, and so on ad infinitum. Nothing uncaused can happen.

But the quantum universe is different. Ever since Marie Curie wondered at the spontaneity of radioactive decay, ever since Rutherford asked Bohr what made an electron jump from one place in an atom to another, the recognition has grown that quantum events happen, ultimately, for no reason at all.

So we reach an impasse. Classical physics cannot say why the universe happened, because nothing can happen except that prior events caused it to happen. Quantum physics cannot say why the universe happened, except to say that it just did, spontaneously, as a matter of probability rather than certainty. Einstein was right, in other words, when he complained that quantum mechanics could offer only an incomplete picture of the physical world. But perhaps Bohr was even more right in his belief that this incompleteness was not just unavoidable but actually necessary. We come to a paradox that Bohr would have loved: it’s only through an initial, inexplicable act of quantum mechanical uncertainty that our universe came into being, setting off a chain of events that led to our appearance on the scene, wondering what original impetus led to our existence (Lindley 2008, 218-19).

The General Theory of Relativity:

According to Newton’s laws, gravitation between two objects is dependent upon their masses and the distance between them at any particular moment. This means that, if one of the two objects moves, thus changing the distance between them, the effect of the gravitational force on the other object will directly change. In other words, the change occurs instantaneously. This would mean that the effect of the gravitational force travels at an infinite speed. This conflicts with special relativity, which has demonstrated that the maximum speed for any object is the speed of light. It is for this reason that Einstein worked for ten years on a theory that explains gravity in a way that does not conflict with special relativity. In 1915, he presented the general theory of relativity. This theory describes the universe as a whole in terms of the gravitational effect of matter and energy on the universe, as well as their effect on each other. In light of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, there is no speed-within the universe-greater than the speed of light, no absolute time, and no complete independence of time from the other dimensions of the universe that we call space. Instead, there is a universal fabric consisting of the four dimensions.

In the general theory of relativity, the effect of gravity is a result of the four cosmic dimensions (spacetime) bending due to matter and energy. Therefore, it is as if the universal fabric is elastic and bendable and all matter in the universe bends this fabric according to its mass. All energy also bends this fabric according to its matter equivalent, based on the equation Einstein presented in the theory of special relativity: E=mc2.

For example, the mass and energy of the sun bend the spacetime fabric, and the earth moves on this bend in a path that is similar to a straight line, as it represents the shortest path between two points in the four dimensions. We see this path as almost circular in the threedimensional world, just like a plane flying in a straight line between two points in the three dimensions leaves a curved trace (shadow) on the surface of the earth due to the height differences on the earth’s surface, and not due to the plane’s path.

The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment) and in describing what happens when things move at speeds close to the speed of light. However, it was inconsistent with the Newtonian theory of gravity, which said that objects attracted each other with a force that depended on the distance between them. This meant that if one moved one of the objects, the force on the other one would change instantaneously. Or in other words, gravitational effects should travel with infinite velocity, instead of at or below the speed of light, as the special theory of relativity required. Einstein made a number of unsuccessful attempts between 1908 and 1914 to find a theory of gravity that was consistent with special relativity. Finally, in 1915, he proposed what we now call the general theory of relativity.

Einstein made the revolutionary suggestion that gravitation is not a force like other forces, but is a consequence of the fact that space-time is not flat, as had been previously assumed: it is curved, or “warped,” by the distribution of mass and energy in it. Bodies like the earth are not made to move on curved orbits by a force called gravity; instead, they follow the nearest thing to a straight path in a curved space, which is called a geodesic (Hawking 2011, 29-30).

Many applications and experiments have proven that what the general theory of relativity predicted correlates with reality and observation. For example, the theory’s description of Mercury’s orbit is more accurate than that of Newton’s law of gravity. The theory also predicted the deflection of light and how it is affected by gravitational fields, and through experimentation, this prediction was indeed found to be true. It predicted the existence of black holes, and black holes were indeed discovered.

The most important aspect of general relativity, as far as our subject matter is concerned, is that time and space are not static space in which events occur. Rather, time and space bend and are affected by the things existing within them, meaning they are a kinetic, dynamic existence.

This has allowed some cosmologists to assume that the expansion of the universe is not restricted to matter and energy, but also includes the space that contains them.

Singularity:

Based on Einstein’s general theory, which explains gravitation with the fact that bodies arch or bend space or the timespace fabric in proportion to their mass, physicist Karl Schwarzschild suggested in 1916 that bodies, which have sufficiently large masses and large gravitational forces, arch and bend the space around them completely. Thus, they are like holes in space, or in the timespace fabric, as their gravitation prevents anything, including light, from escaping its direct surroundings. Scientifically, this is called the event horizon. The speed required in order to escape from it would have to be greater than that of light. Hence, light cannot escape from the event horizon. The location surrounded by the event horizon is called the singular region, at which the known laws of physics collapse. We generally recognize the singular region and its direct surroundings (the event horizon) by the term ‘black holes’.

Black holes are usually formed when a large mass – such as that of a large star that has expended its nuclear fuel and so collapsed under its own weight – is concentrated in a region of space sufficiently small to completely bend the timespace fabric. The singular region has zero volume. For this reason it is considered to have infinite density regardless of its mass. The radius of the event horizon – that is to say, the boundaries of the black hole – from which light cannot escape is dependent upon the mass of the black hole.

Massive stars will burn their hydrogen into helium much faster than the Sun does. This means they can run out of hydrogen in as little as a few hundred million years. After that, such stars face a crisis. They can burn their helium into heavier elements such as carbon and oxygen, but these nuclear reactions do not release much energy, so the stars lose heat and the thermal pressure that supports them against gravity. Therefore they begin to get smaller. If they are more than about twice the mass of the Sun, the pressure will never be sufficient to stop the contraction. They will collapse to zero size and infinite density to form what is called a singularity (Hawking 2001, 114).

Black holes in space have been observed and recorded, whether through the movement of some stars around them when approaching the event horizon, or in the observing and recording of a black hole devouring a star, as a group of South Korean scientists have done recently in the 21st century (euronews.com 2016).

Figure 22: Illustration of a black hole. At its base, the point of singularity appears.

Escape Velocity

Escape velocity is the velocity that enables an object or particle to escape from the gravitational pull of another object. For example, the escape velocity of the earth, or from the gravitational pull of the earth, is approximately 12 km/s. This is significantly less than the speed of light, and that is why light escapes from the earth to the space surrounding it. This makes the earth visible to the outside observer. This is the case with respect to the sun and other stars, yet not black holes: their escape velocity is greater than the speed of light and, therefore, they are dark and cannot be seen.

Event Horizon

The event horizon is a surface that separates the spacetime region, which light can escape, from the region which light cannot escape. It is considered to be a boundary of the black hole.

Black Hole Radiation

The heading ‘black hole radiation’ seems to contradict what we said previously, namely that light does not escape from the event horizon of a black hole. Therefore, how can we now say that a black hole emits radiation?

This is a theory of theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking. It combines the general theory of relativity and, in part, quantum theory. It states that black holes are not completely black as there is radiation that the outside observer witnesses being emitted from the black hole. It is caused by the quantum fluctuations in a vacuum (previously discussed) that are predicted by quantum mechanics in accordance with the uncertainty principle. According to this principle, space cannot be completely empty because that would mean that the quantities of fields such as the electromagnetic or gravitational field are exactly zero and their rate of change is zero, which contradicts the uncertainty principle.

Therefore, according to quantum mechanics, there are always pairs of virtual particles in a vacuum that appear, meet and then cancel each other out; or particle-antiparticle pairs that appear and cancel each other out due to their colliding. If their appearance happens to be at an event horizon of a black hole, or at a singularity, and if, instead of colliding with one another and cancelling each other out, one of them happens to fall into the black hole due to its gravitational pull, the countering particle can be liberated and escape far away from the black hole. The outside observer would see it as radiation emitted by the black hole. This is termed black hole radiation. Some also refer to it as Hawking radiation, named after its discoverer. It is dependent upon the mass of the black hole or singularity in the current universe, as per the following equation:

T = hc3/8πkGM

Where: T = the temperature of the black hole, h = the Planck constant, c = the speed of light, G = the gravitational constant, k = the Boltzmann constant, and M = the mass of the black hole. From the above equation, we find that the smaller the mass of the black hole or singularity, the higher the temperature of the black hole radiation. To definitively detect, observe and document this radiation in the universe, a small black hole must be found. This means one with a small mass, in order for its radiation to be strong enough and hot enough to stand out from the cosmic background radiation, which overspreads the universe at 2.7 degrees Kelvin. Generally speaking, to date, this theory has been proven using non-experimental evidence.

Figure 23: Hawking radiation, and where and how it was formed.

If a black hole is present, one member of a pair of particles may fall into the black hole, leaving the other member free to escape to infinity. To someone far from the black hole, the escaping particles appear to have been radiated by the black hole. The spectrum of a black hole is exactly what we would expect from a hot body, with a temperature proportional to the gravitational field on the horizon-the boundary-of the black hole. In other words, the temperature of the black hole depends on its size (Hawking 2001, 118).

The Friedmann Models

General relativity predicts a non-static universe, an issue Einstein attempted to avoid by adding the cosmological constant to his equation. Along with many physicists at the time, Einstein believed the universe was static and stationary. Such a universe must collapse upon itself if there is no force or energy to resist the gravitation of matter and cosmological energy.

However, Russian physicist Alexander Friedmann resolved this issue differently. Instead of adding the cosmological constant to the equation, he found a solution of a nonstationary model of the universe that concurs with general relativity. Einstein eventually embraced the Friedmann solution, admitting he was wrong to add the cosmological constant and to assume a static universe. However, dark energy, which will be discussed in due course, was subsequently discovered, which works against gravitation. This means that it fulfils the job of the cosmological constant in resisting the gravitational force of matter and energy.

Subsequently, three models of an unstationary universe were completed, commonly termed the Friedmann models. This opened the door to the expanding universe that has a beginning. The Friedmann models have predicted that the universe is expanding before Edwin Hubble used the results of galaxy observations to discover that the frequency of light that galaxies emitted shifts toward the color red, and this shift increases the further away they are. According to the Doppler effect, this means they are moving away from each other at an increasing rate.

The Friedmann Models include the following: The first model: the curvature of the universe is positive like the

surface of a sphere. If it is expanding, it will eventually contract due to gravitation and its expansion will not continue forever.

The second model: the curvature of the universe is negative like the surface of a hyperbolic paraboloid or a horse saddle. If it is expanding, its expansion will continue forever.

The third model: the curvature of the universe is zero, or let us say it is flat. If it is expanding, its rate of expansion will slow down, approaching but never actually reaching zero. This means it will slow down, but never completely stop expanding. In this type of universe, the positive energy provided by matter equals the negative energy provided by gravitation.

All Friedmann models predict that at the beginning of the universe, the distance between the galaxies was zero, meaning the volume of the universe was zero and its density was infinite. This means that the Friedmann models based on the theory of relativity state that the universe started from a point at which the general theory of relativity itself collapses. This point is called singularity, and it is at this point that the big bang began.

Figure 24: Friedmann Models The Universe Has a Beginning: The universe in which we live is composed of visible matter that is, essentially, gaseous clouds, rock debris, planets and burning stars. They are arranged in groups called galaxies that revolve in their orbits. Some of these galaxies contain hundreds of billions of stars, others even reaching a trillion stars. They move away from each other in the universe with noticeable speed and acceleration. Some have a spiral shape, others oval, helical, or unorganized; others are deformed as they are the result of the collision of two galaxies.Those galaxies are structured in galactic clusters that represent the regions of visible matter in the universe. A single cluster may contain hundreds or thousands of galaxies.

These are fundamental issues, proven through astronomical observation and certain laws of physics, such as the Doppler effect caused by the shift in relative frequency. What concerns us here is the conclusion reached by astronomers, namely that galaxies are rapidly moving away from each other and at an accelerating speed. This means that the universe is expanding and it is not static. Consequently, it was smaller in the past and had a greater density. This means that the universe has a beginning and it is not eternal. This has been proven through observation, the Doppler effect of the shift in relative frequency, and, subsequently, cosmic background radiation. However, before cosmic background radiation, the big bang had a competitor: the steady state model presented by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold and Fred Hoyle. It can be said that this model was an attempt to explain galaxies moving away from each other in such a way that the universe would not have a beginning. It is almost an attempt to negate that beginning and what it represents: an indication of an entity greater than this universe that may have caused the beginning of the universe.

The Doppler Effect and the Expanding Universe:

The Doppler effect is the relative change (shift) in wave frequency due to the relative movement between the source of the waves and the observer. Based on this change, it can be determined whether the source of the waves is moving towards or away from the observer. This effect can be observed in daily life when a sound-emitting vehicle passes us, such as a police car or an ambulance. We find that when approaching us, its sound is louder than when moving away from us, whereas, to the driver, it sounds the same. By means of the Doppler effect, we can determine whether stars and galaxies are approaching or moving away from us by measuring the radiation frequency they emit and comparing it to the original laboratory frequency. When measuring the frequency of light emitted from a star using a ground telescope, together with our knowledge that light is a product of hydrogen burning and the original wavelength of hydrogen experimentally, we can compare the wavelength of the hydrogen spectrum from the star to the original wavelength of the hydrogen spectrum. Therefore, we can determine whether this star is approaching or moving away. If the wavelength of the light of the star is less than its laboratory counterpart, we know that this star is moving away from us, and vice versa. The same goes for galaxies. Color-wise, if the color of the galaxy’s light shifts toward blue, they are moving toward us and moving in our direction. If the color of the galaxy’s light shifts toward red, that means it is moving away from us.

The results of observations have proven that the spectrum of most galaxies shifts toward red. The extent of this shift is directly proportional to the galaxy’s distance from us. Therefore, the further away the galaxy is, the greater the redshift. This means that the galaxies are moving away from us. In addition, the further away a galaxy is from us, the greater its speed, meaning galaxies are moving away from each other quickly, and at an accelerating rate. This also means that galaxies and the matter in the universe were closer to each other in the past. The further we go back in time, the closer they are until we reach a volume of zero. Therefore, the stationary or static model of the universe is incorrect. It is not correct to say that the universe we live in is eternal, nor that the universe was directly created as it is now.

Figure 25: Simplified drawing of the Doppler Effect*

Figure 26: Simplified drawing as further example of the use of the Doppler Effect. The image explains how Doppler fluctuation is used for detecting planets.

Hydrogen Indicates that the Universe Has a Beginning

The universe, with all its galactic clusters, galaxies, stars and planets, is composed of chemical elements that represent the matter known to us. Most of these elements are known to whoever has studied the fundamentals of chemistry. They are arranged in the periodic table from hydrogen, the lightest of the elements, to the heavy radioactive elements such as uranium and radium.

From observing and studying the universe, we know that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Compared with other, heavier elements, we can say that hydrogen is just like the number of bacteria compared with other more complex organisms with respect to life on the earth.

In addition to the above, given our knowledge that burning stars do not produce hydrogen-yet that hydrogen is the fuel they consume to produce the other heavier elements-it becomes clear to us that this quantity of hydrogen (which represents most of the mass of the universe) existed in this universe before any other element. We can take this conclusion further and say that hydrogen is the first element to exist in this universe. This means that the oldest element in the universe is the one with the simplest atomic composition (a proton + an electron). This alone is sufficient to draw our attention to the fact that the universe started out much simpler than what it is now, meaning that the universe as a whole went through the same course of evolution that life on earth subsequently went through. The foremost of the atomic elements composing our world was hydrogen, followed by helium, lithium, and giant stars that were like giant factories of matter with more complex atomic composition. Once the product is cooked in the star, the star bursts if it is large enough, and it scatters this product (which is composed of heavier, more complex elements) into space in the form of masses, rocks, debris and dust. These gather to form planets and asteroids. At the same time, the cloud of debris and gas may blaze anew if sufficient temperature for nuclear fusion is available, forming a star around which those planets revolve. That is the case with our sun, and that is how planets have and continue to be formed.

Cosmic Background Radiation:

We now know that hydrogen has existed from the beginning and that it is the lightest element. We also know that galaxies are moving away from each other at an accelerating speed, meaning that the universe (matter and energy) is constantly expanding and cooling. This was confirmed for us after the discovery of cosmic background radiation (cosmic microwave background) that exists in all parts of the universe at approximately 2.73 degrees Kelvin. This radiation can be measured from all directions of the universe. Its existence was predicted by the physicist George Gamow. Its temperature was theoretically estimated at 5 K, before being measured with high precision where it was shown that scientists’ previous estimates (5 K) were very close to the temperature of background radiation photons (2.73 K).

The existence of this radiation-or photons-at this temperature means that it is a leftover trace remaining from a previous age, during which the universe was smaller, warmer, and packed with radiation or photons, as the more the universe expands, the longer the wavelength of photons becomes, and the lower their frequency and the temperature. The energy of photons is inversely proportional to their wavelengths.

It can be precisely confirmed through cosmic background radiation that photons had more energy in the past, and consequently, that the universe was warmer and smaller. This is done by measuring the energy of these photons or the temperature of cosmic background radiation in a time period before the present. This is possible because we know that photons move at the speed of light, so the ones that reach us arrive late in time depending on how far away from us the event in the universe is. If we assume that we are observing a galaxy X years away from us, it means we are watching and observing events that occurred X years ago. Therefore, if we can examine the energy of photons, or the cosmic background radiation temperature in that galaxy, and it turns out to be higher than the background radiation temperature surrounding us (which we know is 2.73 K), then we learn that the universe used to be warmer and smaller, confirming the validity of the standard model with a high level of knowledge. In fact, this is possible as there is a cosmic thermometer, cyanogen, through which we can determine the background radiation temperature in distant galaxies, meaning the cosmic background radiation temperature, or photon energy, before the present time. This is how scientists settled the issue in favor of the standard model or the big bang theory.

But why should anybody accept the interpretation? For good reason. Photons take time to reach us from distant parts of the cosmos, so we inevitably look back in time whenever we look outward into space. This means that if the intelligent inhabitants of a galaxy far, far away measured the temperature of the cosmic background radiation for themselves, long before we managed to so do, they should have found its temperature to be greater than 2.73 degrees Kelvin, because they would have inhabited the universe when it was younger, smaller, and hotter than it is today.

Can such an audacious assertion be tested? Yup. Turns out that the compound of carbon and nitrogen called cyanogen - best known to convicted murderers as the active ingredient of the gas administered by their executioners - will become excited by exposure to microwaves. If the microwaves are warmer than the ones in our CBR, they will excite the molecule a little more effectively than our microwaves do. The cyanogen compounds thus act as a cosmic thermometer. When we observe them in distant, and thus younger, galaxies, they should find themselves bathed in a warmer cosmic background than the cyanogen in our Milky Way galaxy. In other words, those galaxies ought to live more excited lives than we do. And they do.

The spectrum of cyanogen in distant galaxies shows the microwaves to have just the temperature we expect at these earlier cosmic times.

You can’t make this stuff up. The CBR does far more for astrophysicists than to provide direct evidence for a hot early universe, and thus for the big bang model. It turns out that the details of the photons that comprise the CBR reach us laden with information about the cosmos both before and after the universe became transparent. We have noted that until that time, about 380,000 years after the big bang, the universe was opaque, so you couldn’t have witnessed matter making shapes even if you’d been sitting front-row center. You couldn’t have seen where galaxy clusters were starting to form. Before anybody, anywhere, could see anything worth seeing, photons had to acquire the ability to travel, unimpeded, across the universe. When the time was right, each photon began its cross-cosmos journey at the point where it smacked into the last electron that would ever stand in its way. As more and more photons escaped without being deflected by electrons (thanks to electrons joining nuclei to form atoms) they created an expanding shell of photons that astrophysicists call “the surface of last scatter.” That shell, which formed during a period of about a hundred thousand years, marks the epoch when almost all the atoms in the cosmos were born. By then, matter in large regions of the universe had already begun to coalesce. Where matter accumulates, gravity grows stronger, enabling more and more matter to gather. Those matter-rich regions seeded the formation of galaxy superclusters, while other regions remained relatively empty. The photons that last scattered off electrons within the coalescing regions developed a different, slightly cooler spectrum as they climbed out of the strengthening gravity field, which robbed them of a bit of energy. The CBR indeed shows spots that are slightly hotter or slightly cooler than average, typically by about one hundred thousandth of a degree. These hot and cool spots mark the earliest structures in the cosmos, the first clumping together of matter. We know what matter looks like today because we see galaxies, galaxy clusters, and galaxy superclusters. To figure out how those systems arose, we probe the cosmic background radiation, a remarkable relic from the remote past, still filling the entire universe. Studying the patterns in the CBR amounts to a kind of cosmic phrenology: we can read the bumps on the “skull” of the youthful universe and from them deduce behavior not only for an infant but also for a grown-up. By adding other observations of the local and the distant universe, astronomers can determine all kinds of fundamental cosmic properties from the CBR. Compare the distribution of sizes and temperatures of the slightly warmer and cooler areas, for instance, and we can infer the strength of gravity in the early universe, and thus how quickly matter accumulated. From that we can then deduce how much ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy the universe comprises (the percentages are 4, 23, and 73, respectively). From there, it’s easy to tell whether or not the universe will expand forever, and whether or not the expansion will slow down or speed up as time passes.

Ordinary matter is what everyone is made of. It exerts gravity and can absorb, emit, and otherwise interact with light. Dark matter, as we’ll see in Chapter 4, is a substance of unknown nature that produces gravity but does not interact with light in any known way. And dark energy, as we’ll see in Chapter 5, induces an acceleration of the cosmic expansion, forcing the universe to expand more rapidly than it otherwise would. The phrenology exam now says that cosmologists understand how the early universe behaved, but that most of the universe, then and now, consists of stuff they’re clueless about.

Profound areas of ignorance notwithstanding, today, as never before, cosmology has an anchor. The CBR carries the imprint of a portal through which all of us once passed (Tyson & Goldsmith 2004, 59-62).*

The standard model (the big bang theory) has become widely accepted. We can say that the stationary model (or the steady state theory) of Fred Hoyle is no longer under scientific consideration. The validity of the standard model has been demonstrated with a high level of scientific knowledge, as well as the fact that, the further back we go into the history of the universe, the more dense, the less vast, and the warmer it is. The vaster the universe (matter and energy) is, the longer the wavelength of photons and the lower their energy and temperature. The reverse is also true.

The observation in 1974 of absorption by the second rotating state of interstellar cyanogen has yielded an estimate of the radiation intensity at a wavelength of 0.132 centimeters, also corresponding to a temperature of about 3° K. However, such observations have so far set only upper limits on the radiation energy density at wavelengths shorter than 0.1 centimeters. These results are encouraging because they indicate that the radiation energy density does begin to fall off steeply at some wavelength around 0.1 centimeters, as expected if this is black-body radiation. However, these upper limits do not allow us to verify that this really is black-body radiation, or to determine a precise radiation temperature.

It has only been possible to attack this problem by lifting an infrared receiver above the earth’s atmosphere, either with a balloon or a rocket. These experiments are extraordinarily difficult and at first gave inconsistent results, alternately encouraging either the adherents of the standard cosmology or its opponents. A Cornell rocket group found much more radiation at short wavelengths than could be expected for a Planck black-body distribution, while an M.I.T. balloon group obtained results roughly consistent with those expected for black-body radiation. Both groups continued their work, and by 1972 they were both reporting results indicating a black-body distribution with temperature close to 3° K. In 1976 a Berkeley balloon group confirmed that the radiation energy density continues to fall off for short wavelengths in the range of 0.25 centimeters to 0.06 centimeters, in the manner expected for a temperature within 0.1° K of 3° K. It now seems to be settled that the cosmic radiation background really is black-body radiation, with a temperature close to 3° K (Weinberg 1993, 69-70).

What remains is the potential for a new model to appear, or a revised version of an old model that describes the universe. As far as physicists are concerned, this is not unlikely.

The original version of the steady-state cosmology has been pretty well ruled out by various astronomical observations, chief among them the discovery in 1964 of microwave radiation that seems to be left over from a time when the universe was much hotter and denser. It is possible that the steady-state idea may be revived on a grander scale, in some future cosmological theory in which the present expansion of the universe appears as merely a fluctuation in an eternal but constantly fluctuating universe that on average is always the same. There are also more subtle ways that the initial conditions might perhaps some day be deduced from the final laws. James Hartle and Stephen Hawking have proposed one way that this fusion of physics and history might be found in the application of quantum mechanics to the whole universe. Quantum cosmology is right now a matter of active controversy among theorists; the conceptual and mathematical problems are very difficult, and we do not seem to be moving toward any definite conclusions (Weinberg 1992, 35).

Figure 27: Sky Maps ( with different frequencies) The Sky as Seen by the Planck Satellite

Back to the Beginning of the Universe

When we go back in time to the distant past of the universe, we find giant stars cooking hydrogen and helium to produce other heavy elements such as carbon and iron. If we go back even further, we will find that the heavy elements have disappeared and decomposed into lighter elements, and thus we have arrived at a universe whose matter is hydrogen, deuterium, tritium, helium and perhaps a little lithium. If we go back further still, we will reach a stage where the energy of photons does not allow the hydrogen atoms to remain stable. Thus, we will find these atoms broken down into electrons, hydrogen nuclei (protons), the nuclei of hydrogen isotopes, and helium nuclei. We then reach a universe composed of hadrons (such as protons), leptons (such as electrons and neutrinos) and photons. If we go back in time even further, the temperature will be so high that the high energy of photons will allow them to produce material particles when colliding with one another. We will also find that the particles of matter and antimatter appear and annihilate each other in a universe composed of photons (or energy as photons have no mass), leptons, quarks, antiquarks and also bosons.

However, in any case, we will not be able to go back past a barrier and blockage that obstructs our scientific viewing of what is behind it. This barrier is present when the temperature is approximately 1032 K and at the time 10-43 seconds after the beginning of the universe. The laws of physics do not work before one Planck time–although certainly, there is only some speculation as to how the string theory would work before that point in time.

Figure 28: A picture of one of the oldest galaxies. Based on its “color”, it is thought to be 13.2 million light years away.

Nevertheless, we can at least imagine a time when gravitational forces would have been as strong as the strong nuclear interactions discussed above. Gravitational fields are generated not only by particle masses, but by all forms of energy. The earth is going around the sun a little faster than it otherwise would if the sun were not hot, because the energy in the sun’s heat adds a little to the source of its gravitation. At super-high temperatures the energies of particles in thermal equilibrium can become so large that the gravitational forces between them become as strong as any other forces. We can estimate that this state of affairs was reached at a temperature of about 100 million million million million million degrees (1032 ° K).

At this temperature all sorts of strange things would have been going on. Not only would gravitational forces have been strong and particle production by gravitational fields copious-the very idea of “particle” would not yet have had any meaning. The “horizon,” the distance beyond which it is impossible yet to have received any signals (see page 419), would at this time be closer than one wavelength of a typical particle in thermal equilibrium. Speaking loosely, each particle would be about as big as the observable universe!

We do not know enough about the quantum nature of gravitation even to speculate intelligently about the history of the universe before this time. We can make a crude estimate that the temperature of 1032 ° K was reached some 10-43 seconds after the beginning, but it is not really clear that this estimate has any meaning. Thus, whatever other barriers may have been lifted, there is one barrier, at a temperature of 1032 ° K, that still obscures our view of the earliest times.

However, none of these uncertainties makes much difference to the astronomy of A.D. 1976. The point is that during the whole of the first second the universe was presumably in a state of thermal equilibrium, in which the numbers and distribution of all particles, even neutrinos, were determined by the laws of statistical mechanics, not by the details of their prior history. When we measure the abundance today of helium, or microwave radiation, or even of neutrinos, we are observing the relics of the state of thermal equilibrium which ended at the close of the first second. As far as we know, nothing we can observe depends on the history of the universe prior to that time. (In particular, nothing we now observe depends on whether the universe was isotropic and homogeneous before the first second, except perhaps the photon-to-nuclear-particle ratio itself.) It is as if a dinner were prepared with great care-the freshest ingredients, the most carefully chosen spices, the finest wines -and then thrown all together in a great pot to boil for a few hours. It would be difficult for even the most discriminating diner to know what he was being served. (Weinberg 1993, 145-47).

Some 14 billion years ago, at the beginning of time, all the space and all the matter and all the energy of the known universe fit within a pinhead. The universe was then so hot that the basic forces of nature, which collectively describe the universe, were merged into a single, unified force. When the universe was a roaring 1030 degrees and just 10-43 seconds old-the time before which all of our theories of matter and space lose their meaning-black holes spontaneously formed, disappeared, and formed again out of the energy contained within the unified force field. Under these extreme conditions, in what is admittedly speculative physics, the structure of space and time became severely curved as it gurgled into a spongy, foamlike structure. During this epoch, phenomena described by Einstein’s general theory of relativity (the modern theory of gravity) and quantum mechanics (the description of matter on its smallest scales) were indistinguishable (Tyson 2004, 25).

We can only know about the beginnings of the universe by going back in time while taking information from the present with us, obtained from observation and measurement, and while equipped with proven equations and laws of matter, such as Einstein’s equation, his special and general theories of relativity and Planck’s quantum theory. Much of what cosmologists and theoretical physicists present in terms of the standard model, the Big Bang theory and the journey of the universe (especially in its first few minutes) is based on precise measurements of what our current universe contains. Indeed, we are not used to them in our daily lives and we may even consider them odd. However, they are not fiction, but rather the realities that surround us. Einstein’s general theory predicted the existence of black holes, and their effects were observed in the universe. Recently, in the twenty-first century, they themselves were observed with precision, and they were no longer a mere possibility predicted by scientific theories like those of Einstein. The Higgs boson was discovered in the Hadron Collider in the twenty-first century, as well as other quantum particles in modern physics, which began with Max Planck’s quantum theory and Einstein’s theory of relativity and equation on energy and matter. Realities are no longer as people are accustomed to, notions of time and space are no longer as they were. The human being is no longer just similar to plants and animals, being connected to them by the same genetic plan formed at the time of the first emergence of terrestrial life, but has now become similar to any rock, stone, piece of iron or element of matter, even if a living body is not contained therein. Everyone is composed of leptons and hadrons, which are in turn composed of quarks.

Cosmologists and theoretical physicists can now say with a reasonable level of confidence that they have theoretically travelled as far back in time as possible to the beginning of the universe. They predicted the states in which our universe could be. They saw how hadrons, leptons and antileptons were formed from energy, and how they annihilated each other so that only one part in a billion of matter (or hadrons and leptons) remains. They saw how the four forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear) were formed, followed by the formation of hydrogen and helium nuclei, followed by light atoms, such as hydrogen, helium and lithium atoms. They saw how these elements then gathered in giant gaseous clouds that moved and revolved, raising their temperatures until they reached the point of nucleus fusion. Giant nuclear factories called stars were then formed, wherein the remaining heavier elements (such as carbon and iron) were cooked. The star would explode after running out of nuclear fuel, spreading these elements in the universe and forming a part of the planets or the stars of the next generation. This continued until finally forming our current universe that we see today.

Cosmologists may be able to assert all of the above, yet it can also be scientifically stated that everything we observe and all of the laws we discover only describe a place within the universe in which we are situated. In other words, the observed region we live in and call “the universe” is only a part of the universe, and the features we observe and laws we write only provide an expression for this region. We can imagine this region in the universe as a block of ice floating on one of the earth’s oceans. There is also a beginning of the universe that is completely blocked from us―it cannot be observed and its details cannot be entirely determined. Whatever anyone presents regarding the issue will always consist of just possibilities and assumptions.

In following this account of the first three minutes, the reader may feel that he can detect a note of scientific overconfidence. He might be right. However, I do not believe that scientific progress is always best advanced by keeping an altogether open mind. It is often necessary to forget one’s doubts and to follow the consequences of one’s assumptions wherever they may lead-the great thing is not to be free of theoretical prejudices, but to have the right theoretical prejudices. And always, the test of any theoretical preconception is in where it leads. The standard model of the early universe has scored some successes, and it provides a coherent theoretical framework for future experimental programs. This does not mean that it is true, but it does mean that it deserves to be taken seriously.

Nevertheless, there is one great uncertainty that hangs like a dark cloud over the standard model. Underlying all the calculations described in this chapter is the Cosmological Principle, the assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. (By “homogeneous” we mean that the universe looks the same to any observer who is carried along by the general expansion of the universe, wherever that observer may be located; by “isotropic” we mean that the universe looks the same in all directions to such an observer.) We know from direct observation that the cosmic microwave radiation background is highly isotropic about us, and from this we infer that the universe has been highly isotropic and homogeneous ever since the radiation went out of equilibrium with matter, at a temperature of about 3,000° K. However, we have no evidence that the Cosmological Principle was valid at earlier times.

It is possible that the universe was initially highly inhomogeneous and anisotropic, but has subsequently been smoothed out by the frictional forces exerted by the parts of the expanding universe on each other. Such a “mixmaster” model has been particularly advocated by Charles Misner of the University of Maryland. It is even possible that the heat generated by the frictional homogenization and isotropization of the universe is responsible for the enormous 1,000 millionto-one present ratio of photons to nuclear particles. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one can say why the universe should have any special initial degree of inhomogeneity or anisotropy, and no one knows how to calculate the heat produced by its smoothing out.

In my opinion, the appropriate response to such uncertainties is not (as some cosmologists might like) to scrap the standard model, but rather to take it very seriously and work out its consequences thoroughly, if only in the hope of turning up a contradiction with observation. It is not even clear that a large initial anisotropy and inhomogeneity would have much effect on the story presented in this chapter. It might be that the universe was smoothed out in the first few seconds; in that case the cosmological production of helium and deuterium could be calculated as if the Cosmological Principle were always valid. Even if the anisotropy and inhomogeneity of the universe persisted beyond the era of helium synthesis, the helium and deuterium production in any uniformly expanding clump would depend only on the expansion rate within that clump, and might not be very different from the production calculated in the standard model. It might even be that the whole universe that we can see when we look all the way back to the time of nucleosynthesis is but a homogeneous and isotropic clump within a larger inhomogeneous and anisotropic universe.

The uncertainty surrounding the Cosmological Principle becomes really important when we look back to the very beginning or forward to the final end of the universe. I will continue to rely on this Principle in most of the last two chapters. However, it must always be admitted that our simple cosmological models may only describe a small part of the universe, or a limited portion of its history (Weinberg 1993, 119-21).

In fact, Steven Weinberg believes that perhaps in the future, it will become clear to us that some of what we now consider universal laws of physics are actually laws that are formulated and based on historical events, like the rotation of the planets of the solar system around the sun, the cause being the direction of rotation of the rotating, gaseous dust cloud from which the sun and the planets were formed. This cloud is used to rotate in this direction, and that is why the planets rotate in the same direction. This is a historical event and not a law of physics.

Of course whatever determinism survives in principle does not help us very much when we have to deal with real systems that are not simple, like the stock market or life on earth. The intrusion of historical accidents sets permanent limits on what we can ever hope to explain. Any explanation of the present forms of life on earth must take into account the extinction of the dinosaurs sixty-five million years ago, which is currently explained by the impact of a comet, but no one will ever be able to explain why a comet happened to hit the earth at just that time. The most extreme hope for science is that we will be able to trace the explanations of all natural phenomena to final laws and historical accidents.

The intrusion of historical accidents into science means also that we have to be careful what sort of explanations we demand from our final laws. For instance, when Newton first proposed his laws of motion and gravitation the objection was raised that these laws did not explain one of the outstanding regularities of the solar system, that all the planets are going around the sun in the same direction. Today we understand that this is a matter of history. The way that the planets revolve around the sun is a consequence of the particular way that the solar system condensed out of a rotating disc of gas. We would not expect to be able to deduce it from the laws of motion and gravitation alone. The separation of law and history is a delicate business, one we are continually learning how to do as we go along.

Not only is it possible that what we now regard as arbitrary initial conditions may ultimately be deduced from universal laws-it is also conversely possible that principles that we now regard as universal laws will eventually turn out to represent historical accidents. Recently a number of theoretical physicists have been playing with the idea that what we usually call the universe, the expanding cloud of galaxies that extends in all directions for at least tens of billions of light years, is merely a subuniverse, a small part of a much larger megauniverse consisting of many such parts… (Weinberg 1992, 37-38).

Shortly After the Beginning

The laws of physics cannot describe the state of the universe before 10-43 seconds after the big bang, despite what has been asserted by some string theory theorists. For this reason, the following description begins after this time. In fact, it begins after it by a time period sufficient for the universe to cool and allow for the formation of the parts of atoms that we know. The description continues until we reach the present time. We are to bear in mind that this description is nothing but information based on mathematical equations and data from observation and measurements of our current universe. In this universe, we have also observed some events from the distant and near past. When we look into the depths of the universe, we find events that go back further in time, because as we know, they move at a fixed speed even if it is the speed of light. It is for this reason that these events reach us after the time of their occurrence by a period directly proportional to the distance between us and them.

We shall tell our story as it occurred in a series of events shortly after the beginning until the present day. However, cosmologists did not learn about or read this story as it happened. Rather, the way they read and learned about it is more akin to reading a book from end to beginning. This reverse reading may be infused with reading things from the middle of the story. This is because, as we have previously clarified, the more distant the events are from us, the later they are in reaching us.

In theoretical physics, we reach the conclusion that, at the beginning, or before the 10-43 second (meaning around Planck time) the universe was so small that in order for physicists to understand the manner in which it behaved, they needed a theory and an equation that combines Einstein’s general theory of relativity-which describes the universe and the large objects therein such as stars and planets-with Planck’s quantum theory-which describes things that are infinitely small, like photons and electrons.

At this temperature all sorts of strange things would have been going on. Not only would gravitational forces have been strong and particle production by gravitational fields copious-the very idea of “particle” would not yet have had any meaning. The “horizon”, the distance beyond which it is impossible yet to have received any signals, would at this time be closer than one wavelength of a typical particle in thermal equilibrium. Speaking loosely, each particle would be about as big as the observable universe! (Weinberg 1993, 146).

Until now, the theory of everything, or the equation that describes the infinitely large (the universe) and the infinitely small (quantum particles) does not exist in a form that theoretical physicists and cosmologists completely accept. There is the M theory, which is a theory in the making, and it may need to be adjusted and to pass some tests for it to be validated. To date, M theory remains an equation that is well proven mathematically. M theory or the superstring theory will be discussed later on.

To understand the behavior of space, time, matter, and energy from the big bang to present day is one of the greatest triumphs of human thought. If you seek a complete explanation for the events of the earliest moments, when the universe was smaller and hotter than ever thereafter, you must find a way to enable the four known forces of nature-gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and the weak nuclear forces-to talk to one another, to unify and become a single metaforce. You must also find a way to reconcile two currently incompatible branches of physics: quantum mechanics (the science of the small) and general relativity (the science of the large).

Spurred by the successful marriage of quantum mechanics and electromagnetism during the mid-twentieth century, physicists moved swiftly to blend quantum mechanics and general relativity into a single and coherent theory of quantum gravity. Although so far they have all failed, we already know where the high hurdles lie: during the “Planck era.” That’s the cosmic phase up to 10-43 second (one ten-million-trillion-trillion-trillionth of a second) after the beginning.

Because information can never travel more rapidly than the speed of light, 3 x 108 meters per second, a hypothetical observer situated anywhere in the universe during the Planck era could see no farther than 3 x 10-35 meter (three hundred billion trillion-trillionths of a meter).

The German physicist Max Planck, after whom these unimaginably small times and distances are named, introduced the idea of quantized energy in 1900 and generally receives credit as the father of quantum mechanics.

Not to worry, though, so far as daily life goes. The clash between quantum mechanics and gravity poses no practical problem for the contemporary universe. Astrophysicists apply the tenets and tools of general relativity and quantum mechanics to extremely different classes of problems. But in the beginning, during the Planck era, the large was small, so there must have been a kind of shotgun wedding between the two. Alas, the vows exchanged during that ceremony continue to elude us, so no (known) laws of physics describe with any confidence how the universe behaved during the brief honeymoon, before the expanding universe forced the very large and very small to part ways.

At the end of the Planck era, gravity wriggled itself loose from the other, still-unified forces of nature, achieving an independent identity nicely described by our current theories. As the universe aged past 10-35 second, it continued to expand and to cool, and what remained of the once-unified forces divided into the electro-weak force and the strong nuclear force. Later still, the electroweak force split into the electromagnetic and the weak nuclear forces, laying bare four distinct and familiar forces-with the weak force controlling radioactive decay, the strong force binding together the particles in each atomic nucleus, the electromagnetic force holding atoms together in molecules, and gravity binding matter in bulk. By the time the universe aged a trillionth of a second, its transmogrified forces, along with other critical episodes, had already imbued the cosmos with its fundamental properties, each worthy of its own book (Origins 2004, 41-44).

We can sum up what concerns us from the story of the universe that starts shortly after the beginning as follows:

After the big bang we came to have a hot universe. After it cooled slightly, in fractions of a second, it became composed of leptons, quarks, antiquarks, bosons and photons. However, quarks and leptons outnumber their antiparticles by one per billion, meaning that matter outnumbers antimatter. This outnumbering is the reason behind the existence of the stars and planets, as well as of our bodies.

A fraction of a millionth of a second later, the universe cooled some more and allowed quarks to combine and cohere. Thus quarks combined together, forming material particles heavier than leptons called hadrons (such as protons and neutrons). Consequently, antihadrons were formed, but in a ratio the same as that of quarks and antiquarks. So there was a one to a billion increase in favor of hadrons or matter over antimatter. As the universe continued to expand and cool, and the energy of photons consequently declined, the energy of photons was no longer sufficient to produce hadrons and antihadrons. As a result, only the excess material remained, meaning one hadron remained for every billion that vanished in favor of a billion photons that have less energy than before. This is a result of the expansion of the universe (matter and energy) between the first second and the end of the second second after the beginning of the big bang.

However, during this time, the heat of the universe (and consequently, the energy of photons) was sufficient to produce electrons and positrons (antielectrons). Once the universe (matter and energy) had continued to expand and cool, it reached a temperature below the threshold temperature of electrons, and the energy of photons was no longer sufficient to produce electrons and positrons. At this point, the same thing that happened to hadrons in the past happened to the electrons and positrons. Matter (electrons) and antimatter (positrons) were annihilated and the excess matter remained, which we previously said is one part in a billion. Thus, one electron remained for every billion pair of electrons and positrons that vanished.

We now have hadrons (protons and neutrons) and electrons in the universe, and they are the fundamental structures of atoms. As the universe continued to cool, it allowed hadrons to combine and cohere in the first few minutes and to form the nuclei of hydrogen, helium, and some other light elements like heavy hydrogen.

Hundreds of thousands of years later, as the universe cooled further, it reached a temperature less than 3000 K. This allowed the formation of hydrogen and helium atoms from nuclei and electrons that were freely floating in the universe, (which had previously formed, as we have explained above). Furthermore, the universe became translucent, allowing for vision as the electrons became confined in the atoms, and photons began moving freely after electrons got out of their way. At this point, we arrive at the emergence of the material universe we see. With regard to the other elements, they are still continuously being produced and cooked in the process of the nuclear burning of hydrogen and helium or the restructure and reformation of atoms in burning or exploding stars.

The universe will go on expanding and cooling, but not much of interest will occur for 700,000 years. At that time the temperature will drop to the point where electrons and nuclei can form stable atoms… (Weinberg 1993, 112). As the universe expanded, the energy carried by each photon decreased. Eventually, about the time that the young universe reached its 380,000th birthday, its temperature dropped below 3,000 degrees, with the result that protons and helium nuclei could permanently capture electrons, thus bringing atoms into the universe. In previous epochs, every photon had sufficient energy to break apart a newly formed atom, but now the photons had lost this ability, thanks to the cosmic expansion (Tyson 2004, 53).

Figure 29: The stages of the emergence of the universe, from the big bang to the present day. Reference: ESA - European Space Agency.

Antimatter:

Following Einstein’s special theory of relativity, the equivalence principle and quantum mechanics theory, Paul Dirac, who made fundamental contributions to quantum mechanics, found that when calculating energy levels, they give positive as well as negative mathematical results. These negative results discovered by Dirac had no accurate explanation except that they were like holes that can hide the electron should it fall into them. In 1932, while observing cosmic radiation, Carl Anderson discovered a particle that had the mass of the electron but with a positive charge. This particle was called the positron or the antielectron. This was the hole of the electron that would cause both the electron and positron to disappear if the electron were to fall into it.*

The stage of discovering antimatter particles had begun and, subsequently, the opposites of other particles were discovered.

Antiparticles have the same mass as the material particle they counter. However, they usually have an opposing charge. Sometimes, parts of the antiparticle (i.e. quarks) have charges that oppose the parts of the material particle. This is the case with the neutron, which has zero charge.†

The electron has a negative charge, while the antielectron (or positron) has a positive charge.

The proton has a positive charge and the antiproton has a negative charge.

The neutron has a neither positive nor negative charge, as is the case with the antineutron. However, they are both composed of quarks whose charges oppose one another.

If they collide, antimatter and matter are annihilated, releasing high energy. Likewise, high-energy photons (like gamma ray photons) can have their high energy transformed into particles of matter and antimatter, for example the electron and positron, within the boundaries of Einstein’s law, E=mc2.

The photons of the universe were high-energy at the beginning of its formation. That is why the particle pairs of matter and antimatter used to appear and get annihilated continuously, leaving high-energy photons behind that repeat the cycle, and so on.

A team of researchers were able to synthesize antihydrogen atoms, although they were able to maintain them for only a fraction of a second, as antimatter cannot be contained within a jar of matter because together they would be annihilated. The way of preserving antimatter is by containing it within the walls of a strong magnetic field. However, this field does not prevent the atoms of matter from going through it. Consequently, the lifespan of synthesized antimatter is short as long as matter surrounds it.

One important issue about antimatter remains, namely that the standard model assumes the material universe was formed due to the outnumbering of matter particles by one in every billion at the beginning of the universe’s formation. There is no justification for this outnumbering. For this reason, it is indeed reasonable to assume the existence of antimatter in one of the borders of the universe, perhaps in a corner that is distant from the matter under our observation. If antimatter was present within the same scope as matter, and a mass of matter collided with a mass of antimatter about the size of a star, the energy released by their annihilation would be extremely high, as per Einstein’s law of E=mc2, and this energy may be estimated to be equal to the energy of billions of stars.

If energy of this measure is released at once, it may certainly be observed, even if it is in the most distant of galaxies. This is especially the case given the great advancement of cosmology. For this reason, if antimatter exists, it must be in a corner of the universe other than the corner wherein exist the material galactic clusters that we know, observe and live in.

Still, the universe now seems disturbingly imbalanced: we expect particles and antiparticles to be created in equal numbers, yet we find a cosmos dominated by ordinary particles, which seem to be perfectly happy without their antiparticles. Do hidden pockets of antimatter in the universe account for the imbalance? Was a law of physics violated (or was an unknown law of physics at work?) during the early universe, forever tipping the balance in favor of matter over antimatter? We may never know the answers to these questions… (Tyson & Goldsmith 2004, 65).

Dark Matter

The earth revolves around the sun in a particular orbit and at a particular speed. The speed within this orbit is determined by gravitational force: a force exerted by a body on another. The effect of this force appears clearly in large objects, because it accumulates and increases as mass increases. Its laws were developed by well-known physicist Isaac Newton. However, it had been a mysterious force in physics until Einstein’s general theory of relativity explained it to be the result of the bending of the fabric of the universe, or the spacetime fabric, depending on the mass of the object.

Hypothetically, if the sun had a much greater mass than it actually does, it would bend the spacetime fabric to a greater degree. Consequently, the earth (with its current orbit and speed) would move out of its current path and fall towards the sun due to gravitational force. For earth to rid itself of this fate, it must rotate at a greater speed so that its moment of inertia torque keeps it in the same path. Likewise, if we assume that the earth moved at a speed greater than it currently does, and that its speed was enough to escape the gravitation of the sun (meaning it reached the escape velocity), it would then move out of its orbit, away from the sun. In order to prevent this speeding earth from escaping its orbit and moving away from the sun, the mass of the sun must be increased so that its gravitation is sufficient to prevent the earth from escaping its orbit and moving away from it.

What is stated here is based on Newton’s gravitational law, and in the same manner in which it applies to the earth, it also applies to the galaxies. An example is the gravitational effect of the mass of a galaxy on the stars and planets therein, and the effect of a cluster’s mass on the galaxies, and the gravitational effect of a galaxy’s mass on another galaxy.

Ever since the 1930s, observations have recorded galaxies in some galaxy clusters moving at a high speed that exceeds the speed at which the force of attraction allows for galaxy clusters. In other words, these galaxies move at a greater speed than the speed of escaping, yet they remain in its orbit. This means that there is gravitation that prevents it from escaping or makes it move at this speed. Even at the present time, the observations have confirmed that it exists around us in the universe and on a large scale, for many of the galaxy clusters confirm that there is a great force of attraction making the galaxies move at a higher speed. The clusters would be unable to remain in their state if not for the existence of the force of attraction that protects these clusters from dissipating and dispersing in the universe once its galaxies exceed the escape velocity, within the limits of calculating the gravity of visible matter within the galaxy clusters. Also observed was a force of gravitation in excess of what visible matter provides in spiral galaxies.

The conclusion reached by astronomers from the observations is that there is a force of attraction abundant within the universe, the source of which is unknown. When astronomers termed it dark matter, they described it as not reacting with ordinary matter or reacting with the utmost weakness, insofar as it is not noticeable, nor does it affect ordinary matter through the force of attraction generated.

Thus, we have a force of attraction the cause of which is unobservable and not manifestly known to the astronomers and physicists - at least until the present time.

Initially, some physicists had rejected this line of reasoning, regarding the laws of Newton as utterly incorrect, requiring amendment with respect to massive volumes such as the galaxies and galaxy clusters since the distances between the stars within the galaxies are far apart. This is also the case with regard to the distances between galaxies and galaxy clusters. However, such an amendment of Newton’s laws did not succeed in explaining the source of the excess force of attraction in a correct and acceptable manner. In addition, there is evidence affirming the existence of dark matter or the additional gravitational force beyond the gravitational force that is provided from known matter. Consequently, the laws of Newton have been correct and the universe needed at its beginning of creation a greater force of attraction than that which is provided by the known matter. This enables the galaxy clusters and galaxies to form rather than to disperse the matter in the universe, which came into being at the start of its creation.

During the first half million years after the big bang, a mere moment in the 14-billion-year sweep of cosmic history, matter in the universe had already begun to coalesce into the blobs that would become clusters and superclusters of galaxies. But the cosmos was expanding all along, and would double in size during its next half million years. So the universe responds to two competing effects: gravity wants to make stuff coagulate, but the expansion wants to dilute it. If you do the math, you rapidly deduce that the gravity from ordinary matter could not win this battle by itself. It needed the help of dark matter, without which we would be living-actually not living-in a universe with no structure: no clusters, no galaxies, no stars, no planets, no people. How much gravity from dark matter did it need? Six times as much as that provided by ordinary matter itself. This analysis leaves no room for MOND’s little corrective terms in Newton’s laws. The analysis doesn’t tell us what dark matter is, only that dark matter’s effects are real-and that, try as you may, you cannot credit ordinary matter for it (Tyson & Goldsmith 2004, 71-72).

Alongside the hypothesis of the existence of dark matter to explain the additional increase, or the hypothesis that Newton’s laws are incorrect, and amending them according to the big sizes, there is also the theory of multiple universes presented by Hugh Everett. This theory has gained considerable currency within scientific circles, especially following the proposal of the superstring theory and M-theory and mathematical proof of it, as well as the demonstration of dimensions other than the four known and perceivable dimensions (the three dimensions of space and the dimension of time). Scientifically, if there was a phantom universe, unobservable and parallel to our universe, it is possible that this universe will have an effect upon our universe through the force of attraction. For example, insofar as it is possible to assume the string of the force of gravity-or the graviton particle-is free and unconnected to the fabric of the cosmos or the brane in which we live and thus it is possible to transfer it from one universe to another. The consequence of this is that the existence of a universe parallel to our own is sufficient to explain the force of gravity of an unknown source, causing an increase in the speed of the galaxies moving within the galaxy clusters.*

In this brane world, we would live on one brane but there would be another “shadow” brane nearby. Because light would be confined to the branes and would not propagate through the space between, we could not see the shadow world. But we would feel the gravitational influence of matter on the shadow brane. In our brane such gravitational forces would appear to be produced by sources that were truly “dark” in that the only way we could detect them is through their gravity. In fact in order to explain the rate at which stars orbit the center of our galaxy, it seems there must be more mass than is accounted for by the matter we observe (Hawking 2001, 184).

The missing mass might arise from some exotic species of particle in our world such as WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) or axions (very light elementary particles). But missing mass could also be evidence of the existence of a shadow world with matter in it. Maybe it contains shallow human beings wondering about the mass that seems to be missing from their world to account for the orbits of shadow stars around the center of the shadow galaxy (Hawking 2001, 188).

Dark Energy:

During the twentieth century, astronomical observations of Type Ia supernova-which explodes when a white dwarf reaches 1.4 solar masses-have provided cosmological standard candles by which it is possible to know astronomical distances accurately. This is because when this type of white dwarf explodes and transforms into a supernova, they all produce the same luminosity and dim at the same rate since they all have a nearly identical composition. Additionally, they all explode when reaching the same 1.4 solar masses, which represents the white dwarf’s maximum mass, as it strips the hydrogen-rich gases from its aging companion star. As such, density and heat continuously increase until the temperature reaches more than 10 million degrees and nuclear fusion of the entire white dwarf occurs. The star then ignites and explodes massively, tearing the star apart and producing a supernova that is greater than Type Ia.

The cause of the increase or decrease in the brightness of the white dwarfs is the distance between them and the observer, or the distance between the supernova and the observer. This is what makes them standard candles for accurately determining astronomical distances, as has been previously mentioned. For example, if we already know the distance between us and a supernova and then want to measure the distance between us and a second supernova that has a quarter of the first supernova’s brightness, then the distance between us and the second supernova is twice the distance between us and the first supernova. This is due to the fact that brightness is proportional to the square of the distance. This also means that, if we know the distance between us and a supernova, we are able to calculate its luminosity. Since supernovae are continuously exploding in the universe around us, they have provided accurate information about astronomical distances. In

addition, observing them showed how fast the universe (matter and

energy) is expanding.

At the end of the twentieth century, a team of researchers who

observed supernovae concluded that a supernova far from us is less

bright than it should be. This means that the universe is expanding at

a speed greater than expected, which in turn means there is increasing,

massive, unknown energy resisting the gravity of the mass of cosmic

matter and pushing toward expansion at an increasing rate.

Once a tool for measuring precise astronomical distances had been

developed, astronomers measured distances of galaxies and the speed

of their distancing, and discovered that there is a great unknown en-

ergy fighting the gravitational force of matter in the universe. It is also

actively partaking in the continuous expansion of the universe at an

increasing rate. This energy was called dark energy.

With regard to calculating this mathematically, based on both the

above and other available results and observations, astronomers were know the value of the difference between ΩΛ - ΩΜ = 0.46 ± 0.03. able to represents the ratio of the density provided by dark energy to ΩΛ the critical density. ΩΜ represents the ratio of the average density of all matter in the universe to the critical density.

The critical density is the density at which the curvature of the

universe is zero, according to Einstein’s equations.

According to the results of astronomical observations, in the vis-

ible universe, the ratio of the average density of all matter including

dark matter in the universe-calculated based on gravity-to the criti- 0.25, meaning ΩΜ ≈ 0.25. cal density is almost equal to we can find that the value ΩΛ From the above equation, of is:

ΩΩΛΛ = ΩΜ + 0.46 + 0.25 ≈ 0.71 = 0.46 (±0.03)

This means that ΩΛ + ΩΜ = 0.96~0.99. To some physicists and astronomers, this number is almost one, meaning the curvature of the universe is zero.

From Einstein’s relativity equations concerning the shape of the universe and its expansion or stability, we can know the value of the critical density of matter in the universe. Critical density is the density of matter in the universe at which the curvature of space is zero. Actual density is the density of the universe that is actually measured, including the cosmic energy converted to the matter that it equals according to Einstein’s equation E = mc2.

If the actual density is larger than the critical density, the curvature of the universe is positive like the surface of a sphere. This also means that, if our universe is expanding, it will eventually contract and its expansion will not continue forever.

If the actual density is smaller than the critical density, the curvature of the universe is negative like the surface of hyperbolic paraboloid and its expansion will continue forever.

If the value of the actual density is equal to the value of the critical density, the curvature of the universe is zero, or let’s say it is flat, and its expansion will continue. However, the rate of its expansion will slow down and approach zero without ever actually reaching it.

According to the previous results, the ratio is approximately 1. This means that the actual density is equal to the critical density, which in turn means that the curvature of the universe is zero or, in other words, it is flat.

Figure 30: Friedmann Models. Wheeler, A. J. - A journey into gravity and spacetime.

In addition to what supernovae have provided, as mentioned above, scientists have been able to determine the sum of ΩΛ and ΩΜ and that their value is approximately 1.02 ± 0.02. This finding is the result of research conducted at the end of the twentieth century and beginning of the twenty-first century whereby cosmic background radiation was observed and a precise map of the deviations within it was drawn using sophisticated equipment mounted on aircraft and satellites. If we return to the result provided by supernovae of the value of the difference between them, we would obtain almost the same result, which is that their sum is approximately 1.

Therefore, the cosmological constant in Einstein’s equation is not 0 as previously expected, while there is an unknown energy, or dark energy, that represents the majority of the energy affecting the universe. If converted to mass, it would be the greatest contributor to the mass of the universe.

A further point to establish is that the curvature of the universe is 0, meaning that it is flat.

The WMAP data show that the largest deviations from smoothness o+infΩethxΛ peheaCrsiBmaRevnastlpaualenaocacfnu1r.a0anc2gy, ,lpewluoesfmoabaryomuctionn1ucdslue0gd.r0ee2te.h,TawthhΩuiscΜ,h+wiΩimtΛhpi=lnie1t,shatenhdlaitmthΩiatΜst space is flat. The result from observations of distant SN Ia’s may be ΩΩΛΛ-+ΩΩΜΜ stated as = 0.46. If we combine this result with the conclusion that = 1 , we find that ΩΜ = 0.27 and = ΩΛ = 0.73, with an

uncertainty of a few percent in each number. As already noted, these

are the astrophysicists’ current best estimates for the values of these

two key cosmic parameters, which tell us that matter-both ordinary

and dark-provides 27 percent of the total energy density in the uni-

verse, and dark energy 73 percent. (If we prefer to think of energy’s

mass equivalent, E/c2, then dark energy furnishes 73 percent of all the

mass.) (Tyson 2004, 95).

Regarding the origin of dark energy, some physicists think that quantum mechanics provides a sufficient explanation, since hypothetical particles constantly appear and disappear in a completely empty space. This is because there are quantum fluctuations of emptiness, according to the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, as was previously demonstrated.

The space of matter and energy increases with the expansive spread of matter and energy, irrespective of whether it is a part of a bigger space and galaxies, given their diverging and accelerating movement over time, occupy a bigger part than it does, or whether it is the entire universal space and it was miniscule in the past, and began its expansion with the big bang.

Assuming that dark energy comes from the quantum fluctuations

of empty space, the result would be that with the expansion of space,

dark energy increases in the empty space between matter along with

an increased dispersal of matter in the universe. As a result, what is

expected in a flat universe, which has a non-zero cosmological constant

in Einstein’s equation of relativity, is that it tends toward an increase Ioztef riΩos,ΛeaaxntpdtehctetheaedtxptΩheΛnatsweΩoouΜflwdΩoΜrue, lacdcohnresaatacnnhutmlay,bnaeusrmtahbseeycrlmoassaeicnalotsasipenoasasssibpulomesstoiobf looennteeo.. However, this requires a vast period of time.

Theoretically, the cosmological constant can be very large. If we

now return to the beginning of the formation of the universe and as-

sume that the cosmological constant is much bigger than it is now-as

is expected theoretically-then the density of the dark energy would aΩΩnΜΜd.wtRhietahtΩihnΛerva,astlhmueealwvlaiplluleernioootdfrΩoeqfΛutwhireoeuaalgldleobofefthmthauetctuhimnbievigetgroseeerx(tcpheeaerndhatthhpees be large value of value of

a few million years). This means that the growing influence of the co-

lossal amount of dark energy will make the expansion of the universe

occur rapidly and lead to the dispersal and scattering of matter into

space, since it will not allow the stars, planets and galaxies to form, and

no life will exist in the universe. This means that the current suitable

cosmological constant for the emergence of life in the universe is evi-

dence that the universe is codified for life to emerge within it, because

the possibilities of the cosmological constant are numerous. It would

not be rational for it to occur without prior intention that the cosmo-

logical constant, in terms of universal observations, being a great deal

less than theoretically expected. Consequently, it is suitable for the

galaxies, the stars, the planets and for the emergence of life.

The straightforward application of quantum theory to what we call a vacuum predicts that quantum fluctuations must create dark energy. When we tell the story from this perspective, the great question about dark energy seems to be, Why did cosmologists take so long to recognize that this energy must exist?

Unfortunately, the details of the actual situation turn this question into, How did particle physicists go so far wrong? Calculations of the amount of dark energy that lurks in every cubic centimeter produce a value of about 120 powers of ten greater than the value that cosmologists have found from observations of supernovae and the cosmic background radiation. In far-out astronomical situations, calculations that prove correct to within a single factor of 10 are often judged at least temporarily acceptable, but a factor of 10120 cannot be swept under the rug, even by physics Pollyannas. If real empty space contained dark energy in anything like the amounts proposed by particle physics, the universe would have long since puffed itself into so large a volume that our heads could never have begun to spin, since a tiny fraction of a second would have sufficed to spread matter out to unimaginable rarefaction (Tyson & Goldsmith 2004, 99-100).

In an attempt to explain the fixing of the cosmological constant, several universes are shown here in multiple ways by the physicists and the cosmologists. There is an assumption that states: that we live in a universe that is part of a sequence of several universes - unconnected to each other. Each universe has its own space that has been formed by many chance events and explosions inside an entity with higher dimensions. Here we can imagine that our universe is an output of one of these many chance events and explosions, most of which have been formed by a cosmological constant that does not allow the emergence of life within them. Therefore, the presented quandary no longer exists.

However, this remains a mere hypothesis. We may assert that every one of the multiple universes originated from a universe higher than it. Accordingly, they do not share a common origin and thus this does not solve the problem of probability in the fixing of the cosmological constant. One may further add to this that the hypothesis of the multiple universes itself leads to additional questions regarding those multiple universes and the possibility of influencing each other even if the quantitative variations in the space is an output of this influence.

To this point, this is a general hypothesis that represents a weak response to what has been proved according to actual universal observations-namely, that the current cosmological constant, at that amount, is suitable for the emergence of life and hence the emergence of our bodies. This is the case even if it was not with this amount-but, rather, a far bigger amount-as is hypothesized according to the theoretical principles when life emerged in this universe. This means that it was intended with life as it objective. Thus, this proves the existence of God.

… in the multiverse concept, the entire state of affairs embeds in higher dimensions, so space in our universe remains completely inaccessible to any other universe, and vice versa. This lack of even theoretically possible interactions puts the multiverse theory into the category of apparently nonstable, and therefore nonverifiable, hypotheses-at least until wiser minds find ways to test the multiverse model. In the multiverse, new universes are born at completely random times, capable of swelling up by inflation into enormous volumes of space, and of doing so without interfering in the least with the infinite number of other universes (Tyson & Goldsmith 2004, 103).

There are astrophysicists who respond that this argument exists because we exist here, meaning that the dilemma is related to the observer or the human being. In other words, our existence limits the value of the cosmological constant. Due to the fact that we exist here and we have observed the cosmological constant, its current value has acquired importance. This solution to the dilemma of the cosmological constant is termed the anthropic principle or the anthropic approach. However, in reality, it bestows importance upon the existence of the human observer of the cosmological constant insofar as he or she is attempting to solve the dilemma of the cosmological constant. Therefore, at present, according to the anthropic principle or anthropic approach, the cosmological constant and the universe become worthless without the existence of the human who observes it - as we demonstrated previously in quantum mechanics. In this case, the human and his or her existence become highly important since there is no cognitive or scientific value to the universe without the existence of the observer (the human). The universe as we know it now does not exist without the human, and this means that the human is the first cosmological goal. As long as there is a goal, a higher, purposeful power or god is behind it.

However, suppose that only in the smooth regions were galaxies and stars formed and were conditions right for the development of complicated self-replicating organisms like ourselves who were capable of asking the question: why is the universe so smooth? This is an example of the application of what is known as the anthropic principle, which can be paraphrased as “We see the universe the way it is because we exist.” (Hawking 2003, 124).

There is another paradigm of the multiple universes to solve the represented dilemma of the cosmological constant. It is called the Ekpyrotic model, and it depends on the superstring or the M theory. This paradigm assumes the existence of multiple universes on the shape of extended diaphragms/ membranes and collisions occur between them, and every collision that occurs produces a big bang in both of the clashed membranes and hence a new universe in/within both of them, and naturally with the multiplicity of the universes, some of them would be life producer, beside universes most of them are unproductive.

… Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who could use some tutoring in creating catchy names, has produced a theoretical “ekpyrotic model” of the cosmos in collaboration with Neil Turok of Cambridge University. Motivated by the section of particle physics called string theory, Steinhardt envisions a universe with eleven dimensions, most of which are “compactified,” more or less rolled up like a sock, so that they occupy only infinitesimal amounts of space. But some of the additional dimensions have real size and significance, except that we can’t perceive them because we remain locked into our familiar four. If you pretend that all of space in our universe fills an infinite thin sheet (this model reduces the three dimensions of space to two), “you can imagine another, parallel sheet, and then picture the two sheets approaching and colliding. The collision produces the big bang, and as the sheets rebound from one another, each sheet’s history proceeds along familiar lines, giving birth to galaxies and stars. Eventually, the two sheets cease to separate and start to approach one another again, producing another collision and another big bang in each sheet. The universe thus has a cyclical history, repeating itself, at least in its broadest outlines, at intervals of hundreds of billions of years. Since “ekpyrosis” means “conflagration” in Greek (recall the more familiar word “pyromaniac”), the “ekpyrotic universe” reminds all those with Greek at the tips of their brains of the great fire that gave birth to the cosmos that we know.

This ekpyrotic model of the universe has emotional and intellectual appeal, though not enough to win the hearts and minds of many of Steinhardt’s fellow cosmologists. Not yet, anyhow. Something vaguely like the ekpyrotic model, if not this model itself, may someday offer the breakthrough that cosmologists now await in their attempts to explain the dark energy. Even those who favor the anthropic approach would hardly dig in their heels to resist a new theory that could provide a good explanation for the cosmological constant without invoking an infinite number of universes, of which ours happens to be one of the lucky ones (Tyson & Goldsmith 2004, 106-07).

Multiple Universes:

It has been demonstrated that there are real quandaries or at the very least, areas of ambiguity in quantum mechanics, especially with regard to probability and uncertainty. There is no convincing answer for everybody in Bohr, Heisenberg or others concerning the destiny of the other expected possibilities for the particle or the wave, not recorded in the observation and collapse of the function of the wave. To solve these dilemmas, a postgraduate student in Princeton University named Hugh Everett presented the theory of the multiple universes.

The importance of Everett’s work, published in 1957, is that he took this seemingly outrageous idea and put it on a secure mathematical foundation using the established rules of quantum theory. It is one thing to speculate about the nature of the universe, but quite another to develop those speculations into a complete, self-consistent theory of reality (Gribbin 1984, 238).

All other possibilities of occurrence - or shall we call it alternative reality - exist within these multiple universes, even if we have not observed even one of these possibilities. Certainly, this is the reality that we currently live and see. Therefore, instead of answering illogically by stating that the other possibilities disappeared or evaporated at the moment of observation and that the moment of observation created one of the possibilities - reality - and removed the other - the alternative reality-and instead of giving the observer and the measurement process an incomprehensible influence in creating a reality and making another disappear, Hugh introduced an explanation stating that all possibilities exist in reality and have been actualized, but in other worlds or other universes. This means that there is no breakdown in the function of the wave. Rather, more than one true reality exists, but in different worlds and universes that appear in the interference that can be measured at the quantum level that occurs when we measure the particle. For example, when we choose one of these realistic images and observe it, that same observation process prevents us from watching and measuring the rest of the realistic images. For this reason, we are able to measure and observe one of the realistic images.

This means that in the experiment of the two sides, when one electron was sent toward the two sides and the back screen was recording an interference, there was, in reality, a particle entering from the first side and a particle entering from the second side. However, when we observe both sides and see the particle cross through one of them, what is happening is that we see what is occurring in one of the universes while what happens in the other universe is concealed from us and see the particle that we observed in the first universe.

This in fact not only means that there are multiple universes, but it also means that one particle has more than one existence. In other words, it has at least one existence in every universe and therefore, we too exist in other universes.

Most significantly, as a result, causality has been restored to quantum mechanics and quantitative events have become reasoned and logical.

SCHRöDINGER’S CATS It is hard to grasp what this means when we talk about the collapse of the wave function of the whole universe, but much easier to see why Everett’s approach represents a step forward if we look at a more homely example. Our search for the real cat hidden inside Schrödinger’s paradoxical box has, at last, come to an end, for that box provides just the example I need to demonstrate the power of the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The surprise is that the trail leads not to one real cat, but two.

The equations of quantum mechanics tell us that inside the box of Schrödinger’s famous thought experiment there are versions of a “live cat” and “dead cat” wave function that are equally real. The conventional, Copenhagen interpretation looks at these possibilities from a different perspective, and says, in effect, that both wave functions are equally unreal, and that only one of them crystallizes as reality when we look inside the box. Everett’s interpretation accepts the quantum equations entirely at face value and says that both cats are real. There is a live cat, and there is a dead cat; but they are located in different worlds. It is not that the radioactive atom inside the box either did or didn’t decay, but that it did both. Faced with a decision, the whole world-the universe-split into two versions of itself, identical in all respects except that in one version the atom decayed and the cat died, while in the other the atom did not decay and the cat lived. It sounds like science fiction, but it goes far deeper than any science fiction, and it is based on impeccable mathematical equations, a consistent and logical consequence of taking quantum mechanics literally (Gribbin 1984, 237-38).

In the old solution to this problem, the instances or possibilities accumulate and are all expected. At observation time, the instances disengage from each other and only one of them appears (reality) to the observer without an explanation for the disappearance of other instances or possibilities (the alternative reality). It is as if there is nothing real in the Copenhagen explanation. Regarding the solution of Hugh Everett, all instances or possibilities occur and do not create the process of watching or measuring an instance without another other one. At the time of observation, all possibilities or instances occur and are created, but in more than one universe. What is observed from it is the instance that is only in one of these universes. This means that all the possibilities are a reality according to the explanation of multiple universes, yet we obtain only what we watch-namely, what is happening briefly. As such, the solution of the multiple universes may have put an end to the problem of the possibilities and its disappearance. Or, as Einstein said: “God doesn’t play dice”.

It is clear that the explanation of the multiple universes is more logical because it does not eliminate causality. It means the existence of more than one reality. Thus, when we watch, we choose a reality and it becomes part of our universe. In the explanation of the multiple universes, the past is determined, but it is a past or a history for more than one world. Our watching determines a particular history for our universe in which we live among those actual histories and therefore, those actual histories remain as a reality branched from us due to watching. This means, at least, that our diagnosis for the history of the big bang does not mean that the possibilities or the histories disappeared so as never to return. That is because they are actual histories and that is why they exist as universes included in a super universe and our universe is a part of it too.

The future is impossible to know according to the explanation of the multiple universes, because it branches into several paths and we will be on one of them at a given moment in the future.

This reminds us of words said almost 1400 years ago:

﴾God eliminates what He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Thunder” 13:39 Physics today confirms the validity of the Quran. Further, it confirms the validity of the method of the progeny of Muhammad pbut, because no one else except them has explained this verse in the beginning. The opponents of Ahl al-Bayt initially vilified their statement. Now we are here, one hundred years after quantum mechanics established the validity of what the progeny of Muhammad pbut said in the beginning.

As previously mentioned, the theory of multiple universes has been used as a response to the argument of the cosmological constant that is set to allow for the establishment of matter and the universe we live in. The existence of a large number of universes provides a great number of possibilities. So it would not be strange for one of these possibilities to be the universe in which we live. We have already demonstrated that the weakness of this solution to the problem of determining the cosmological constant.

Quantum Theory and A Universe from Nothing

The uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics poses an extremely important issue for the theorists of a universe from nothing, or something from nothing. The uncertainty principle states that a vacuum cannot be completely empty of any quantum fluctuations, because, if it were, there would be a position with a fixed value and velocity of zero. This is a violation of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which states that the position, velocity, value and rate of change of a field cannot all be exactly determined with precision. The significance of there being quantum fluctuations in vacuum-as far as these people are concerned-is that it means that a vacuum, or space that is empty of anything, can produce a something in our universe.

As we saw in Chapter 2, quantum theory means that fields can’t be exactly zero even in what is called the vacuum. If they were zero, they would have both an exact value or position at zero and an exact rate of change or velocity that was also zero. This would be a violation of the uncertainty principle, which says that the position and velocity can’t both be well defined. All fields must instead have a certain amount of what are called vacuum fluctuations (in the same way that the pendulum in Chapter 2 had to have zero point fluctuations). Vacuum fluctuations can be interpreted in several ways that seem different but are in fact mathematically equivalent. From a positivist viewpoint, one is free to use whatever picture is most useful for the problem in question. In this case it is helpful to think of vacuum fluctuations as pairs of virtual particles that appear together at some point of spacetime, move apart, and come back together and annihilate each other. “Virtual” means that these particles cannot be observed directly, but their indirect effects can be measured, and they agree with theoretical predictions to a remarkable degree of accuracy (Hawking 2001, 118).

The truth is, even if is experientially proven that vacuum in our universe produces something from nothing, no real reason for that or for the quantums that appear and disappear in a vacuum can be determined within the boundaries of our universe. Arguments against quantum mechanics, possibility and the uncertainty principle have already been mentioned. One of the solutions was the Hugh solution, which assumes that multiple universes exist and that the possibilities that do not come true in our universe come true in another.

Therefore, some astronomers and theoretical physicists such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and other “something out of nothing”-the phrase upon which they said that the universe appeared from nothing, needless of a deity-enthusiasts have built their structure upon a philosophical, undetermined issue in quantum mechanics for which there is no evidence whatsoever: nullifying causality. This is despite the knowledge that the multiple universe theory is a strong competitor, and that unexplained gravity, for instance, can be a trace coming from another universe. The same is the case with regard to the quantum fluctuations in the universe in which we live: it does not negate these fluctuations being traces that reach us from other universes.

Moreover, those who wish to prove that the universe does not require an exterior thing in order for it to be established need to resolve the problem of the cosmological constant as well as that of the possibility of our universe’s existence and the previously mentioned multiple universe theory. Multiple universe theories can conflict with the principle of voiding causality in quantum mechanics, as it would be easy to say that quantum fluctuations in vacuum are but traces of an adjacent universe, or passing forces of the multiple universes. Thus, what Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss and others have built concerning atheism becomes a collapsing, scientifically contradictory structure.

The Singularity of the Big Bang

When it is said that the universe emerged from a massive explosion of a singularity, this means that the universe initially emerged from what resembles a black hole, or to be specific, the center of a black hole. If we were to bring the universe back to its possible beginning (as per the standard model)-meaning we were to bring back the planets, stars, galaxies and everything in the universe through a shrinking process to their beginning where time is zero-we would have a volume of zero. There would be no matter, no space, no time, very high density and an immense gravitational force. In short, we would have a singularity, and it is at singularity where the current laws of physics collapse. Hence, there are no laws to accurately predict what happens from singularity.

To bring the idea of the big bang closer to mind, we shall discuss the black hole, at whose center there is also a singularity. We shall also discuss the journey of the black hole as it heads towards its end by explosion, as some theoretical physicists predict. Again, the black hole is defined as either of the following:

A material mass that was exposed to immense pressure that surrounded it and was outside of it at the beginning of the universe’s emergence, causing it to be greatly condensed until it eventually became a small black hole. This is termed a primordial black hole. This is a hypothetical type of black hole, as there is not yet strong evidence in support of it.

Or: A massive star that had shrunk until it collapsed upon itself due to its large gravitation when its nuclear fuel ran out.

When a star loses the force of nuclear explosions (which maintain its size by resisting its gravitation), self-gravitation prevails and causes the star to shrink and entirely collapse, and spacetime to entirely bend. The size of the hypothetical black hole depends on its mass and rotation. No object escapes the black hole after entering the event horizon, the boundary in which light rays fail to escape the black hole. It is well known that the greatest speed scientifically known to date is the speed of light, which is considered a cosmological constant. Directly after the event horizon and away from the black hole, there is a region of hypothetical space in which gravitational and electromagnetic forces have an impact. There are quantum fluctuations in this region which are pairs of virtual particles that appear together and cancel each other out. Therefore, they are like something that shows up from nothing without making a true appearance. These virtual particles or negative and positive energies can cause each other to fall into the black hole, and thus form real particles or antiparticles with negative energy within the black hole due to the strength of the black hole’s gravitation. Therefore, a real particle may emerge from the virtual particle that opposes the particle falling into the black hole. This real particle either follows its peer falling into the black hole, or its positive energy enables it to be liberated away from the black hole, thus forming a real particle. This is what black hole radiation. Therefore, the positive energy emitted from the black hole towards the outside was offset by particles with negative energy moving into the black hole, and diminishing its hypothetical mass. This is as per Einstein’s equation of E=mc2 . Therefore, the entropy of the black hole diminishes. However, this diminishment is compensated by the entropy of the radiation emitted by the black hole and the increase in the black hole’s temperature. This corresponds with the second law of thermodynamics, namely that any automatically-occurring change in a physical system must be accompanied by an increase in its entropy, or that the entropy is stable in every reverse cycle, but increasing in every non-reverse cycle.

Entropy is a measure of the amount of disorder in a system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, entropy cannot decrease in a closed system. Furthermore, the total entropy of two systems does not decrease when a heat exchange occurs between them. Entropy decreases in a system that loses heat, and increases in a system that gains heat. In the case of the black hole that is losing some of its mass-if it is radiant-and decreasing in entropy, as it is a non-reverse system, the entropy therein must increase. This first occurs by the particles released from it, which offset the decrease, and by the increase in its temperature in order for there to be an increase in the final sum of entropy. Hence, it does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. As this process continues, we eventually end up with a black hole with an infinitely small mass and an almost infinite massive temperature. Stephen Hawking states:

What happens when the mass of the black hole eventually becomes extremely small is not quite clear, but the most reasonable guess is that it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission, equivalent to the explosion of millions of H-bombs (Hawking 2011, 11).

According to the big bang, the universe began with a singularity that resembles the one at the heart of the black hole. Thus, the universe began with a singularity at a volume of zero and there was neither space nor four dimensions. However, there were immense heat and density. Therefore, a gravitational force caused the eventual release of energy and, consequently, the big bang (as in the aforementioned case of the black hole), which resulted in the emergence of the universe. Billions of years later, this universe developed into the form that we observe today.

Hawking and the Singularity of the Big Bang

In 1965 I read about Penrose’s theorem that any body undergoing gravitational collapse must eventually form a singularity. I soon realized that if one reversed the direction of time in Penrose’s theorem, so that the collapse became an expansion, the conditions of his theorem would still hold, provided the universe were roughly like a Friedmann model on large scales at the present time. Penrose’s theorem had shown that any collapsing star must end in a singularity; the time-reversed argument showed that any Friedmann-like expanding universe must have begun with a singularity. For technical reasons, Penrose’s theorem required that the universe be infinite in space. So I could in fact, use it to prove that there should be a singularity only if the universe was expanding fast enough to avoid collapsing again (since only those Friedmann models were infinite in space).

During the next few years I developed new mathematical techniques to remove this and other technical conditions from the theorems that proved that singularities must occur. The final result was a joint paper by Penrose and myself in 1970, which at last proved that there must have been a big bang singularity provided only that general relativity is correct and the universe contains as much matter as we observe. There was a lot of opposition to our work, partly from the Russians because of their Marxist belief in scientific determinism, and partly from people who felt that the whole idea of singularities was repugnant and spoiled the beauty of Einstein’s theory. However, one cannot really argue with a mathematical theorem. So in the end our work became generally accepted and nowadays nearly everyone assumes that the universe started with a big bang singularity. It is perhaps ironic that, having changed my mind, I am now trying to convince other physicists that there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe-as we shall see later, it can disappear once quantum effects are taken into account (Hawking 2011, 52-53).

Hawking Does Without Singularity and the Lord

In the aforementioned, it has been clarified that the traditional theory for explaining the emergence and beginning of the universe ends at a singularity. In fact, it arrives at a distorted point in relation to the beginning of the universe, as relativity and the laws of physics collapse at the singularity. Therefore, one uses the singularity itself as a starting point for accurately predicting what happens directly afterwards, because there are no laws that govern the singularity. In addition, the singularity itself raises questions about what preceded it. Since this is where the laws of physics cease, it is not expected for there to be sufficient, conclusive scientific responses about what preceded it.

For this reason, Hawking endeavored to present a universe that has a beginning but no boundaries, in order to eliminate the question regarding what preceded the beginning. According to his proposal, the beginning is a beginning yet it is also not a boundary such that someone would ask about what preceded it, as what preceded it was the universe itself. What Hawking proposes is that, the deeper we look into the beginning of the universe, the more time diminishes, becoming an additional dimension of space. Hence, there is no time at the beginning, so the question about the past preceding the beginning is meaningless, and the universe becomes independent in and of itself and only reliant on the possibilities from within itself.

In this manner, Hawking avoids the hypothesis of the singularity at which physical laws break down and, in his view, he now has a chain beginning of the universe at which the laws of physics (such as quantum mechanics) function. At the same time, he dispensed of the persisting question of what there was before the universe, or who began the universe. Therefore, as he sees it, he has made the universe self-sufficient, and needless of any external authority to begin it.

To describe how quantum theory shapes time and space, it is helpful to introduce the idea of imaginary time. Imaginary time sounds like something from science fiction, but it is a well-defined mathematical concept: time measured in what are called imaginary numbers. One can think of ordinary real numbers such as 1, 2, -3.5, and so on as corresponding to positions on a line stretching from left to right: zero in the middle, positive real numbers on the right, and negative real numbers on the left (Fig. 2.17).

Imaginary numbers can then be represented as corresponding to positions on a vertical line: zero is again in the middle, positive imaginary numbers plotted upward, and negative imaginary numbers plotted downward. Thus imaginary numbers can be thought of as a new kind of number at right angles to ordinary real numbers. Because they are a mathematical construct, they don’t need a physical realization; one can’t have an imaginary number of oranges or an imaginary credit card bill (Fig. 2.18).

One might think this means that imaginary numbers are just a mathematical game having nothing to do with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real. All one can do is find which mathematical models describe the universe we live in. It turns out that a mathematical model involving imaginary time predicts not only effects we have already observed, but also effects we have not been able to measure yet nevertheless believe in for other reasons. So what is real and what is imaginary? Is the distinction just in our minds?

Einstein’s classical (i.e., nonquantum) general theory of relativity combined real time and the three dimensions of space into a fourdimensional spacetime. But the real time direction was distinguished from the three spatial directions; the world line or history of an observer always increased in the real time direction (that is, time always moved from past to future), but it could increase or decrease in any of the spatial directions. In other words, one could reverse direction in space, but not in time (Fig. 2.19).

On the other hand, because imaginary time is at right angles to real time, it behaves like a fourth spatial direction. It can therefore have a much richer range of possibilities than the railroad track of ordinary real time, which can only have a beginning or an end or go around in circles. It is in this imaginary sense that time has a shape (Hawking 2001, 59-60, 63).

Time, however, seemed to be like a model railway track. If it had a beginning, there would have to have been someone (i.e. God) to set the trains going. Although Einstein’s general theory of relativity unified time and space as space-time and involved a certain mixing of space and time, time was still different from space, and either had a beginning and an end or else went on forever. However, once we add the effects of quantum theory to the theory of relativity, in extreme cases warpage can occur to such a great extent that time behaves like another dimension of space.

In the early universe-when the universe was small enough to be governed by both general relativity and quantum theory-there were effectively four dimensions of space and none of time. That means when we speak of the “beginning” of the universe, we are skirting the subtle issue that as we look backward toward the very early universe, time as we know it does not exist! We must accept that our usual ideas of space and time do not apply to the very early universe. That is beyond our experience, but not beyond our imagination, or our mathematics. If in the early universe all four dimensions behave like space, what happens to the beginning of time?

The realization that time can behave like another direction of space means one can get rid of the problem of time having a beginning, in a similar way in which we got rid of the edge of the world. Suppose the beginning of the universe was like the South Pole of the earth, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time. As one moves north, the circles of constant latitude, representing the size of the universe, would expand. The universe would start as a point at the South Pole, but the South Pole is much like any other point. To ask what happened before the beginning of the universe would become a meaningless question, because there is nothing south of the South Pole. In this picture space-time has no boundaries-the same laws of nature hold at the South Pole as in other places. In an analogous manner, when one combines the general theory of relativity with quantum theory, the question of what happened before the beginning of the universe is rendered meaningless. This idea that histories should be closed surfaces without boundary is called the no-boundary condition.

Over the centuries many, including Aristotle, believed that the universe must have always existed in order to avoid the issue of how it was set up. Others believed the universe had a beginning, and used it as an argument for the existence of God. The realization that time behaves like space presents a new alternative. It removes the age-old objection to the universe having a beginning, but also means that the beginning of the universe was governed by the laws of science and doesn’t need to be set in motion by some god (Hawking & Mlodinow 2010, 108-09).

We are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe. If one were religious, one could say that God really does play dice (Hawking & Mlodinow 2010, 112).

To solve the quandary over the possibility of our universe in particular coming into existence, Hawkins hypothesized that there are multiple possibilities, depending on the same uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. As we have previously elucidated, according to quantum mechanics, a quantum particle moving towards a plate with several slits can enter through all these slits simultaneously as long as no one is watching. The is the case with regard to cosmic beginning: as it is a quantum event, it therefore moves toward all possible directions, and the result is that the potential universes are multiple, and they include the universe we found ourselves in, and which we observe.

In this view, the universe appeared spontaneously, starting off in every possible way. Most of these correspond to other universes. While some of those universes are similar to ours, most are very different. They aren’t just different in the details … but rather they differ even in their apparent laws of nature. In fact, many universes exist with many different sets of physical laws (Hawking 2010, 110).

However, a colleague named Jim Hartle and I realized there was a third possibility. Maybe the universe has no boundary in space and time. At first sight, this seems to be in direct contradiction with the theorems that Penrose and I proved, which showed that the universe must have had a beginning, a boundary in time. However, as explained in Chapter 2, there is another kind of time, called imaginary time, that is at right angles to the ordinary real time that we feel going by. The history of the universe in real time determines its history in imaginary time, and vice versa, but the two kinds of history can be very different. In particular, the universe need have no beginning or end in imaginary time. Imaginary time behaves just like another direction in space. Thus, the histories of the universe in imaginary time can be thought of as curved surfaces, like a ball, a plane, or a saddle shape, but with four dimensions instead of two…

If the histories of the universe went off to infinity like a saddle or a plane, one would have the problem of specifying what the boundary conditions were at infinity. But one can avoid having to specify boundary conditions at all if the histories of the universe in imaginary time are closed surfaces, like the surface of the Earth. The surface of the Earth doesn’t have any boundaries or edges. There are no reliable reports of people falling off. If the histories of the universe in imaginary time are indeed closed surfaces, as Hartle and I proposed, it would have fundamental implications for philosophy and our picture of where we came from. The universe would be entirely self-contained; it wouldn’t need anything outside to wind up the clockwork and set it going. Instead, everything in the universe would be determined by the laws of science and by rolls of the dice within the universe. This may sound presumptuous, but it is what I and many other scientists believe.

Even if the boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary, it won’t have just a single history. It will have multiple histories, as suggested by Feynman. There will be a history in imaginary time corresponding to every possible closed surface, and each history in imaginary time will determine a history in real time. Thus we have a superabundance of possibilities for the universe. What picks out the particular universe that we live in from the set of all possible universes? One point we can notice is that many of the possible histories of the universe won’t go through the sequence of forming galaxies and stars that was essential to our own development. While it may be that intelligent being can evolve without galaxies and stars, this seems unlikely. Thus, the very fact that we exist as beings who can ask the question “Why is the universe the way it is?” is a restriction on the history we live in. It implies it is one of the minority of histories that have galaxies and stars. This is an example of what is called the anthropic principle. The anthropic principle says the universe has to be more or less as we see it, because if it were different, there wouldn’t be anyone here to observe it (Figure 3.10). Many scientists dislike the anthropic principle because it seems rather vague and does not appear to have much predictive power. But the anthropic principle can be given a precise formulation, and it seems to be essential when dealing with the origin of the universe. M-theory, described in Chapter 2, allows a very large number of possible histories for the universe. Most of these histories are not suitable for the development of intelligent life; either they are empty, last for too short a time, are too highly curved, or wrong in some other way. Yet according to Richard Feynman’s idea of multiple histories, these uninhabited histories can have quite a high probability (see page 84) (Hawking 2001, 82-87).

Some histories will be more probable than others, and the sum will normally be dominated by a single history that starts with the creation of the universe and culminates in the state under consideration. But there will be different histories for different possible states of the universe at the present time. This leads to a radically different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. The histories that contribute to the Feynman sum don’t have an independent existence, but depend on what is being measured. We create history by our observation, rather than history creating us.

The idea that the universe does not have a unique observer-independent history might seem to conflict with certain facts we know… That might sound like science fiction, but it isn’t (Hawking 2010, 113).

Assuming there are several histories and several possibilities for the universe (which we have previously discussed), I believe that the mere assumption that the several other histories or possibilities of the universe evaporate and disappear just because we exist here to observe the universe makes our existence of an importance unbefitting of what atheism suggests. Here, I repeat what I said before:

If the collapse of the wave function is caused by the observer or the recording of the quantum event by the observer, as the Copenhagen interpretation states, this means that if it weren’t for the existence of the human being or the intelligent being, there would be no universe. The universe owes its existence to our observation of it, as the entire universe is a quantum system with a wave function and many possibilities, and it only exists when we observe it and the wave function collapses and it is identified in reality. This issue means that we humans, or let’s say intelligence, pose the axis for which the universe was brought into existence (see page 418).

Therefore, Hawking’s above saying that “we create history by our observation, rather than history creating us” does not help him to prove that the universe does not require a god, because in short, it makes us a condition for the existence of the entire universe, meaning the universe was made to exist for us and, consequently, we are a purpose and there is a purposeful entity. I have discussed the issue of us creating events in the section entitled, ‘Do we observe things or do we create them through observation?’

We can also say that a percentage of these possibilities, though perhaps small, is fit for matter to form therein, and then for intelligent life to emerge to observe it. Therefore, these universes, or some of them, must exist and these beings observe them. Otherwise, what distinguishes us and the universe we observe from them and the universes they observe?

Therefore, there is no escape here from the hypothesis that the multiplicity of universes is true. The multiplicity of universes is alone sufficient to untwist the thread; it can be proposed that the quantum fluctuations of a vacuum (which supposedly brought the current universe into existence) are the effects of other universes.

With regard to the anthropic principle, it does not resolve the issue of the appearance of our universe in particular. In fact, it may make the issue even more complicated for those who wish to deny the existence of a god and his intervention in bringing the universe to existence. Indeed, the human principle makes our existence the most important on the level of the universe as a whole, and it makes us the number one purpose of the existence of the universe. This proves the existence of a god.

What else can be understood from our being here, being intelligent, and observing?

In any case, any hypothesis makes our existence have an impact upon what we observe. This means that, in our situation, our observation impacts upon the universe itself. The conclusion to be derived is that the existence of the universe is meaningless if not for our existence, those doing the observing. This matter alone is clear evidence that the universe was made to exist for us.

Moreover, Hawking’s hypothesis for the universe to begin and be self-sufficient by rolls of the dice from within, as he likes to call it, would require the prior availability of space, no matter how infinitely small-and even if only a singularity like in the other hypotheses-in order for us to achieve quantum fluctuations that bring the universe into existence. This moves the question from being about the beginning to being about what preceded this space. It is either that this initial universe (space and quantum fluctuations) is a creation (meaning someone brought the universe into existence, and the universe is not self-sufficient), or that the universe is old but simultaneously a place for creation, which is impossible. What is a place for creation is a creation itself. Thus, the hypothesis of a god is still necessary as per the aforementioned, and a lord is still needed. Even if this need is not on the level of energy and cosmic matter, it is still on the level of the cosmic space that is qualified for the appearance of quantum fluctuations therein, no matter how infinitely small this space is.

This is in addition to the fact that these quantum fluctuations are not explained; their existence is only decided by the uncertainty principle without knowing their cause and source. Even if we do not find a source for them, that does not mean they are not explained. All there is to it is that their source can be from outside our universe-an issue we have previously discussed, explaining that the multiple universes hypothesis is the correct one.

To us, the multiple universes have different existential ranks, and it is impossible for two of them to be a complete match. Furthermore, some of them are created from the others, and they affect one another.

String Theory

The idea of the string as a foundation for the building of the universe has a more precise basis. This means that if we look at the primary particles of the building of the universe with more precision than currently available, we find them to be fluctuating strings, and every string fluctuates in a particular way that personifies it. The electron is a string, the quark is a string, and the particles of the four forces are all strings. So the particle of the gravitational force, the graviton, is a string, and so on.

String theory is an attempt to unify the four forces of nature. The standard model has so far succeeded in unifying the three forces: the electromagnetic force, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force respectively. These three forces work on microscopic levels. Quantum mechanics describes it, but it has so far failed to unify it with the force of gravity that works on levels of typically large objects, such as stars, planets, and galaxies. It is described by the general theory of relativity. The difficulty in finding a way to unify the general theory of relativity with quantum mechanics has made it difficult to unify the four forces of nature or, in particular, the three forces (electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear) with the force of gravity. However, it is confirmed that there are places where gravity must be unified with the remaining forces, and these places are infinitely small and highly dense, such as the black hole, the big bang singularity or even the early stages of the big bang.

Accordingly, string theory presents itself as an alternative to unify these four forces, and consequently, presents itself to explain the universe as a whole, from the big bang, until now and to the end, in terms of quarks, electrons, and even stars, planets, galaxies and galactic clusters and the universe as a whole. It is a theory that proposes the unification of the laws of physics instead of them being divided as they are now into two divisions: one that deals with what is small and precise-namely the laws of quantum mechanics-and another that deals with what is large-namely the law of general relativity.

String theory explains the mass of particles through the vibration of its inner string in a larger way, while the type of particle and its signal are determined through the pattern of vibration. Thus, there is one string and the change of some of its characteristics makes it an electron, a quark or a graviton, et cetera.

Now, from special relativity we know that energy and mass are two sides of the same coin: Greater energy means greater mass, and vice versa. Thus, according to string theory, the mass of an elementary particle is determined by the energy of the vibrational pattern of its internal string. Heavier particles have internal strings that vibrate more energetically, while lighter particles have internal strings that vibrate less energetically.

Since the mass of a particle determines its gravitational properties, we see that there is a direct association between the pattern of string vibration and a particle’s response to the gravitational force. Although the reasoning involved is somewhat more abstract, physicists have found that a similar alignment exists between other detailed aspects of a string’s pattern of vibration and its properties vis à vis other forces. The electric charge, the weak charge, and the strong charge carried by a particular string, for instance, are determined by the precise way it vibrates. Moreover, exactly the same idea holds for the messenger particles themselves. Particles like photons, weak gauge bosons, and gluons are yet other resonant patterns of string vibration. And of particular importance, among the vibrational string patterns, one matches perfectly the properties of the graviton, ensuring that gravity is an integral part of string theory.

So we see that, according to string theory, the observed properties of each elementary particle arise because its internal string undergoes a particular resonant vibrational pattern. This perspective differs sharply from that espoused by physicists before the discovery of string theory; in the earlier perspective the differences among the fundamental particles were explained by saying that, in effect, each particle species was “cut from a different fabric.” Although each particle was viewed as elementary, the kind of “stuff ” each embodied was thought to be different. Electron “stuff,” for example, had negative electric charge, while neutrino “stuff ’ had no electric charge. String theory alters this picture radically by declaring that the “stuff ” of all matter and all forces is the same. Each elementary particle is composed of a single string-that is, each particle is a single string-and all strings are absolutely identical. Differences between the particles arise because their respective strings undergo different resonant vibrational patterns. What appear to be different elementary particles are actually different “notes” on a fundamental string. The universe- being composed of an enormous number of these vibrating strings- is akin to a cosmic symphony.

This overview shows how string theory offers a truly wonderful unifying framework. Every particle of matter and every transmitter of force consists of a string whose pattern of vibration is its “fingerprint.” Because every physical event, process, or occurrence in the universe is, at its most elementary level, describable in terms of forces acting between these elementary material constituents, string theory provides the promise of a single, all-inclusive, unified description of the physical universe: a theory of everything (T.O.E.) (Greene 2003, 145-46).

String theory requires the assumption that six additional dimensions exist. These are folded and infinitely small, while, though them, the strings vibrate if these dimensions are not observed in the manner of the three large spatial dimensions.

String theory assumes that strings cannot shrink into dimensions smaller than the Planck length, because such an attempt would lead to a reversal into expansion. This means that the big bang began at the Planck length, and not at a singular with zero volume and infinite density.

There are five different formats of string theory, and a sixth one that combines them all, known as the M theory. The most important facet of string theories is that the string is capable of resolving the contradiction between quantum theory and the theory of general relativity at infinitely small levels, which the point particle theory cannot resolve.

M theory is a more inclusive format of string theories. It is a theory that demonstrates that the other five string theories are ones that reflect the same truth, and M theory essentially links all of these theories together.

For many years, physicists were as much in the dark as the blind men, thinking that the different string theories were very different. But now, through the insights of the second superstring revolution, physicists have realized that M-theory is the unifying pachyderm of the five string theories (Greene 2003, 312).

M theory proposes a new spatial dimension, one that is added to the ten previous dimensions of the five string theories. Thus, the dimensions in M theory number eleven: ten being of space, and one being of time.

M theory proposes not just the strings, but also two- and threedimensional branes.

M theory is now considered to be the string theory insofar as it is proposed as being a valid basis for the theory of everything, or the theory which proposes the law that deals with the infinitely small (such as electrons and quarks) and what is large (such as the current universe including its stars, planets and galaxies). This means that M theory combines the theory of quantum mechanics with that of general relativity.

Superstring theories and the M theory assume that the string cannot shrink to a dimension smaller than the Planck length. This means that, accordingly, the universe was formed of a multi-dimensional and infinitely small piece that has the Planck volume. In other words, M theory evaded the volume of zero and the infinite density of the singularity point, which was presumably the beginning of the universe.

The cosmic view of M theory assumes that, after the big bang, only three spatial dimensions extended out of the several dimensions folded into a small piece of Planck volume from which the universe emerged, while the Planck length is incredibly small (1.61619926 × 10-35 meters). As we have previously illuminated, M theory is supposed to be a theory of unifying the four forces of nature, or gravitation with the other three forces (electromagnetic, weak nuclear and strong nuclear). Another proposition within the M theory is that there is a realm smaller than the Planck length, a realm not restricted with time and space, or a spaceless realm. This realm has its own mathematics, different than the conventional mathematics that are used to identify time and space.

The hope is that … the theory will describe a universe that evolves to a form in which a background of coherent string vibrations emerges, yielding the conventional notions of space and time. Such a framework, if realized, would show that space, time, and, by association, dimension are not essential defining elements of the universe. Rather, they are convenient notions that emerge from a more basic, atavistic, and primary state.

Already, cutting-edge research on aspects of M-theory, spearheaded by Stephen Shenker, Edward Witten, Tom Banks, Willy Fischler, Leonard Susskind, and others too numerous to name, has shown that something known as a zero-brane-possibly the most fundamental ingredient in M-theory, an object that behaves somewhat like a point particle at large distances but has drastically different properties at short ones-may give us a glimpse of the spaceless and timeless realm. Their work has revealed that whereas strings show us that conventional notions of space cease to have relevance below the Planck scale, the zero-branes give essentially the same conclusion but also provide a tiny window on the new unconventional framework that takes over. Studies with these zero-branes indicate that ordinary geometry is replaced by something known as noncommutative geometry, an area of mathematics developed in large part by the French mathematician Alain Connes. In this geometrical framework, the conventional notions of space and of distance between points melt away, leaving us in a vastly different conceptual landscape. Nevertheless, as we focus our attention on scales larger than the Planck length, physicists have shown that our conventional notion of space does re-emerge. It is likely that the framework of noncommutative geometry is still some significant steps away from the blank-slate state anticipated above, but it does give us a hint of what the more complete framework for incorporating space and time may involve (Greene 2003, 379-80).

Due to the fact that M theory is now the only theory that proposes the unification of gravitation with the remaining forces, and a possible explanation of a world before time and space, it was proposed by Hawking to be the awaited explainer of the appearance of the universe from nothing.

But can the M theory explain the appearance of time and space from nothing?

I believe that this is not possible, because no matter what thesis that the M theory or the final theory will arrive at, it will be centered around something like quantum fluctuations in space, or the vibrations of the string and so on. Thus, it will only transfer the question to a more advanced level, and will not explain the existence of the universe from nothing.

From the aforementioned, and from what will be presented in due course, we see that it is truly misguided of a physicist to say that the universe came from nothing, and that it does not require anything outside of it in order for it to begin.

Multiple Universes and A Universe from Nothing

We have previously seen that explaining the exact cosmological constant requires hypothesizing the existence of multiple universes.

However, the multiplicity of universes opens the door to the argument that the interpretation of a universe from nothing relies upon the foundation of quantum fluctuations of nothingness. With the hypothesis of multiple universes, it is possible to explain these fluctuations with transient effects of the universes. This is more reasonable and logical than the “no reason-ness” adopted by quantum mechanics. This destroys the hypothesis of something from nothing at its foundation. There is no longer something from nothing, let alone before everything. The issue requires space-no matter how small-to exist in order for the quantum fluctuations of the vacuum to exist in it.

Those who explain the fixing of the cosmological constant using the issue of multiple universes assume that these universes are at the same level, and that they all return to a single origin, or that they are, as they always portray them, like bubbles coming out of a pot of boiling water. We can assume-and this is what we believe-that they are multiple universes, but at different levels, and that some of them came from others. Thus, the lowest universe level came from a universe of a higher level. These universes affect each other. According to this hypothesis, we can explain the appearance of quantum fluctuations in emptiness in relation to our universe. However, we cannot explain the fixing of the cosmological constant unless there is someone who fixes it, whose purpose is creating the universe. Consequently, this proves the existence of a god who wants to create something.

In scientific terms, there is nothing that makes the hypothesis that the multiple universes are at one level more probable than what we have assumed, which is that they are not on one level. In fact, perhaps the quantum fluctuations in space make the hypothesis that the universes are at different levels more probable, as these quanta represent the primary particles from which our universe originated. Therefore, if they are from the impact of another universe, they are certainly from the impact of a universe from which our universe originated. This supports the idea that the multiple universes are not on one level, or from a single origin. Rather, they are on different levels and they originated from each other. Each universe has a different source than the other universes and, therefore, it has different manners of creation, existence, and composition. This makes the concept of multiple universes unsuitable for explaining the fixing of the cosmological constant.

A clarifying example is that if all of the multiple universes began with quantum fluctuations of space and from primary particles, like the ones our universe started from, then we may state that, as a whole, they are able to explain the fixing of the cosmological constant in our universe. However, if each one of the multiple universes began in a different way based on its level, for example, with something completely different than any particles of energy or material, then, as a whole, these universes are not able to explain the cosmological constant because they are not a single group that came from one common, direct origin.

A Universe with a Total Energy of Zero

I have previously clarified that, based on observations, the universe was proven to be flat and of zero curvature. We have also previously explained that there are three possible forms of the universe: spherical, horse saddle-shaped or flat.

In order to more clearly understand the meaning of a flat universe and what this entails, I present the following example:

Let us imagine that the positive energy of the universe and its materials all make the earthly sphere. According to the law of parity from special relativity, it is naturally possible to calculate energy as a physical substance. Let us also imagine that the universe is a rocket that we want to launch from the earth towards space. I have previously clarified that there is speed of escape from gravity, and I mentioned an approximate value of the speed of escape from the earth’s gravity. Now, if we were to launch this rocket at a speed lower than the escape speed, it would rise to a certain distance, then boomerang and fall toward the earth due to gravity. We can understand that what happens to the rocket is similar to what happens to a spherical universe, where the value of the energy pushing it to expand is less than the value of its gravity. This leads to its contraction and collapse upon itself, perhaps even prior to the formation of clear physical landmarks, such as the galaxies in our universe. If we launch the rocket at a speed much greater than the escape speed, it will go into space and keep moving quickly away from the earth. This represents the model that looks like a horseshoe in the Friedmann model. In a universe like this, perhaps the material therein-if it exists-does not find the time to form galaxies, as the speed of the expansion of the universe (energy and material) will scatter it in space.

The third possibility is to launch a rocket at a speed equal to the escape speed. This means that this rocket will escape gravity but then slow down without falling to the earth. Thus, it has escaped the earth’s gravity. This is similar to the Friedmann model of the flat universe, as the positive energy of each material (and energy) in the universe (in our example, the energy propelling the rocket) equals the negative energy of universal gravity (in our example, the energy of the gravity resisting the movement of the rocket). A universe such as this has energy pushing it to expand to a sufficient degree for it to be released from the force of its gravity.

We have previously learned that observation has proven to us that our universe is flat, and that the cosmological constant therein allows its release from its gravity only, meaning that the positive energy equals the negative energy in our universe. Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss, theorize that a universe such as this perhaps originated from nothing, because the sum of its total energy equals zero.*

There is something else we can see in the universe with negative energy equal to its positive energy. If we were researching the issue from an economical perspective, we would choose something that guarantees only the release of the rocket from earth’s gravity, as long as we would not need more than that.

Our universe is flat and the cosmological constant therein allows for its release from gravity. This means that it allows for material to form, and prevents the collapse of the universe upon itself as well. At the same time, it is economical in energy to the furthest possible extent-to the extent that the total energy equals zero. Therefore, it has no excess energy that would push it to expand more than needed, and no energy shortage causing its collapse upon itself.

This issue, which I think is easy to comprehend, makes whoever understands it affirm that the universe has fixed constants, with high accuracy. It is for this reason that physicists try to find a scientific explanation of this fixing of the cosmological constant, as we have previously illuminated. In reality, there is a scientific deficiency, at least until the present time, in explaining the cosmological constant that is fixed so precisely. We have already examined those solutions that are worthy of discussion.

The Sum of the Energy in the Universe and a Universe from Nothing

Previously, when we examined dark energy, it was explained how physicists managed to prove, with an acceptable level of confidence, that the shape of the universe is flat. If the universe is flat, then, on that basis, physicists such as Dr. Lawrence Krauss argue that the sum of energy in a flat universe is zero. The reason is that gravity has negative energy opposing the positive energy of material, and the positive energy of the flat universe is only sufficient for escape. This means that the positive energy is exactly equal to the negative energy, making the total energy of the universe equal to zero. The fact that its total energy is zero means it could have come from nothing-according to Lawrence Krauss and other proponents of this opinion-and no exterior energy entered the universe, making the energy and material of the universe an internal product only. The quantum disparities in emptiness guarantee this, based upon the principle of uncertainty and quantum mechanics.

This means that quantum disparity created the universe from nothing, and thus there is no outside intervention in the universe because it is not required. Thus, the universe started itself with itself, using the quantum disparities of emptiness, which emptiness is not free of, according to quantum mechanics. Therefore, there is no need to assume the existence of a god who started the universe from outside of it. Furthermore, this is all irrespective of the space in which quantum disparities of emptiness are created. That too requires explanation, no matter how small it is. This has been discussed previously.

Therefore, what we have now is space and quantum fluctuations that appear in it according to the laws of quantum mechanics and, in particular, the uncertainty principle. Here, it must be noted that the uncertainty principle states that quantum fluctuations must exist in space, yet it does not explain their existence. Therefore, the reason and explanation for the appearance of these disparities remains unknown. Quantum mechanics forgoes explaining them, by annulling the steady principle of causality for all events within the universe at a level greater than the quantum one. Thus, causality is a principle that was not absent in a single cosmological incident, so how can it be absent here? And why is it not that our capabilities, which are certainly not absolute, do not qualify us to find the reason?

I believe that annulling causality is an escape from the answer. We can simply argue as Hugh Everett did, namely that there are other universes that can affect each other, making quantum disparities an effect of a neighboring universe or universes.

With regard to the total energy of the universe equalling zero, or the sum of forces therein equalling zero, this in no way negates the existence of a god. They want to say: nothing entered the universe from the outside, so why would we need to assume that a deity exists? However, if someone states that something should enter the universe from outside, so that we can assume that a deity does exists, or so that we need to assume that a deity exists, then this issue must be proven and evidence must be provided. I have explained the scientific evidence for that, which includes the fixing of the cosmological constant.

I, personally, state the following: nothing from outside the universes may enter them in the first place, and the sum of forces in them must be equal to zero. This is due to the face that the created existence as a whole must be nothing other than nothingness itself, because, if the created existence as a whole was not nothingness, it would be a counterpart of the divine self. Accordingly, we would fall into the greatest unsolvable verbal philosophical quandary, namely: where is the created existence in relation to the deity? Was the creation created within or outside the self? We can rephrase the question and say: is the deity inside creation, or outside of it?

If the created existence as a whole was not mere nothingness, any answer would obligate one of two things; either that a god is a creation, or that the created existence is old. This means either negating His absolute divinity or negating His oneness, the Almighty.

It is not a sufficient response to say that God is neither within things nor outside of them, or that innate dispositions are neither within the self, nor outside of it. This response is a mere refutation of both answers mentioned previously [that a god is a creation, or that the created existence is old]. Nevertheless, in any case, this response is preferable to those two aforementioned answers and what they entail in terms of negating His divinity and oneness, the Almighty.

In fact, the existence of creation is merely nominal. In contrast to God’s true existence, our state is like that of the quantum fluctuations in space that our bodies are filled with. In contrast to the Almighty, we are mere nothingness, because we did not come from nothingness in the first place. Rather, we are in the nothingness and we carry our nothingness with us. Thus, in truth, nothing exists except Him. Perhaps some religious people find it difficult to understand these statements, which I proved scientifically before presenting them. However, there are many proven scientific facts that are difficult to understand, such as quantum mechanics and general relativity. Is it easy to understand and comprehend that one electron, which is a material particle, enters from two slits on one side at the same time, or that time is a fourth cosmological dimension, like the three dimensions of space, and that the mass of the earth affects time and bends it in the spacetime fabric?

Where Are We?!

This question, which I have answered in the previous topic, is considered one of the most important pressing ideological questions for the human-if not the first and most important ideological question to cross a person’s mind, given that it is the starting point in the search for truth. All people ask this question and repeat it in their minds: “Where are we?” or “Where are we in relation to God? Where did God create us? Was it within His Self, or outside of It? If it was outside of His Self, where is this outside? Did He create this outside and then create us in it, or is this outside eternal and old?”

It is clear that it cannot be old and eternal, because this means there is more than one old one, or more than one absolute divinity. However, if He created this outside, where did He create it? Did He create it in another outside that is older than Him? This sequence of questions will continue until stopping at an eternal and old outside. If the outside in which He created us is eternal and old, or if it stops at an eternal and old one, then there is more than one old one, and more than one absolute divinity! Undoubtedly this is false, and it is shirk (polytheism). Wahhabis believe in this-that the creation is outside of the self. They believe in this corrupt doctrine. This belief is much worse than the Christian’s belief in the three hypostases.

Regarding the statement that we were created within His Self, this means that His Self is a creation, because it is a place for creation. This refutes His antiquity and absolute divinity.

The answer that refers to an eternal and old outside, if we were to assume it, not only means that these old ones are multiple, it also means that it is a place for creation, if the creation is in it. This makes it a creation that both has a beginning and is also old and eternal at the same time. This is impossible, as nothing can be a creation and old.

In addition, claiming the existence of an outside from the self, distinct from it, refutes His absolute divinity, because it refutes that He is Absolute. Thus, this outside becomes a limitation of the Almighty, because He is not in this outside.

As we can see, this issue is highly complex. For this reason, most doctrinal writers have chosen to avoid it. Some Muslims chose an answer that means He is not within things, nor outside of them. This answer is closer to being no answer than being an answer to the question or a solution to this dilemma. It is a process of rumination of the word attributed to Imam Ali pbuh:

Close to things without touching; distant from them without distinction. (Al-Qabaniji 2000, 145).

This is not a thorough answer to the dilemma. It is only a denial of both incorrect answers (that the deity is within things or outside of them). The fact that the Imams pbut did not go into detail regarding this major ideological issue connected to proving the existence of God and monotheism and which requires detailing, is for the same reasons we have previously stated and repeated: allegories are sometimes left to be explained by one of the Proofs of God in their time, so they would be an evidence of Him. Furthermore, perhaps some things are not clarified because either the time or the people are not present. Who would have been able to understand the meaning of escape speed or singularity during the time of Imam Ali pbuh, or understand that materials carry their nothingness with it, or understand antimatter and many things whose time, during that age, had not yet come?

Al-Sadiq pbuh said, “Not everything that is known is told; and not everything is told has had its time come; and not everything whose time has come has its people present.” (Al-Hilli 1950, 212).

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. New Testament John 13:16.

Dreams (Visions)

Earlier in this chapter, we examined a vitally important topic concerning the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics and the embodiment of one of the possibilities as a reality we observe. Hugh Everett suggests that all the possibilities are actually true realities, yet in multiple universes. Therefore, we have moved to discussing the topic of multiple timelines of one event, and the future cannot be told, because it has several possible aspects. Even if they are all realities according to the multiple universes, only one of them will be embodied in the universe in which we live. Thus, we will not be able to accurately recognize the future, because there is more than one future. I have said this previously:

As for the future, it is impossible to know according to the explanation of multiple universes, because it branches into several paths, and we will be in one of these universes in a moment in the future.

However, this impossibility does not mean that, in any case, we cannot know a possible future-meaning know one of these paths, think that it is the future, and even know all of them, while knowing that one of them is the future. As we have discussed, what is scientifically impossible in quantum mechanics and multiple universes is to scientifically recognize one specific future without the others.

This means that, according to quantum mechanics, dreams can be explained as futuristic messages that reach us, especially insofar as they may or may not come true. Thus, the dream is one of these possibilities or futuristic realities in one of the universes. Since this is scientifically explained, there is no value anymore in stating that dreams are evidence for the existence of a god and that, through a dream, you state what will happen in the future. This is because the dream you saw that came true is nothing more than a message that can possibly occur. It came to you from one of the universes of the future in accordance with the possibilities of quantum mechanics. The proof is that you see other dreams that do not come true.

According to my interpretation of the many-worlds theory, the future is not determined, as far as our conscious perception of the world is concerned, but the past is. By the act of observation we have selected a “real” history out of many realities, and once someone has seen a tree in our world it stays there even when nobody is looking at it. This applies all the way back to the Big Bang. At every junction in the quantum highway may have been many new realities created, but the path that leads to us clear and unambiguous. There are many routes into the future, however, and some version of “us” will follow each of them. Each version of ourselves will think it is following a unique path, and will look back on a unique past, but it is impossible to know the future since there are so many of them. We may even receive messages from the future, either by mechanical means as in Timescape, or if you wish to imagine the possibility, through dreams and extrasensory perception. But those messages are unlikely to do us much good. Because there is a multiplicity of future worlds, any such messages must be expected to be confused and contradictory. If we act on them, we are more likely than not going to deflect ourselves into a branch of reality different from the one the “messages” came from, so that it is highly unlikely that they can ever “come true”. The people who suggest the quantum theory offers a key to practical ESP, telepathy, and all the rest are only deluding themselves. (Gribbin 1984, 251).

With regard to our view, we believe in the existence of the futuristic possibilities. A vision (dreams) can be one of the possibilities. It may not come true in this world because it is from the board of erasure and confirmation. This was mentioned in the Quran and in the religious accounts: ﴾God erases whatever He wills or confirms, and with Him is the Mother of the Book.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Thunder” 13:39. The religious accounts from the progeny of Muhammad pbut mention it under the name of “delay”. One issue remains-symbols-which is what we see in the dreams. For example, teeth in a dream symbolize relatives, so if a person sees a dream in which one of his teeth are falling out, this means one of his relatives will die in the future. This comes true for a lot of people. So the issue of symbols in dreams cannot, in any case, be explained by quantum mechanics. Therefore, dreams remain as evidence for the existence of a wise, knowledgeable, conscious, and unseen force that speaks to us, saying: “I am here.”

There are also the dreams that affect the body greatly and tangibly, such as dreams of the fasting person on the day of fasting. In his sleep, during the day, he would see that he is eating and drinking, and wake up not feeling hungry or thirsty. These visions occur often. A possible explanation is that they occur as a result of signals from the brain, and feeling full and quenching the thirst are inevitable results of some bodily secretions or the work of some organs.

However, the truth is that, when a person wakes up, often noticing in the vision that he is fasting, he finds that the taste of the drink or food is perhaps still in his mouth. In addition, the thirst of the fasting person is not quenched when he is awake, but when he sleeps, he sees that he is drinking, and he is no longer thirsty. So why do these secretions work only during sleep? Why is it that when he sees the vision, he wakes up no longer thirsty, which would not have happened had he not seen in that vision or dream that he was drinking?!

Selected Warning Notes

They state: given that time started with the big bang, then before the big bang there was no time in which a creator could exist.

Warning note: this is an incorrect argument. Time is one of the dimensions of the material universe we live in, whereas a god is unlimited, absolute, old, eternal, and has no beginning. Accordingly, he cannot be restricted or contained by dimensions; otherwise, he would be a creation. Even what has been demonstrated scientifically-according to the theory of multiple universes, the hypothetical universes or worlds that are parallel to our world-cannot be restricted by the same dimensions of our world, one of which is time. If they were restricted by a time befitting of it, considering it has a beginning in all cases, how can the hypothesis of whether or not a god exists be restricted by proving his direct intervention at the beginning of time from its nothingness in our universe, in particular, even though some of the universes came before others, and did not all occur simultaneously?

They state: the universe is explained by the big bang and that the big bang is explained by quantum and gravitational laws. Therefore, there is no need for the existence of a god because our knowledge is limited to this material universe and we discovered out how it came into existence.

Warning note: this is incorrect, because the issue must revolve around the existence of the original cause, which does not require a reason, so the assumption that the law of gravity has existed from the beginning, for example, necessitates the existence of a reason before it that made it exist. This is because, according to M theory, gravity requires graviton particles or strings, and these particles, strings or covers must have a reason to exist, and so forth. Therefore, if they find that the reason for the creation of the universe at time zero is the law of gravity, this does not negate the existence of a god. Instead, it confirms it, as they have proven that the material world is created, that it has a beginning with the big bang, that its beginning relies on laws, and that these laws rely on an entity that writes them. Thus, they have proven that the chain is continuous until prior to the big bang, until it ends with eternal reason and stops. We state: this eternal reason is God Almighty.

Warning note: It is erroneous to imagine that absolute nothingness is negative and positive energy equally combined and that, since their sum is zero, they are absolute nothingness. To those who believe this, absolute nothingness is 1-1. Yet, absolute nothingness is not just nothing, it’s the absence of somethingness in the absolute nothingness. Therefore, to imagine that 1-1 represents absolute nothingness is incorrect. Indeed, 1-1 is mathematical nothingness and it equals nothing, but it is not absolute nothingness with no somethingness within it. There is an immense difference.

Here is an example to bring the picture closer: if we were to imagine that someone dug a hole in nothingness and placed the dust (or what he took out of that hole) in a pile next to the hole, then here we have a hole and dust (or what we took out of the hole) next to it. Their sum represents new nothingness, meaning that, if we were to somehow add the soil and the hole again, it would return as it was: nothingness, and no pile of dust-just nothingness. In this case, nothing entered the equation from outside in order for it to be said that there is true somethingness, as we have always had the same nothingness. However, this is not absolute nothingness with no somethingness within it. Rather, the nothingness we are talking about here is a hole and a pile of dust exactly equal to it. Therefore, in this nothingness, there is something evaluative, and this thing that carries its nothingness with it did not appear from nothing. Someone caused its appearance, and that is the person or force that dug the hole.

Therefore, even if the somethingness is evaluative in nonexistence-like the appearance of subatomic particles or strings and their counterparts, and the manner in which they cancel each other out, as was explained according to the uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics-this is not called an appearance from nothing. In fact, what has appeared is the particle carrying the positive energy, and in its opposition appeared the particle carrying the negative energy, as a balancer of its appearance. The appearance of the particle with the positive energy must have a reason to make it happen. Quantum mechanics, according to the Copenhagen interpretation, as we have previously explained, escapes from searching for the reason by annulling the causality principle. However, this escape does not actually annul the reason. There remains an unknown reason, which is the digger of the hole in our previous example.

This absolutely proves the existence of a god and it proves what we have always been saying: God created the universe, and the universe continues to exist because of God. This does not mean that He Himself is directly carrying out the creation or existence. It is as He said in the Quran: ﴾We have built the sky with hands, and we are capable.﴿ Quran Chapter “The Winnowing Winds” 51:47. He is far above the actual hand. What is meant by hand are reasons or entities caused by Him.

Warning note: The issue of quantum fluctuations in space, or the appearance of particles or strings that carry positive energy and its counterparts, as well as its vanishing, clearly proves what we have always been saying: that the first creation –Muhammad – oscillates between appearance and vanishing. Alternatively, let us call this what physicists today call it: the sum of two energies, a positive and a negative one, that appears and disappears. All universes, including ours, follow him in his oscillation, so we find that it is very likely, rather natural, for energies to appear and disappear at the subatomic level in a process as similar as possible to the oscillation described by Imam al-Sadiq pbuh, that he is an oscillating veil; or, let us say, like a curtain placed in front of a door, moved by the wind, and so it is oscillating.

Abu Baseer asked Abu Abdullah pbuh: “May I be made your ransom, how many times was the Messenger of God taken for ascension?” He pbuh said, “Twice. Gabriel asked him to stop at a place saying, ‘Wait right there O Muhammad, you have stood at a place where no angel or prophet has ever stood before you. Your Lord Is praying.’ He pbuhap asked, ‘O Gabriel, how does He pray?’ [Gabriel] said, ‘The Almighty says, ‘The Glorious, the Holy, I am the Lord of the angels and the Spirit. My mercy exceeds My wrath.’ Then Muhammad pbuhap said, ‘O Lord, I beg Your forgiveness, I beg Your forgiveness.’” Then the Imam pbuh said, “It was as God has said, ﴾And he was at a distance of two bow lengths or nearer﴿.” Quran Chapter “The Star” 53:9. Abu Baseer then asked, “May I be made your ransom, what is the length of two bows or nearer?” He pbuh said, “It is the distance between the arch and the head of the bow.” Then he pbuh said, “Between them there was a veil that was shining and oscillating. It was emerald. He looked into what God willed from the light of Greatness the size of the eye of a needle. God Almighty said, ‘O Muhammad.’ He pbuhap said, ‘At your service, my Lord.’ The Almighty said, ‘Who will be after you to guide your followers?’ He pbuhap said, ‘God knows best.’ The Almighty said, ‘Ali Ibn Abi Talib will be the Prince of Believers, the master of the Muslims, the leader of the ones marked with brightness on their foreheads [from prostration].’” Then Abu Abdullah said to Abu Baseer, “O Abu Muhammad, by God, the authority of the Prince of Believers, Ali pbuh, did not come from Earth, but it came from the heavens, through words clearly spoken.” (Al-Kulaini 1944, vol 1, 442).

Warning note: space is not only the areas void of material between planets, stars and galaxies. The majority of material itself is space filled with quantum fluctuations, meaning that the majority of every atom is space. This means that the body of the human being, for example, is space filled with quantum fluctuations, or particles that appear and disappear.

Warning note: when we say that God is the creator of nothingness, we do not mean that He created absolute nothingness, because absolute nothingness does not have somethingness within it in order for God to have created it. What we mean is that He Almighty created nonexistence along with existence. As it has now been explained, particles at a subatomic level appear and disappear, or cancel each other out, because they are positive and negative energies; or, let us say, they are matter and antimatter. This is an important issue that soundly explains the argument concerning the existence created within God, or outside of God. Alternatively, we can state: since only He Almighty is eternal, and there is no other eternal, then where did the creation come into existence: within Him or outside Him? If it is within God, then God is a creation, and His antiquity and absolute divinity are invalid. If it is outside of God, then it necessitates the antiquity and eternalness of someone other than Him, who is the one outside of Him in which God brought the creation to existence. Therefore, it has now been explained that it is neither one nor the other. What we call created existence is only an existence that carries its nothingness with it, as is stated by modern science: matter and antimatter, or positive and negative energy. Consequently, it is neither within God nor outside of Him, because according to its truth, it is generally nothing in comparison to God Almighty, the true existence.

Warning note: According to the laws of physics, the ignorance of the Wahhabi clerics has now been scientifically explained, and their satanic, deviating religion has been demolished. This doctrine is built upon the creation being distinct from God and that the Almighty descends, and that the Almighty is up and above the heavens, among other beliefs of the idol-worshipping nonsense of the Salafi creed.

Warning note: This is the truth as it is, and I have explained it with unquestionable scientific proof. Perhaps a lot of people do not like being told that they are nothing, especially some of the arrogant clerics of religion. However, I think they are obliged, whether it be today or tomorrow, to believe that we consist of matter that carries its antimatter with it, and that we live in a material universe that carries its antimatter with it, and that the negative energy equals its positive energy. This is unless they wish to insist for a while longer, just as they have insisted previously, that the earth does not orbit the sun, or they will rely on the possibility that people continue to not understand these sciences, despite decades having passed since Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Yet, unfortunately, until the present day, few educated people are aware of this, or are aware of the meaning of spacetime, the relativity of time and space, and that gravity is caused by the arching of the universal fabric (timespace). How much time will pass before people understand M theory, as well as that there are more than ten dimensions? How much time will the leaders of making others ignorant be given before people learn and understand that science has now proven that they carry their antimatter with them, and so does the universe they live in?

To be sure, a lot of people have still not heard about something called antimatter or dark matter, and this is an invitation to whoever can understand these things to read about them and look into them, and try to employ them correctly to support religion and prove the existence of God, and prove that God is neither outside creation, nor within it. The atheists try as hard as they can to employ these sciences to refute religion. The Wahhabis take advantage of ignorance to misguide people and deviate them from monotheism and the worship of God, instead towards the worship of a huge idol made by their delusions and ignorance – an idol that is outside of his creation and is positioned above the heavens. Yet, I hope that, this time, people are rise to their responsibility and do not remain lagging behind the facts for many centuries to come.

Warning note: in general, what modern science has established has evidence in the Quran and in the religious accounts of the past vicegerents of God, may the prayers of God be upon them. Accordingly, the big bang and the expansion of the physical universe that we live in is mentioned in the Quran. The Almighty said, ﴾We have built the sky with hands, and we are capable.﴿ The meaning of the sky being built with hands is that the reason made by God built the sky, and that the sky is expanding. This is what observations of the galaxies around us have confirmed. They move further away at an increasing rate based on the Doppler effect and other evidence of the universe’s expansion, which we have learned about in this book.

With regard to the creation preceding Adam on this earth, life on other planets, and the multiple universes, all these issues have been explained in detail, over a thousand years ago, by the progeny of Muhammad pbut. These are some of the religious accounts for whoever wants to learn the truth, and learn from Muhammad and the progeny of Muhammad. They are also a miracle of unseen knowledge, generally proven by modern science. Thus, atheists can see the truth if they really request to know the truth. I believe that a reasonable person works and takes precautions to push away potential harm, so what if the harm was almost definite?!

I believe that the matching of the sayings of the progeny of Muhammad pbuh with theories and facts of modern science spur the reasonable person to search and examine what he is inside of. As for the unreasonable person, it is his business; he does whatever he wishes.

Al-Baqir pbuh said: “You see that God has not created humans other than you, but God has created a thousand thousand worlds, and a thousand thousand Adams, and you are at the end of these worlds and those Adams.” (Al-Sadooq 1956, 277).*

Al-Sadiq pbuh said, “God Almighty has twelve thousand worlds; each one of them is larger than seven heavens and seven earths. No world from them sees that God Almighty has a world other than it, and I am the proof upon them.” (Al-Sadooq 1982, 639).

Imam Ali Ibn al-Hussain Munjim said: “Should I tell you about a man who, since you walked in, has gone through fourteen worlds, each one of them three times bigger than this world, and he has not moved from his place? Munjim said, ‘Who is he?’ He said, ‘It is me.’” (Al-Saffar 1984, 420-21).

Imam al-Sadiq pbuh said about himself that he “walks in an hour of day the journey of a sun year until he goes through twelve thousand worlds like this world of yours. They do not know that God created Adam or Iblis. He was asked, ‘do they know you?’ He said, ‘Yes. Their only obligation is allegiance to us and denouncing our enemy.’” (Al-Saffar

1984, 420-21).

Moreover, the religious accounts of the progeny of Muhammad pbut mentioned two more dimensions of the conscious, aware life other than the aforementioned dimension of the multiplicity of worlds or universes. There is the same universe we live in, meaning that there is conscious life within other planets and in other solar groups within our universe. In fact, the Imams mentioned what has now been scientifically proven: that the sun is not necessary for life to grow. Living beings have been discovered in the depths of the oceans that rely upon the heat of the earth’s core, as well as chemical substances to grow and reproduce. Therefore, what is important is for energy to be available for life to grow, and that stars, such as our sun, are not the only source of energy in the universe.

Abu Abdullah Al-Sadiq pbuh said: “Behind this West of yours, are thirty-nine Wests, and a white earth filled with creation that utilize their light. They have not disobeyed God for even the blink of an eye. They do not know whether God created Adam or not.” (Al-Hilli 1950, 89. Arabic source, translated).

Abu Abdullah Al-Sadiq pbuh said, “Behind the eye of this sun of yours are forty eyes of a sun with much creation there, and behind your moon are forty moons with much creation therein, and they do not know whether or not God created Adam.” (Al-Saffar 1984, 510, translated).

Al-Baqir pbuh said: “Behind your sun are forty eyes of sun. Between each two suns are forty years. There is much creation therein that does not know whether or not God created Adam. And behind your moon are forty moons. Between each two moons is a forty-day journey. There is much creation therein that does not know whether or not God created Adam.” (Al-Saffar 1984, 513, translated).*

There is also the earth we live in, as well as conscious life that came to it before us:

Muhammad Ibn Ali al-Baqir, may the prayers of God be upon him, said: “Since God Almighty created the earth, he created seven peoples therein who are not the descendants of Adam. He created them from the soil of the earth and caused them to inhabit it, one after the other, each with his own world. Then, God Almighty created the father of this mankind, and He created his offspring from him.” (Al-Sadooq 1982, 359).†

Zurara said, “I asked Abu Abdullah pbuh: ‘May God sacrifice me for you. I have been asking you about pilgrimage for forty years, and you continue to answer me. He said, ‘O Zurara, Pilgrimage was made to this house two thousand years before Adam existed, so why would you think that questions about pilgrimage would end in forty years?’” (Al-Hur Al-Amili 1983, 12).

Therefore, over a thousand years ago, Muhammad and the progeny of Muhammad pbuhap stated the following:

- There is life other than us, which is conscious, aware and came to this earth before us. Fossils and genetic evidence have proved this, as we explained in this book.

- There is life, other than us, that is conscious, aware and exists within the universe we live in. This is in accordance with modern cosmological data and it is highly probable, especially following the observation of planets very similar to planet Earth.

- There is conscious, aware life, not in our universe to begin with, but rather in universes other than the one we live in. We explained this issue previously, when discussing quantum mechanics, multiple universes, and Hugh Everett’s theory.

And all praise is to God alone.

My God… If You, after this life, were to return me as nothingness forever and ever, I would not mind.

It means so much to me that You have been kind and created me and made me live these days so that I can know You.

Ahmed al-Hasan Hijri 1434 2013 AD