The (Quantum) Mechanics of Religion
Umar Ahmed
Are there really similarities between science and religion or is this all just a hoax? Does science really explain what we hear in our churches, mosques and other places of worship or do we take a big leap of faith when we enter such sacred grounds? These are questions which science has very recently found the answers to. Answers which the human soul has pondered upon for centuries, until now.
A famous scientist once said ‘Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind’. His name was Albert Einstein, a man who was under the opinion that contradictions between religion and science can only be explained by a consequent lack of understanding. This conception is also shared by a Persian Philosopher of the 11th century, Al-Ghazel, more commonly known as Al-Ghazali (which he got from his father profession ghazal, meaning weaver). Having written over 400 books, Ghazali is publicly considered as one of the greatest philosophers of all times. One of his books which caught much attention of the public is known as ‘The incoherence of the Philosophers’ (Tahafut al-Falasifah) [1] and although written over 10 centuries ago, has striking similarities with the works of famous scientists including Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Bell and Einstein.
Newtonian Mechanics vs. Quantum Mechanics
In our everyday lives, observations determine our expectations and give us the notion of a predictable and logical outcome. For example, if one were to throw a ball up in the air, he could use the initial conditions of the ball, its speed, angle it was thrown at and the forces acting on it (air resistance and gravity) to predict where the ball is going to land and therefore move to this position to catch it. This knowledge we possess stems from classical mechanics, inspired by Newton and Galileo. By observation and experiment Newton formulated laws which are today known as 'Newton’s laws of motion' in order to govern the behaviour of the universe. These laws were accurate under many conditions and therefore were considered to be universally applicable. It was thought that by using these laws the behaviour of every micro and macro particle in the universe could be determined accurately. This view of nature was widely accepted for three centuries after Newton published his findings in his book Principia. However, during the last century experimental observation and recent findings have given rise to a new set of rules governing the universe. This new theory is known as quantum theory and appears to contradict Newton’s notion of a predictable universe.
Quantum theory, born at the end of the 18th century brought about three major notions; the collapse of a wave-function, superposition and non-locality, (proposed by the Copenhagen interpretation) which have a surprising resemblance to the work of Al-Ghazali in the 11th century.
Electrons: Do we know where they are?
Once the discovery of a particle having wave-like properties was established, (shown by the double-slit experiment, photoelectric effect, etc.) Schrodinger found a wave equation governing the behavior of a particle, which was later called the Schrodinger equation. Rather than being able to measure an electron in a certain energy state, it was found that only the probability of finding an electron in this state could be found. In other words, being able to conclude definitely that a particle was in a particular energy state was not possible, as there also existed a probability of finding it in another energy state. In order to get a better understanding of this let us consider the structure of an atom discussed by Karen Harding [2]. Protons and neutrons are at the center of an atom inside the nucleus whilst electrons orbit the nucleus. Although it is not possible to determine how far out this orbit is, there is a high probability that the orbit is close to the nucleus. There exists however a small probability that it can be found further away from the nucleus. If we take the example of a brick wall, a solid object made of many atoms is held together by the interaction of its electrons. If at one time all of the electrons were exhibiting very improbable behavior (i.e. very far away from the nucleus) the brick wall would cease to exist. The fact that the brick wall behaves normally is due to the high probability of finding the electrons close to the nucleus. Therefore if one were to try and walk through this brick wall he would be stopped by it. However according to quantum mechanics, there is a small but real probability that when one tries to walk through the wall, the electrons will be behaving in such a way that would allow the person to walk through it unaffected and unharmed.
![Text Box: Figure 1: [11]
Three different types of possible orbits for an electron orbiting a nucleus](file:///Users/manahil_khan/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image001.gif)
Al-Ghazali also has an explanation for this. In ‘The incoherence of the philosophers’ he discusses ‘the burning of cotton when in contact with fire’ as a simplified example of Abraham being thrown into a fire without burning, from the religious scriptures. Al-Ghazali states that mere observation is not enough and that the concurrence of two events in no way proves that one of them caused the other. He says on this matter, ‘’For what proof is there that fire is the agent? They have no proof other than observing the occurrence of burning at the [juncture of] contact with the fire. Observation however, [only] shows the occurrence [of burning] at [the time of contact with the fire], but does not show the occurrence [of burning] by [the fire] and that there is no other cause for it ’’ [3]. The Copenhagen interpretation also accepts the possibility that such irregularities can occur. They would argue that it is very likely the cotton will burn once placed in fire (due to there being a high probability of this occurring similar to the brick wall example) but there is a very low probability that it will not turn black. Furthermore, Al Ghazali then expands and goes on to say ‘‘Thus either there would come about from God or from the angels a quality in the fire which restricts its heat to its own body, so as not to transcend it, or else there would occur in the body of a prophet a quality which will not change him from being flesh and bone, [but] will resist him from the influence of the fire]’’ [4]. These ‘qualities’ Al Ghazali was referring to are similar to the probabilities of the location of electrons discussed in the Copenhagen interpretation.
Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle
Heisenberg elaborated on this idea of probability and came up with the uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle states that it is impossible to know the momentum and position of a particle at the same time. This was not due to the invalidity of the measuring tool but arose due to it being inherent in nature. Returning to the example of throwing a ball, if it were a quantum particle, it would not be possible to know its initial position and momentum, therefore allowing only a statistical trajectory of the ball to be deduced This would imply an element of uncertainty in its movement. These findings have been verified by experiments in which identical atoms with identical energies were found to have different behaviours. This gives rise to the idea that the behaviour is random and there exists a high element of uncertainty.
This lead to the discovery of ‘the collapse of a wave-function’. Electrons can exist in different energy states or ‘orbits’ and so when the energy of a particle is measured the wave-function ‘collapses’ to that particular energy state, so the probability of finding the particle in the same energy state after any subsequent measurement is now 1 (i.e. it will definitely be in that energy state when measured again). The Copenhagenists suggested the following example of a ‘wave function collapse’. Imagine an electron being put into a box so that the electron waves fill the space of the box. When a screen is placed in the middle of the box, dividing it into two, the electrons waves are still in both parts of the box and will still remain in this way until an observation is made (i.e. until someone looks at the box). The Copenhaganists explained that at the point of observation the particle will be seen in the chamber that was observed and the wave in the other half of the chamber will disappear. [5] The wave function of the electron is said to have collapsed.
![Text Box: Figure 2: [12]
1) Before-| ψ|^2 is proportional to the probability density of measuring the position of the particle at some time t.
2) After- Once the particle location has been measured to be x0 the wave function ‘collapses’ and any subsequent measurement will yield the same result x0](file:///Users/manahil_khan/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image005.gif)
The Schrodinger’s cat paradox
Although the collapse of a wave function is generally accepted amongst physicists, Schrodinger devised a thought experiment to challenge the Copenhagen theory. This was called the ‘Schrodinger’s cat paradox’ which involved a cat in a closed box, where we can imagine the cat as a multitude of wave functions [6]. The idea of the closed box is to demonstrate the fact that an observer cannot see any events inside the box. The sealed box contains a random event such as the release of a poisonous gas determined by the radioactive decay of an atom. This radioactive decay determines whether the gas is released or not. If it is released the cat will inhale it and die but there is an equal chance of it not being released and so the cat will remain alive if this is the case. According to classical mechanics the cat is either dead or alive and to find out its fate you simply open the box and check. According to quantum mechanics the situation is more complicated. Quantum mechanics says there are two systems existing in the box at the same time and these are explained as a superposition of two different states in which the possibilities of the cat being dead or alive are equally existent at the same time. The Copenhagen interpretation suggests that the cat is both alive and dead at the same time prior to observation and that only when the observer looks into the box will one of the two possibilities be actualised and the other disappear. This is called the ‘collapse of the wave function’ and so until the wave function collapses (by observing it), the existence in the box is acknowledged as nothing more than a wave function.
The Many-Worlds Interpretation
Schrodinger and other scientist found it difficult to reject an objective reality and so another main theory was proposed in hope of explaining this paradox. This was the Many-Worlds interpretation and is accepted by several great physicists, including Stephen Hawking. It responds to the cat in the box paradox by saying that the wave function infact doesn’t collapse. Instead, at the moment of the photon’s decay, the world splits into two branches, producing two worlds, one containing a dead cat and the other a live cat. These two worlds proceed on their own, although they coexist in space and time.
David Deutsch, who proposed the most well known version of this interpretation, says regarding this matter ‘‘We exist in multiple versions in universes called ‘moments’. Each of us is not directly aware of the others, but has evidence because of physical laws linking the content of different universes. It is tempting to suppose the moment which we are aware of is the real one, or even a little more real than the others…all the moments are physically real’’ [7]. He also says that although these universes never split, they can sometimes come together, allowing for the possibility of communication between these different worlds. This is similar to the opinion of Al-Ghazali who says in The incoherence of the Philosophers ‘‘..The possibility of there being in front of him ferocious beasts, ranging from fires, high mountains, or enemies ready with their weapons [to kill him], but [also the possibility] that he does not see them because God does not create for him [the vision of them]’' [8]. So according to Al-Ghazali a person cannot see these beings because God does create the vision for them to be seen, similarly in the Many-Worlds interpretation the multiverses are unaware of each other. Both Al Ghazali and Deutsch accept the possibility of them overlapping. Al Ghazali relates this idea of appearances to the transformation of the staff of Moses into a snake. It is unclear as to whether his opinion was that the snake was the result of human visions being disrupted or whether it was a real snake, although the Many-Worlds interpretation would imply that it was indeed a real snake resulting from the coming together of one ‘moment’ with another.
Quantum Mechanics: Rethinking our Idea of Matter
Another topic Al-Ghazali discusses on this subject is his idea of matter. He says ‘‘When we say blood has changed into sperm, we mean by this that matter itself took off one form and put another. This, then amounts to the fact that one form has ceased to exist and one has come into existence, there being a subsistent matter over which the two forms rotated. When we say that water through heating has changed into air, we mean that matter receptive of the form of water took of this form and received another form. Matter is thus common whilst the quality changes’’ [9]. Today matter is understood to consist of several different particles such as protons, mesons, photons, electrons etc. These are known as elementary particles. Heisenberg says regarding the types of matter: ‘‘In contrast to the three basic building stones, these new particles are always unstable and have very short lives…one type..of about a millionth of a second, another lives only one hundredth part of that time….a third…only a hundred billionth of a second..’’ [10]. In other words he reduces the number of elementary particles to three. Although recent experiments showed there were more, it was found that these particles were not always consistent in nature as they appeared and disappeared very quickly. Heisenberg further elaborated on this by saying ‘’This state of affairs is best described by saying that all particles are basically nothing but different stationary states of one and the same stuff. Thus even the three basic building stones have become reduced to a single one. There is only one kind of matter but it can exist in different stationary conditions. Some of these conditions, i.e. protons, neutrons, and electrons, are stable whilst many others are unstable’’ [10]. Thus Al-Ghazali’s opinion of matter is confirmed by what has been deduced about the constituents of matter by quantum mechanics. The fact that there is only one ever-shifting kind of matter that simply takes on new forms is a common ground between the two opinions. This idea of changing matter was another argument used by Al Ghazali in his debate with the philosophers regarding the transformation of the staff into a snake.
![Text Box: Figure 4: [13]
Quarks making up a proton: Showing the microscopic view of matter](file:///Users/manahil_khan/Library/Caches/TemporaryItems/msoclip/0/clip_image012.gif)
Bell’s Inequality: Rethinking Locality and Reality
Schrodinger and Einstein rejected the idea of non-locality and a non-objective reality suggested by the Copenhagen interpretation which Einstein discussed in his famous EPR paper. This discussion ended however, when John Steward Bell put forward the ‘Bell’s inequality’. Bell thought that if events in spatially separated systems were not casually linked then there should be a mathematical proof to show this. His thought experiment consisted of measuring the polarity of two entangled photons fired in opposite directions. Quantum mechanics says that there should be a high correlation between the measured polarity of the photons as the photons instantaneously ‘decide’ which polarization to assume at the time of measurement, even though they may be separated at a distance in space further than a light year.
He used this to form an inequality based on two assumptions, locality and realism. Several experiments including the famous ‘Aspect’s experiment’ showed results that violated Bells inequality (i.e. results which show a high correlation between the predicted polarity states), indicating the assumptions on which the inequality was based were incorrect. This lead to the idea of a non-local universe, now considered to be the ‘most profound discovery in all of science’. Non-locality states that if any two particles were connected at any point in time, they can always be connected (in any space of the universe) even if they are billions of light years apart. As all the particles were connected with each other at the big bang, it is believed that all parts of the universe are still in immediate connection with each other. An alternative outcome regarding the violation of Bell’s inequality is negating the assumption of realism, which implies that reality exists even when we are not observing it. With this assumption being incorrect it can be deduced that either reality is not ‘real’, or alternatively there is a fundamental error in our understanding of the existence of reality. Al-Ghazali explained this in terms of an Arabic word ‘duniya’, one of the root meanings being to reach out for grapes that you can never grasp. He explains it in this way in order to demonstrate the human being’s lack of understanding of the nature of reality, a statement which Bell’s inequality has described mathematically.
The Future of Science
All the above-mentioned points show similarities between the thinking Al-Ghazali possessed over 9 centuries ago and quantum mechanics today. As time goes on the similarities between science and religion become increasingly more noticeable, when discoveries such as the complete description of the water cycle, the stages of embryonic development, the confirmation of the big bang and quantum theory are made.
The religious scriptures describe human beings as being ‘created from the best of moulds’ due to their exceptional ability to comprehend. Perhaps as time goes on the fascinating field of physics will begin to fill in more gaps in our knowledge, reducing the ‘leap of faith’ one takes when accepting such a counter-intuitive description of the world.
References
[1] Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali, The incoherence of the Philosphers, Tahafut al-Falasifa: A parallel English-Arabic Text trans. Micheal E. Marmura. Provo, Utah: Brigham University Press, 1997 (will be abbreviated as Tahafut)
[2] Karen Harding, ‘’Causality Then and Now: Al-Ghazali and Quantum Theory.’’ The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 10.2 (1993): pp 165-177
[3] Tahafut p.171
[4] Tahafut p.175
[5] Davies, Paul C. W. and J. R. Brown, The Ghost in the Atom: A Discussion of the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: University Press, 1986. PP.15-22
[7] Christopher Norris, Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism: Philosphical Responses to Quantum Mechanics, New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, 2000, P.74
[8] Tahafut PP.173-174
[9] Tahafut P.180
[10] Werner Heisenberg, The Physicist’s Conception of Nature, trans. Arnold J. Pomerans, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press Publishers, 1970 PP.45-46
[13] http://inpp.ohiou.edu/~roche/group_page/strongly_interacting.html
Bibliography
§ [6] Nadeau, Robert and Menas Kafatos. The Non-Local Universe: The New Physics and the Matters of the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. PP.56-58;
§ Zukav, Garry. The Dancing Wu Li Masters: An Overview of the New Physics. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 2001;
§ T.D Clark S.7 Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohme ds, by B.J.Hiley and F.David Peat (New York: Routledge, 1991) PP.121-150
§ Umit Yoksuloglu Devji Al-Ghazali and Quantum Physics: A comparative Analysis of The Seventeenth Discussion of Tahafut al-Falasifa and Quantum Theory: Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, 2003
§ Karen Harding, ‘’Causality Then and Now: Al-Ghazali and Quantum Theory.’’ The American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences 10.2 (1993): pp 165-177
A brief Note
Due to its unique nature and the bringing together of two apparently different subjects, the topic of Al-Ghazali and Quantum Mechanics has been discussed only twice before. Firstly by Karen Harding in his short paper titled ‘’Causality then and Now: Al-Ghazali and Quantum Theory’’ and secondly in a thesis by Umit Yoksuloglu Devji titled ‘Al-Ghazali and Quantum Physics: A comparative Analysis of The Seventeenth Discussion of Tahafut al-Falasifa and Quantum Theory’. The ideas discussed in this paper have stemmed from these sources and in some cases have been elaborated on.
