SCID007 - Relativity Made Easy on its Centenary Year Nov 2015

Prof S. M. Deen,

University of Keele

Email: s.m.deen@keele.ac.uk

 

For a long time I was trying to see if I can explain in the simplest possible way the essence (in my opinion) of the Theory of Relativity in this Centenary of Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. This is what I have come up with. Have a drink and a pause.

Below you have: Special Relativity, some easily-readable descriptive para on General Relativity, and an interesting true story on Relativity.

Special Theory of Relativity, which says

1.       The universe is four-dimensional, with one dimension of time and three of space, together constituting what is called the space-time.

2.       Every object in the universe travels at the speed of light in space-time

3.       Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, which is constant in vacuum at 186,000 miles (300, 000 Km) per second, commonly denoted by the letter c, which stands for the constancy of the speed of light.  If someone is travelling at the speed T in the time direction and S in the space direction, then T² + S² = c². This formula is crucial and used below.

Have another pause. I regret that even my attempted simplest explanation needs diagrams. Consider you are standing at the corner (which we shall call position O) of a football ground, in front of you (i.e. facing you) is one boundary line, which we shall call the X-axis, and on your left-hand direction is another boundary (at right angle to the X-direction) the Y-axis (see Fig 1). Assume you are going to travel for one min(ute).  If you travel in the X–direction, you would travel zero distance in the Y-direction. Equally if you travel on the Y-direction, you would travel zero distance in the X-direction (Fig 1). The chord in the diagram shows the one-min distance from your starting position O.  If you travel in between two directions, say in the direction OR (Fig 2), you would travel the distance ORx on the X-direction and ORy on the Y-direction of the total distance of one min (Fig 2).   I trust all these are crystal clear – if not, please read again.

 

Now I bring in the time direction. Let us suppose the Y-direction is the time direction and the X-axis represents a direction in space. Since the time dimension is orthogonal to any space direction, X-axis can represent any space direction you wish to choose. Assume two friends A and B sitting at the position O. As they are sitting at O, both of them are moving in the time direction at the speed of light c. Now say B has decided to move away from A very fast. Any direction B chooses to move, it would be a space direction, represented here by the X-direction. Below by X-direction I shall mean any space direction chosen by B.

We first examine the equation T² + S² =  c² of Relativity (given earlier), where S is the speed of B in the space direction X, and T is B’s speed in the time direction. If B’s speed S = 0, (that is, B is sitting tight at point O), then T =  c for B, that is, B will be travelling wholly in the time direction Y at the speed of light. On the other hand if S = c for B, then B’s speed in the time direction will be zero (since S = c, T has to be zero for that equation). Therefore for any speed S of B, above zero and below c, there will be a component (i.e. a contribution) to the time direction. If you have understood this equation as explained here, then you have understood the pivotal concept I am using here. The rest is straightforward. So please re-read the explanation until it is crystal clear to you.  By the way, if you are familiar with our normal 3D spatial geometry, then you would know that if you were travelling in the X-direction, there will be no component to the orthogonal Y-direction. But this is not true when the Y-direction is the time-direction in a 4D Universe of Einstein.

If B could move away from A in any space direction X at the speed of light c (the maximum speed possible), then  B will make zero contribution to the Y-direction, as explained above. In that scenario, B would never age, and would be immortal so far as A sitting at O is concerned (in the jargon, it is the A’s Frame of Reference). If B moves away from A at a speed less than c, then it would have a component (i.e. a contribution) in the time direction Y, the actual size of that component would depend on B’s speed.  Say, B moves along OR. After one min, A would reach the point Q on the Y-axis and B on the point R. At that instant, B meets A on A’s position (i.e. A’s Frame of Reference). A’s position would be the point Q, when A’s watch would show that just one min has gone. But the B’s watch which B carried with him in the journey, would show less than one min. This is the famous issue of time dilation in the Theory of Relativity, when someone travelling faster than you would age slower than you.

How slow? For this I offer a small example. If the speed S = 0.6c, that is, 60% of the speed of light c, then from the eqn  T2 + S2 = c2 will become:  T2 + (0.6c)2 = c2, or T2  = (1 – 0.36) c2,  or T2  = 0.64c2, and hence T = 0.8c. Thus our A sitting tight at O travels in the time direction at the speed of light c, while B travelling in the space direction at the speed S = 0.6c will travel at the speed 0.8c in the time direction, thus he aging only 80% of the age of A.  If A has aged 1 min, B will age 0.8 min. 

Why so? Let us revisit the crime-scene as it were.  As we know A sat at O and hence passed the whole of its one min travelling in the Y-direction (the time axis), and hence his watch correctly records that one min has passed. But from A’s perspective, B sped away, and hence B’s one-min journey to R has two components (each a contribution), a Y-component (the time axis) and X-component (the space X-axis), each component being a fraction of a minute. The Y-component is ORy and the X-component is ORx (Fig 2) where:   

              (ORy)²+(ORx)² = (OR)² = (1 min)² = 1 min,

which demonstrates that time and space in space-time are interchangeable. How?  B has travelled only the fraction ORy on the time dimension (Y-axis), which is less than one min as shown by B’s watch, but A perceived a full one min on B’s journey, the difference being made up of the space-component ORx.  Thus space become time – an unheard of situation, i.e. space and time are not independent of each other. This is Relativity for you.

I restate that B had travelled one min only from A’s perspective, and only a fraction ORy from B’s perspective, the difference being made up by the space component ORx. Two important consequences are:

1.       There is no absolute time, all times are relative.  What is one min for someone could be less than one min for someone else  – it all depends on relative speed. And hence the name Theory of Relativity.

2.       The assertion that B had travelled one min to reach the point R is true from A’s perspective, but for B it had travelled only for the fraction ORy.

In my humble opinion, the concept of Time Dilation is the most difficult one to understand conceptually, but found to be true by all experiments. The other formulae, such as, E= mc² can be derived and understood mathematically.

Now the General Theory of Relativity (TGR). For the adherents it is the most beautiful theory. When someone (of course a newspaper man) asked Einstein: “What would happen if your theory is proved wrong?”  He replied “Oh no – in that case a most beautiful theory will be wasted”. Obviously beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. However TGR is very complex which defies most minds, certainly mine. So I shall state only the substance of it here. In TGR there is no force of gravitation between masses (objects).  Instead of attracting masses, gravity curves the space-time.  The more massive an object is, the higher is its gravity and therefore more it (the gravity) curves the space-time towards the object.  Not only all physical objects, but also light (I repeat light) follow the curves around other objects, giving the impression of being pulled by gravity.  Under Newton’s Gravitation, light is not affected by gravity, but nevertheless his theory works as an approximation of TGR on small scale. Observe that under General Relativity, the time dilation is affected by both speed in the space direction and gravity, and it is slightly less pronounced than in Special Relativity. Finally every prediction of each aspect of Relativity, Special or General Relativity, has been found to be correct by all experiments carried out in the last 100 years.

 Newton and Einstein: Robert Hooke, the first Professional Scientist in the early Royal Society,  produced with some friends the idea of an attractive force between physical bodies, and he approached Newton, the mathematician, for a mathematical formulation of that Idea.  Newton not only did not acknowledge Hooke’s contribution, but also when he became the powerful President of the Royal Society, behaved abominably with Hooke, eventually driving him out of the Royal Society, with vengeance. For Relativity, it was wholly the idea of a single human being, Einstein, who worked alone with paper and pencil and from his pure thought, he produced the remarkable edifice,  the Special and General Theory of Relativity. 

 TGR explains the behaviour, not only of a falling apple on someone’s head, but also of all physical  objects (that have mass) from planets, stars, galaxies in the Universe and indeed the Universe itself. It is more than astonishing that one man thinking alone could produce such a fantastic theory from his thoughts alone – a theory every prediction of which, including that of blackholes, has been found to be correct. Hundreds of physicists would like to prove this theory wrong, but in the last hundred years no such fault has been found. Einstein was not a genius, he was more than that.

Need for a Unified Theory:  Quantum Mechanics (QM) applies to small objects, such as atoms and its constituents where the force of gravity is unimportant.  In contrast TGR applies to larger objects where gravity is significant but Quantum effect is unimportant. But there is a need for a Unified Theory where both Quantum effect and gravity are significant, as in a blackhole.

A blackhole is formed when a star several times more massive than our sun dies (i.e. it stops emitting light, and hence the name blackhole). It then collapses on itself by its huge gravity, crashing itself to a physical size, some claim, of an atom. Some blackholes have the mass of apparently millions or even billions of suns. A blackhole gobbles up other stars close by. Many blackholes have been identified from effect of their huge gravity around their neighbouring stars.  Both QM and TGR apply to blackholes, QM because of the small physical size of a blackhole, and TGR because of its large gravity.  Some physicists working in the area say that TGR is so beautifully integrated with all its parts in a compact way, that it is not feasible to take out one part, modify it and insert it back – apparently one needs to unpick the whole TGR, and nobody has a clue of how to do it. Similar problems also exist in adding gravity into QM.  Some top physicists say that we perhaps need a new Einstein who perhaps woking alone somewhere on this earth will one day produce a Unified Theory of QM and TGR, which is sorely needed.

Einstein and Britain (in fact England)

I shall now end this hard stuff, and tell the true story behind the Theory of General Relativity with a little bit of salt and pepper for a flavour in a Christmas/NewYear spirit. Einstein came up with this beauty in (Nov?) 1915 in the middle of the War when the Brits were not particularly warm towards the Germans. Einstein, a great admirer of Newton, said (I am using a bit of imagination for that tricky situation): “Oh King of Science, your idea of a force of attraction is plain bonkers – leave attraction to young men and women in love. The apple might have hurt your head, but it was not attracted to your august scull. Forgive me for being blunt, but please don’t send me to the Tower. I hear beautiful Mary the Scot, had rather a dreadful time there”.

 But the Brits particularly the English, were not amused, they did want to send him to the Tower, or at least to put him down completely.  On the top of the War, comes this intolerable onslaught from a German upstart, insulting our Newton the greatest scientist, naturally an Englishman, ever lived.  The English were livid. An Englishman with the name Arthur Eddington declared: “I know how to finish that upstart. I shall prove his TGR wrong. Think of the newspaper headline: An Englishman proved the German wrong?” He immediately became the darling of the English Establishment who poured in money for Arthur. Now who was this Arthur? Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar from India came to study a Physics PhD under our Arthur, but being bored in the long boat trip from Bombay to England, he used the time on trivial pursuits which turned out to be the basis of a theory on the evolution and death of stars.  On seeing this work, Arthur advised Subra: “Forget this nonsense and do some real physics with me”. Years later Subra got a Nobel Prize for that nonsense work. But here our confident Arthur raced ahead to prove TGR wrong.

With “Mad dog and Englishman”, you never know where they would end up. As he looked at TGR, Arthur fell in love with this “beauty”. When a newspaperman asked him: Is it is true that only three persons in the world understand TGR? Arthur paused for a moment and then responded: “I wonder who could be the third?” This is called exclusive love where no rivals are admitted.

 In the 1919 solar eclipse, using some unorthodox procedure, Arthur demonstrated that the light from a planet passing by the side of the sun was curved towards the sun as predicted by TGR. And thus he showed TGR is right.  We English are never daunted by such mishaps – we always rise to the occasion. Came a newspaper headline in England: An Englishman saved the German. Einstein did not get a Nobel Prize for Relativity, but Arthur got a Knighthood.

Finally: to the eternal shame of the Nobel Committee, Einstein was not given Nobel Prize on Relativity, one of the greatest contributions of all time to Physics. He later got a Nobel Prize for his work on an area related to the Quantum theory.

Comments are welcome, but please note that all comments on the blogsite are subject to editorial control as required by law.

 www.scienceunderislam.blogspot.com



SCID006: GOD, Reality and Science

SCIENCE UNDER ISLAM

 

Science Digest [SCID] for Thinkers

 

SCID006:  GOD, REALITY AND PHYSICS

 

Prof S. M. Deen  [University of Keele, UK]

​

                                      Email: s.m.deen@keele.ac.uk

 

 

 

Recently a group of us ex-professors were trying to understand some papers on Quantum Mechanics (QM) which focussed on Quantum reality.  This inspired me to write this short piece on God, Reality and Science.

 

Given the fact that from the time immemorial every philosopher worth his salt has tried and failed to define reality, it would be presumptuous of me, a mere ordinary mortal, to try to define it. Nevertheless, we all seem to mean something when we say reality. Most people seem to believe that science (in particular physics) deals with reality and can perhaps help us to understand the Ultimate Reality, i.e. God. So, I wish to explore here what science says or does not say about reality and whether it makes sense to expect physics to lead us to God.

 

First observe that our intuitive understanding of things (including reality) is based on our day to dayexperience  – common experience. Consider: I am writing this article, and hence it is a real event. If I am sitting next to you somewhere discussing things, then this is also a real event, in which both of usare real human beings, each with a head, a body, limbs etc.  Is it the reality?  Instead of seeing a human body, should we not see all the cells etc in it, as the reality? Further down, should we not visualise all the molecules, and still further down the atoms or even electrons, protons, etc as the deeper reality? Perhaps reality appears at many levels, and we can picture it and understand it. Now consider the electrons in our body. According to QM they are not quite there, as each electron is whizzing round the universe at all times in infinite speed (relativistic speed limit does not apply in the QM world), and what we have are the probabilities (strictly, probability densities).  The whole of thecollection of electrons inside your body may not be there the next moment, some perhaps coming into my body and some of mine into your body, apart from others perhaps in the Andromeda galaxy and beyond, right up to the edge of the universe. That an entity such an electron is both a particle and wave at the same time, that it is here and everywhere in the universe at the same time, and that it can materialise instantly anywhere as particle when we try to detect it, is beyond our intuitive understanding of reality. But is this a more fundamental reality?

 

What does physics say about it? Three giants of QM are: Albert Einstein, Neils Bohr and WernerHeisenberg. Observe that Einstein got his Nobel Prize in 1921 on his work on early QM, in which he introduced the concept of “quantum” (pl. quanta).  He was never given any Nobel Prize for the Theory of Relativity (that’s another story). Bohr and Heisenberg produced the final QM, using Einstein’s quanta. What do they say about reality?

 

BW (Bohr and Heisenberg) did not believe in the existence of reality at all. For them theories are instruments for making experimental predictions. According to Bohr: “There is no Quantum world. There is only an abstract physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how the nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature …”. They further said: the task of physics is to find observables (i.e. things that can be observed directly or indirectly by experiments) and to devise theories that are in accord with the observables. There is no reality, it does not exist in physics, and hence physics should not waste time and effort searching for it.  According to them the apparent reality that we perceive, is subjective, which is created when we look for it. If we are not there looking for (observing) it, there would be no reality, they asserted.

 

In contrast Einstein believed in objective reality, i.e. reality exists independent of us (i.e. whether we exist or not). This reality, Einstein believed, is created by God the Creator [he did not believe in God the Carer  – in a philosophy known as Deism].  Einstein believed that reality exists in the Quantum world which one day will be found. Today some physicists support Einstein on reality while many others side with BW. There are still others who are questioning the Einstein’s version of Quantum reality, but some of what they call realities are far beyond our normal comprehension, far more abstract and more complex than the description of the electron reality I have depicted above.

 

Summarising, according to BW, reality does not exist, it is created when human beings look for it. That is, there will be no reality if there were no human beings. Furthermore physics has nothing to do with reality. In that case, I submit, science (physics) cannot help us to understand the Ultimate Reality.  In contrast, the Einsteinians believe in a God who has created this magnificent universe. The more we understand physics, the more we will appreciate this magnificence. But does this means that physics will directly lead to our understanding of the Ultimate Reality, beyond a deeper appreciation of the magnificence of His creation? I leave it to you to contemplate and decide.

 

If reality does not exist in physics, or if reality is different in physics from what we ordinarily perceive it to be, then there is implication on science-related over-interpretation of some Quranic verses, particularly those that some Muslims like to relate to physics from Big Bang to Higgs’ boson. This is another topic beyond the scope of this short piece. [see also my blog SCID005 on Higgs’ boson in www.scienceunderislam.blogspot.com]

         

 

© S. M. Deen, 2013.

END

 

Your comments and observations would be welcome at the blogsite

www.scienceunderislam.blogspot.com

 

Note that comments are subject to editing as required by law

 

SCID005: MASS AND HIGGS BOSON

                                     

Prof S. M. Deen  [University of Keele, UK]

Note My New Email: s.m.deen@keele.ac.uk

 

Introduction

Recently there has been great excitement about Higgs bosons, so much so that its sighting at the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) made front-page news, an unheard of public interest in science. More recently, Higgs boson was celebrated at the opening ceremony of the 2012 Paralympic Games. Some people even revere it, calling it the God particle  –  a term detested by scientists, and hence is not used here.  In this article I shall try to explain in simple terms with non-scientists in mind, what is a Higgs field, what are Higgs bosons and how they are thought to create the mass of fundamental particles. However, to understand Higgs, we first need to understand what is meant by mass in physics.  So I shall start with mass, and then offer a simple view of the Higgs field and bosons, before delving into slightly more elaboration.

Mass

Mass is the amount of matter (or substance) in an object.  The mass is meant to be an intrinsic property of an object, which does not change, unless the object is moving (as given by an Einstein’s equation), but here we shall generally assume all objects to be stationary (i.e. at rest), unless otherwise implied.

The mass of an object is most commonly defined as its weight at sea-level on earth, but this definition confuses mass with weight. Weight is a force that is given as Mg (where M is the mass of the object, and g is the gravity).  Therefore in the mass definition, the earth’s gravity is taken to be 1 (i.e. g = 1). Since the gravity does not change much on the earth’s surface, mass and weight have roughly the same numerical value, unless we leave the earth. If you go to the sun where gravity is 28 times that of the earth, the weight of a 1Kg object would be 28Kg, and likewise due to the weaker gravity of the moon, the same 1Kg object from the earth would weigh 1/6 of a Kg, but mass in both cases will remain unchanged at 1Kg.  So let us summarise: the difference between mass and weight on the surface of the earth is mainly conceptual, but on other places where gravity is very different, the weight will change, but the mass by definition will remain the same.

There are many alternative ways of defining mass, though they all yield equivalent mass contents.  One convenient alternative definition for our purpose here is: the mass of a (stationary) object is measured by the resistance it offers in moving it from its stationary position [more strictly, by its resistance to acceleration].  Imagine two solid cubes of identical dimensions, one of aluminium and the other of gold, sitting (i.e. stationary) on a friction-free surface.  The gold cube will be the heavier of the two, but neither of these two cubes will move unless they are pushed (i.e. force is applied to them); a stronger push (and hence a greater force) will be needed to move the gold cube.  But why?

You can truthfully say that this is so because gold is heavier, or you can equally truthfully say that this is because gold has more mass. But a physicist, aware of the definition of mass given above, would look at this slightly differently and say that this is so because these objects encounter resistance to movement, the gold cube encountering greater resistance than the aluminium cube. Now from the resistance encountered by each (i.e. the push required to move each) you can calculate their respective masses.  Remember that this definition will yield the equivalent mass values that you would get by weighing them on the earth’s surface.

Aside: the unit used in measuring the mass of a fundamental particle is not gram (gram is too large for it, given that the mass of an electron in grams is about 10 ^–27). The units used are: million electron volt (MeV), billion electron volt (GeV, not called BeV for some reason), etc.  These units are the energy equivalent of mass in grams obtained by applying Einstein‘s Mass Energy Equivalence. An electron has a mass of ½ MeV, while a proton has roughly 1 GeV (2000 times of an electron). Strictly speaking the proton mass is 938.27 MeVs, but people often use the rough value of 1 GeV.

The Basic Idea: Higgs Field and Higgs Boson

I trust you are comfortable with the idea that the mass of an object is nothing but the effect of the resistance it encounters in moving from its position of rest. If it is not clear, then please do email me for further clarification.

Now I assume we agree that it is the resistance that causes mass. A photon (the light particle) encounters no resistance, and hence it has zero mass. If you are a clever theoretical physicist like Peter Higgs, you would now be thinking: “Hmm. Can I contemplate a field (force) in the early universe that creates resistance?” There you will have the starting idea. But first I shall offer two analogies:

 (1). If you are walking in water, say 3 feet (1 metre) deep, you will find it hard, due to water resistance to your movement. So you will have to apply more force than you would do while walking on the ground at the same speed. In this case water is the equivalent of the Higgs field and the water molecules are the Higgs bosons, which are interacting with your body creating resistance to your movements.

 (2). Imagine a large bowl (the early universe), in which many balls of different types are moving freely at the speed of light, in this otherwise empty bowl.  Now fill the bowl with sand completely, thereby submerging all the balls. Sand, we assume, will react differently with different types of balls, creating different amounts of resistance to different balls as they try to move though that sand. We imagine some balls will not react with sand at all  –  they are the mass-less balls that will still be moving at the speed of light, the photon being one such ball. Of the other balls, each will have a different amount of resistance (and hence different mass) in this sand-filled bowl. The sand that filled the bowl is equivalent to the Higgs field, and the grains of sand reacting with those balls (dragging them if you prefer) and causing resistance are the Higgs bosons.

 Now some caveats to the analogies given above. First you can get out of the water or the balls can be taken out of the sand.  But you cannot get out of the Higgs field, it permeates the whole universe, it is everywhere, inside and outside everything including of course ourselves. Thus everything in the universe is submerged in a Higgs ocean, if you like. Secondly while water and sand are visible, the Higgs ocean is not, like the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, which are not visible.

Further Elaboration

Background

Physicists have defined over the years the properties of fundamental particles, such as electron, quarks, W and Z bosons, photon, etc. However, one very important property they were significantly unable to explain was why a particle has mass. Peter Higgs came out with the idea of a new field with a characteristic force particle in 1964 – an idea that subsequently induced several other physicists to join in. One might speculate that these theoretical physicists realised that the only way to create resistance was to have a new field in which its force particles would react with the fundamental particles, obstructing their movements.  I imagine they also came to the conclusion that since the mass of a fundamental particle is constant everywhere, the resistance it encounters also has to be constant everywhere, and hence the number of force particles has to be sufficiently large and uniformly distributed to maintain that constant resistance everywhere, unlike the electromagnetic field (or the gravitational field), where the average number of its force particles is zero everywhere.  This is indeed the case with that new force and its particle as explained below. Soon the field became known as the Higgs field, and the particle the Higgs boson.

First why it is called a boson? There are two classes of particles in physics, one class is called Fermions following the work of Enrico Fermi of Italy with Paul Dirac of England,  Fermi later emigrating to the USA. Electron, neutron, proton, etc. are fermions.  The other class of particles is called Bosons, following the work of Satyendra Nath Bose of Dhaka University (Bangladesh), with Einstein in 1927.  Bose emigrated to India in 1947, some years before my entry to the Dhaka University as a Physics student. Photon, W and Z Bosons and the Higgs particle belong to the boson class. Some sub-nuclear particles, such as neutrons and protons are made up of other particles (such as quarks), but the fundamental (equivalently, elementary) particles, such as electrons and quarks, are not made up of other particles.

In the mid-1970s came what is called the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which explains the creation of the early universe and its contents, including of course the formation of fundamental particles. Prof Abdus Salam of Imperial College with two other physicists from the USA shared the 1979 Physics Nobel Prize for it. Salam (from Pakistan) was the first Muslim to receive a Nobel Prize, and as it happened he was my teacher at Imperial College during my Particle-Physics PhD study (apologies for bragging). The Standard Model uses the idea of Higgs boson to create mass. Many aspects of the Standard Model have been subsequently verified by experiments, including the existence of the Higgs boson, it would seem, if the results of the CERN LHC (Large Hadron Collider) are finally reconfirmed.

Universe at the beginning and the evolution of the Higgs Field

Before we proceed, note that the restriction that ‘nothing can go faster than the speed of light’ never applies to the expansion of the universe itself (how privileged can you get?).  Now, when the universe was born, it was very, very hot. At time 10^-43sec [this is:   1 divided by (10⁴³), i.e., 1 divided by (1 followed by 43 zeros) sec], its temperature was about 10³² degrees [this is 1 followed by 32 zeros].  The universe then started expanding very fast at a huge rate, possibly 10⁶⁰ [i.e. 1 followed by 60 zeros, which is a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion] times faster than the speed of light, or perhaps even faster. This enormous expansion took place between 10^-36 sec and 10^-34 sec after the birth of the universe [Note 10^-36 sec is one trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of one sec, while 10^-34 sec is 100 times larger than 10^-36 sec, which is thus 100 trillionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of one sec].  By 10^-34 sec, the universe grew by a colossal factor of at least 10¹⁰⁰ [that is 1 followed by 100 zeros] in volume, possibly to an infinite size. 

In other words, in 100 trillionths of a trillionth of a trillionth of one sec, the universe attained a huge size (possibly an infinite size), cooling itself down as it expanded. This is called the inflationary expansion phase of the early universe, after which the universe still continued (and still continues) to grow, though not at that fast rate. Before I proceed further, let us consider an analogy of water transformation: hot steam cools down, first to condensation, then to water and finally to ice, as the temperature gradually goes below zero.   All these various forms are really the different phases of water displayed as it cools.   Similarly the universe has many phases that emerge as it cools down. 

As the universe cooled down further, some of the forces such as the gravitational and the electromagnetic forces evolved. Some fundamental particles were also born, but they all had zero mass.   As the universe cooled further, the Higgs field (with its Higgs bosons) came into existence, but with fluctuating field strengths, which settled to its final value at about 10^-18sec [one billionth of a billionth of one sec] after the birth of the universe when the temperature cooled down to about 10¹⁵ degrees [1000 trillion degrees].  The universe had now reached the second billionth of a billionth of the first sec of its life, and many other amazing things would happen before it became one sec old.  If you are wondering about the stars and galaxies, they were formed some 380,000 years later –  beyond our scope here.  I should mention here that these times and temperatures are rough and speculative. Another point is that the famous BigBang idea of the creation of the universe is not favoured by many physicists these days, and hence I do not use the term here. 

The Higgs field reacts with itself, and a Higgs boson has a mass of about 125 GeVs (i.e. about 120 proton masses). Note that the Higgs field and the mass of fundamental particles would disappear if we could raise the temperature of the universe above  10¹⁵ degrees, which of course we cannot do. The current average temperature of the universe is about -270C (about 2.73 degrees above the Absolute zero).

As mentioned earlier the average value of the other fields (such as electromagnetic or gravitational) is zero everywhere in the universe, the average number of their respective characteristic force particles being zero.  In contrast (again as hinted earlier) this is not so with the Higgs field, which has a large average value (i.e. strength) everywhere in the universe, implying a large number of Higgs bosons everywhere, which react with the fundamental particles endowing them with their mass.  If you add up all the masses thus created and the values of the Higgs bosons (field) in the universe, they would cancel each other out making the total mass content of the universe zero. This would happen if you could raise the universal temperature above 10¹⁵ degrees as mentioned earlier. So everything in this universe of ours is magic – nothing really exists.

Some Remarks

The Higgs process discussed above is one of several possible ways in which Higgs field/bosons might work, the correct one is expected to be determined by further experiments at CERN and perhaps elsewhere. In fact there could be several types of Higgs field and several types of Higgs boson.  Also the large strength of the Higgs field I mentioned above could be negative.  Worse still, the strength of the Higgs field could be different in different regions of the universe, creating chaos – that is, the masses of fundamental particles (and hence the physical laws) could be different in different parts of the universe. In that case we do not need to invoke the theory of multiverses, even this one universe of ours could have different physical laws in its different regions, where there may not be any atoms and molecules, let alone stars and galaxies, as we know them.

Finally, do not forget that the mass content I have discussed here constitutes only 5 percents of the universe  –  we know nothing much about the other 95 percents, made up of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.  The little that we do know fills us with so much wonder and amazement, that even Einstein exclaimed (and we concur): Allahu Akbar.

© S. M. Deen, 2012.

END

Your comments and observations would be welcome at the blogsite

www.scienceunderislam.blogspot.com

Note that comments are subject to editing as required by law

SCID04: Muslims and the Theory of Evolution by T.O. Shanavas. MD

Summary

This article challenges the commonly held creation story among the contemporary Muslims, and boldly uncovers that the theory of evolution was originally proposed by Muslims who lived centuries before Charles Darwin. These Muslim scholars, coupled with their literal reading of the Qur’an, advocated evolution of life and natural selection. The author points out that historians, scholars, and the text of the Qur'an itself concur that there is nothing intrinsically inimical to science in its pages. On the contrary, much of the Qur'anic scholarship and scripture seems to support the endeavor that we recognize today under the rubric of science.

Dr Shanvas's CV (short), publications and references are given after the main article.

The Main Article

As the western world celebrates Darwin on the 200th anniversary of his birth, it is a non-event in most of the Muslim world except for a Turkish Muslim copycat of the Christian Institute for Creation Research, Harun Yahya, and his western Muslim followers. He continues to vilify Charles Darwin as the source of all evils in the world. Unfortunately, many in the Muslim world listen to Yahya as if he is a credible source for the theory of evolution and Islam.

With all the respect due to Charles Darwin and western scientists for popularizing the theory of evolution and for collecting irrefutable evidence for the evolution of life, historically Darwin is not the original author of the theory of evolution by natural selection. The theory was originally germinated centuries before Darwin among theists, and it was a known fact for the western contemporaries of Darwin even far away in America.

Most people probably agree that there are three major components to the theory of evolution: 1. Existing animals and plants developed by a process of gradual and continuous change from previous existing forms of life over a period of three or four billion years; 2. Mutation: the mechanism of speciation; 3. Natural Selection: Animals with advantageous traits reproduce and outlive those with weaker traits. The origin of these elements can be traced to Muslim scholars lived centuries before Charles Darwin.

Abdul-Rahman Ibn Khaldun (who died in 1406 A.D) was a respected Islamic scholar, once Prime minister of Morocco, professor of Islamic Jurisprudence, a judge, and the author of the Muqaddimah (An Introduction to History). Eminent British historian, Arnold J. Toynbee, describes the Muqaddimah as the “greatest work of its kind that has ever been created by any mind in any time.”1

Ibn Khaldun accepted that human species belongs to the animal kingdom. He states, “[M]an belongs to the genus of animals” and that “God distinguished from them by ability to think, which He gave man and through which man is able to arrange his actions in an orderly manner.”2 Over 400 years before Darwin, Ibn Khaldun has described the key components of the theory of evolution. He did not see any conflict between his faith and the theory of evolution. He states:

One should then look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the first stage of plants, such as herbs, and seedless plants. …The word ‘connection’ with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group. The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and, in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able to think and reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world of monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found, but which has not reached the stage of actual reflection and thinking. At this point we come to the first stage of man (after the world of monkeys). This is as far as our (physical) observation extends.3

Ibn Khaldun understood the evolutionary origin of human based upon “physical observation.” It should be pointed out here that Ibn Khaldun is not describing a chain of being but an evolution from previously existing species. He states that “the higher stage of man is reached from the world of monkeys.” The existence of different hominid species before the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens was known to Ibn Khaldun because he states, “the first stage of man (after the world of monkeys).” However, we know now that human species did not evolve from monkeys. Apes and human had a common ancestor, Dryopithecus.

Ibn Khaldun knew that environmental factors could alter the physical characteristics in species. This fact is reflected in his explanation of the origin of human race. He rejected medieval Christians’ explanation of the origin of the black and white races. They held the view that black Africans are children of Ham and their blackness is due to Noah’s curse on Ham. On the other hand, Ibn Khaldun attributes the whiteness of the inhabitants of northern zones to the influence of excessive cold climates that occur as a result of the greater distance between the sun and the zenith in those regions. He also attributes to climatic conditions northern people’s lack of bodily hair, their blue eyes, freckled skin, and blond hair. He considered it a mistake for Christians to attribute the traits of whole nations to one of their prominent ancestors.

Ibn Khaldun also argues that “[There also is disregard of the fact that physical circumstances and environment] are subjected to changes that affect later generations; they do not necessarily remain unchanged. This is how God proceeds with His servants. . . . And verily, you will not be able to change God’s ways.”4

So, environmentally induced alterations in all life forms, including in human species, are an accepted fact among Ibn Khaldun’s generation of Muslims and before him.
Darwin had gathered enough evidence to prove that living creatures are changing and diversifying over a long period of time. He did not know the processes or mechanisms that drive biological diversity (variation in life forms), or how physical traits are passed on from one generation to the next. Pangenesis was Charles Darwin's mechanism for heredity and variation. Darwin thought that particles called “gemmules,” that contain information about the organs, would travel through the body to the sperm and eggs in the reproductive organs where they stick together. The information could be passed on to the next generation in this way, thus explaining the heritability of variation.5 Modern science has now discredited Darwin’s mechanism of pangenesis.

The mechanism of speciation by Ibn Khaldun is as much a modern theory as it can be. He states that Active nature (kiyan) “has the ability to generate substances and change essences;”6 He further explains, “The essences at the end of each particular stage of the worlds are by nature prepared to be transformed into the essences adjacent to them, either above or below.”7 Here, Ibn Khaldun posits that essence determines the nature of species and active nature generates changes in the essence to create new species. Our modern science explains the process of “generation of substance” in the essence of species (genotype) by the word “mutation.”

If we substitute the phrases, “generate substances,” “change essences,” and “worlds” in the above quotes from Ibn Khaldun with our modern scientific terminologies, “generate mutation,” “change genotype,” and “species,” Ibn Khaldun’s understanding of speciation emerges manifestly: Active nature (kiyan) has the ability to [generate mutations] (substances) and [change genotypes] (essences). The [genotype] (essences) at the end of each particular stage of the [species] (worlds) is by nature prepared to be transformed into the [genotype] (essences) adjacent to them, either above or below.

The transformation of species is further explained by Ibn Khaldun: “The word ‘connection’ with regard to these created things means that the last stage of each group is fully prepared to become the first stage of the next group.”8 If he were writing the Muquddimah today, he would say: Gradual evolution can be explained in terms of small genetic changes (mutation) in the species and by the ordering of this genetic variation by natural selection.

The third component of the theory of evolution is natural selection. We have seen above Ibn Khaldun describing active nature creating genetic variation in a population. Centuries before Darwin, other Muslims accepted the concept of natural selection. Abu Raihan al-Biruni (973-1048) was born in Khiva, Uzbekistan. Al-Biruni was among the most educated and cultured men of his time, with a brilliant intellect “encyclopaedic in scope.”9 He excelled in numerous fields of knowledge, and particularly in astronomy, mathematics, chronology, physics, medicine, and history. The following quotes from al-Biruni support the idea that, long before Malthus and Darwin, he knew about the disparity between reproduction and survival. He describes here speciation and natural selection as a result of structural advantages or beneficial trait in some species of plants and animals. Al- Biruni states:

The life of the world depends upon sowing and procreating. Both processes increase in the course of time, and this increase is unlimited, while the world is limited. When a class of plants or animals does not increase any more in its structure, and its peculiar kind is established as species of its own when each individual of it does not simply come into existence once and perish, but procreates a being like itself or several together, and not only once but several times, [italics added], then this will, as single species of plants or animals, occupy the earth and spread itself and its kind over as much territory as it can find.10

Eight centuries later, Darwin (1809-1882) concurred with Al-Biruni (973-1048) that organic beings have an unlimited ability to procreate, but that the world is limited. And both agree that individual variations in the structure of organic beings determine the survival of the peculiar kind among the species. We read in The Origin of Species:

A struggle for existence inevitably follows from the high rate at which all organic beings tend to increase [and] every organic being is striving to increase in a geometrical ratio; that each at some period of its life, during some season of the year, during each generation or at intervals, has to struggle for life and suffer great destruction. When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with full belief, that the war of nature is incessant . . . the vigorous, the healthy, and the happy survive and multiply [and] that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favourable individual differences and variations, and the destruction of those, which are injurious, I have called Natural Selection or the Survival of the Fittest.11

Al Biruni saw examples of selection in the methods of horticulturists, as well as in the natural behavior of bees. He explained:
Agriculturist selects his corn, letting grow as much as he requires, and tearing out the remainder. The forester leaves those branches, which he perceives to be excellent, whilst he cuts away all others. The bees kill those of their kind who only eat, but do not work in their beehive. Nature proceeds in a similar way (italics added).12

Several centuries later, Charles Darwin explained natural selection using examples almost identical to those used by Al-Biruni:
When a race of plants is…well established, the seed-raisers do not pick out the best plants, but merely go over their seed-beds, and pull up the ‘rogues’ as they call the plants that deviate from the proper standard…Natural Selection . . . is immeasurably superior to man’s feeble efforts.13

So far we have established that pre-Darwin Muslims scholars described all three components of the theory of evolution. In the next step, we explore whether there is any probability that Darwin was only a messenger of the Muslim theory of evolution. John William Draper (1812 -1883), a contemporary of Darwin, was a well-known American scientist. He had served as first president of the University of the City of New York (now NYU). He was the first president of the American Chemical Society.

Six months after the publication of The Origin of Species (November 1859), Professor Draper presented a paper at the meeting for the British Association for Advancement of Science (June 1860) entitled “The Intellectual Development of Europe Considered with Respect to the Views of Mr. Darwin.” During the discussion of his paper, the first discussion of Darwin’s book took place. During the discussion, Bishop Wilberforce of Oxford contemptuously inquired of Thomas Huxley, whether Huxley claimed his descent from monkeys “through his grandfather or grandmother.”14 & 15 So, Draper was closely involved in the initial discussion of Darwin’s book. Draper pointed out in one of his later treatises:
[Christian] (t)heological authorities were therefore constrained to look with disfavor on any attempt to carry back the origin of the earth to an epoch indefinitely remote, and on the Mohammedan theory of evolution [italics added] which declared that human beings developed over a long period of time from lower forms of life to their present condition.16

He acknowledged further:
we meet with ideas with which we flatter ourselves with having originated in our own times. Thus our modern doctrine of evolution and development were taught in their [Muslim] schools. In fact they carried them much farther than we are disposed to do, extending them even to inorganic or mineral things.17

If Draper in America, thousands of miles away from Muslims and separated by a huge ocean, knew about “Muhammadan theory of evolution,” there is every reason to believe that Darwin knew about the theory of evolution from Muslim sources.

The publication of several editions of The Journey of the Soul (The Story of Hai bin Yaqzan) by Abu Bakr Ibn Tufail in Europe gives other supporting evidence for the European awareness of the “Muhammadan theory of evolution.” Abu Bakr Ibn Tufail (Latin name: Abu Bazer) (1095-1138), a poet and an eminent physician, was known to have influenced Jewish and Christian thinkers and was the teacher of the great philosopher Ibn Rush (Latin name: Averroes). Although he wrote treatises on medicine and philosophy, Ibn Tufail is remembered for his famous work, The Journey of the Soul (The Story of Hai bin Yaqzan). The book is a fictional and philosophical biography that deals with the idea of evolution. One of the translators of this book, Yiad Kocache, states: “[This] is widely regarded as the prototype of Daniel Defoes’s Robinson Crusoe.... [A]stonishingly modern ideas on physiology, on the process of evolution, on the ‘scientific method’ all find their place in knowledge which his observation and intuition combine to produce.”18

The first Latin translation of The Journey of the Soul (The Story of Hai bin Yaqzan) by Edward Pocock, Jr., was published in Oxford in 1671. Several editions of this work appeared in the years from 1671 to 1700. Then, in 1708, Simon Okley published the first English translation and Dutch, German, French translations were made in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.19 The publication of many editions and several translations in different European languages of this book over of period of three centuries suggests that it was a very popular book; the probability is great, therefore, that Charles Darwin, his father Robert Darwin, and his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, all read it. Erasmus, especially, must have read it because he was a famous philosopher and physician. He was the ringleader of the “Lunar Society,” which discussed in their meetings almost every topic ranging from optics and astronomy, biology chemistry and mechanics, hydraulics and minerals, to meteorology and magnetism, ballooning and ballistics.20 So, it is not logical that he did not read a very popular book, The Journey of the Soul (The Story of Hai bin Yaqzan). Moreover, Erasmus Darwin’s The Temple of Nature has much in common with Tufail’s The Journey of the Soul. A close reading will tell that The Temple of Nature is only an English poetic rendition of Tufail’s book.21

A note for Harun Yahya and anti-evolutionist Muslims: do not blame Charles Darwin for the theory of evolution; Darwin is only a messenger of ideas of the Qur’an and your Muslim scholars. The Qur’an states: “He created you in successive stages” (Qur’an 71:14). The Qur’anic Verse 6:133 gives explicit evidence that modern humans were evolved (created) from earlier hominids. “Thy Lord is All-sufficient, Merciful. If He will, He can put you away, and leave after you, to succeed you, what He will, as the way He originally created you from the seeds of another people.” According to the verse, God may replace modern humans with another species (“whomever He pleases to succeed you”). The process of the creation of new species is similar as in the case of the creation of human originally. God “originally created you [human] from seeds of another people.”

A well-respected twelfth-century exegete of the Qur’an, Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149–1209), explains the verse by quoting scholars before him: “[God] said: ‘As We originally created you from the seeds of a different people.’ For a wise person, were he to contemplate on this statement . . . he would know that the Almighty created mankind from a sperm; a sperm that did not contain his picture [genotype] in any form or way.”22
Unlike many scientists, Al-Biruni, Jalaluddin Rumi and other Muslim theists did not feel uncomfortable with a theistic evolution of life and humans. Those Muslims did not find anything objectionable in natural selection because they believed that the nature is an office of God. For example, Al-Biruni stated:
Frequently . . . you find in the functions (actions) of Nature which it is her office to fulfill, some fault (some irregularity), but this only serves to show that the Creator who had designed something deviating from the general tenor of things is indefinitely sublime, beyond everything which we poor sinners may conceive and predicate Him.23

[If] Nature, whose task it is to preserve the species as they are, finds some superfluous substance . . . she forms [it] into some shape instead of throwing it away; when Nature does not find the substance by which to complete the form of that animal in conformity with the structure of the species to which it belongs . . . she forms the animal in such a shape, so that the defect is made to lose its obnoxious character, and she gives it vital power as much as possible.24

Rumi (1207-1273) was born in Balkh, Afghanistan. In his treatise, Masnavi, Rumi echoed the evolutionary origin of human. Rumi wrote:
He came first to the inorganic realm and from there stepped over to the vegetable kingdom. Living long as a plant, he has no memory of his struggles in the organic realm. Similarly rising from the plant to the animal life he forgets his plant life, retaining only an attraction for it which he feels especially in the spring, ignorant of the secret and cause of his attraction like the infant at the breast who knows not why he is attracted to the mother. . . . Then the Creator draws him from animality to humanity. So he went from realm to realm until he became rational, wise, and strong. As he has forgotten his former types of reason (every stage being governed by a particular type of reason) so he shall pass beyond his present reason. When he gets rid of this coveted intellect, he shall see a thousand other types of reason.25

I agree with Keith B. Miller, professor of geology at Kansas State University, that “The presumption of ‘Warfare’ between science and religious faith perpetuates erroneous understandings of nature and content of science.… Science is not learned and applied in some culturally and religiously sterile environment.”26 Let me append to Keith Miller’s thoughts that the theory of evolution with all of its major components originated in a religious environment and transmitted to the Darwin family and throughout Europe through the translation of treatises of medieval Muslim scientists.

====End====

About the Author

Born and raised as a Muslim in India, Dr T.O. Shanavas. MD immigrated in 1970 to the United States, where he is a well-known pediatrician, for which he has received many "Best Doctor" commendations. He lives in Adrian, Michigan.

Queries from his young son on the Quran and Theory of Evolution prompted him to investigate the subject, which led him to the conclusion that not only there is no contradiction between two, but also the early Muslim scholars advocated such a theory of evolution. He has published two books on the topic (as listed below) and is regularly invited as a speaker on it in many national and international gatherings.

His Publications
1. Islamic Theory of Evolution The Missing link Between Darwin and the Origin of Species, Brainbow Press, USA.
2. And God Said, "Let There Be Evolution!": Reconciling the Book of Genesis, the Qur'an and the Theory of Evolution" [Co-authored] editors: C. Wynn and A. Wiggins, ATTM Press, USA.



References on the Article



1. Abdul-Rahman Ibn-Khaldun. The Muqaddimah (Abridged edition). Trans. Franz Rosenthal (Princeton: Princeton University, 1980), Back cover.
2. Abdul-Rahman Ibn-Khaldun. The Muqaddimah. Trans. Franz Rosenthal (Princeton: Princeton University, 1980), Vol. 2:424.
3. Abdul-Rahman Ibn-Khaldun. The Muqaddimah. Vol. 1:195.
4. Ibid.,173.
5. Charles Darwin. The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication.
Revised Second Edition. (New York: D. Appleton & Co, 1883), 384-385.
6. Abdul-Rahman Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah. Vol. 3:238.
7. Abdul-Rahman Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah. Vol. 2:422-423.
8. Abdul-Rahman Ibn Khaldun. The Muqaddimah. Vol. 1:195.
9. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Micropaedia, (15th ed.) “Al-Biruni.” Vol. 2: 42.
10. Abu Raihan al-Biruni. Fi Tahqiq Ma Li’l-Hind (Al-Biruni’s India). Trans.
Edward C Sachu (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Tuberner & Co. Ltd, 1914), 400.
11. Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species. (New York, Scarborough: New American Library, 1958), 75, 86, 88.
12. Abu Raihan al-Biruni. Fi Tahqiq Ma Li’l-Hind (Al-Biruni’s India, 400.
13. Charles Darwin. The Origin of Species. 49, 75.
14. J. R. Lucas. Historical Journal, XXII (1979): 102
15. Stephen Jay Gould. “Knight Takes Bishop?” Natural History (May 1986): 18-33.
16. John William Draper. The Conflict between Religion and Science (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1875), 187-188.
17. Ibid., 118.
18. Abu Bar Muhammad Tufail. The Journey of the Soul. The Story of Hai Bin Yaqzan. Trans. Yiad Kocache (London: The Octagon Press, 1985), Back cover.
19. Ibid., vi-vii.
20. Richard Milner. The Encyclopedia of Evolution. (New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1990): 116-117.
21. Erasmus Darwin. The Temple of Nature. http://www.english.upenn.edu/Projects/knarf/Darwin/temple0.html
22. Fakr al-Din Razi . Lebanon: Dar al-Fikar. Al Tafsir al-Kabir (Arabic). Vol. 7: 212.
23. Abu Raihan al-Biruni. Fi Tahqiq Ma Li’l-Hind (Al-Biruni’s India) 295
24. Ibid., 92-93
25. Khalifa Abdul Hakim. The Metaphysics of Rumi. (Lahore, Pakistan: Institute of Islamic Culture, 1977), 36.
26.Keith Miller. “Communicating Evolutionary Science to a Religious Public.Reports of the NCSE. 29: 2 (2009): 34-35.

END


COMMENTS
Readers comments are welcome, but the Editor reserves the right to edit and to remove comments from the blogsite.

SCID03 Ramadan and Prayer Times in Lands under Midnight Sun

SCIENCE UNDER ISLAM

Science Digest [SCID] for Thinkers

SCID03 

Ramadan and Prayer Times in the Lands under Midnight Sun

Prof S. M. Deen  [University of Keele, UK]

Friday, 20 May, 2011.

Dear Brothers and Sisters

Apologies for typos, if any, despite my attempts to remove them.

1.  Introduction and Background

This year the Ramadan days in our part of England were over 16¼ hours long (from Fajr to sunset) in early August, which some people (specially the senior members) found very hard. They are devout people, who would never consider the easier and the less virtuous option of feeding two persons in lieu of each fast, but they do find the day too long for their capability. Since God does not burden a soul beyond its capability [Q2:286], I would like to think it is our religious duty to find a solution. The solution discussed below considers lower latitudes such as that of Mecca (21.43N) or perhaps some other latitude, as possible standard(s), supported by some fatwas, and should be valid also in the lands under midnight sun.

[Calculation Note: Ramadan on 10 Aug 2010 in the UK in GMT. End of Suhr 2:53am, Fajr 3:15, sunrise 4:38 am. Sunset/Iftar 7:47 pm [Add one hour more for the British Summer Time]. Hence the day length is 7:22 +7:47 = 15 hr 09 min, fasting over 16 hrs 15 m,  if you count from Fajr hence 1hr 15 min longer than the day length.]

Our senior members are already dreading the approaching longer fast days as Ramadan moves towards the summer solstice (in June), when the day length in London will be up to 16 h 39 mins, with the fast-day length (from Fajr) is around 18 hours. The days will be even longer in Northern England and Scotland. However, the situation in England is not as bad as in some other northern countries. Here are some city names and their approximate latitudes and longitudes in brackets, expressed in degrees with decimal fractions:

London  (51.50 N,  00),  sunrise 03:42 am sunset 8:21 pm (GMT) on June 21 ,  Max day length: 16 h 39 m.

Mecca    (21.43 N, 39.75 E) ,  Max day length: 13h 27 mins

Medina  (24.47N, 39.60 E),     Max day length: 13h 27 min,

Istanbul  (41.00 N, 29.00 E),  Max day length 15h 08m

Ottawa (45.22N, 75.43 W), max day length 15h 41min, from Fajr add another 2 h (is it because of twilight?)

St Petersburg  (59.56 N, 30.18 E), Max day length: 18:53 mins, shortest  5:52 mins

                                                        White nights for weeks around the summer solstice.

Anchorage (Alaska) (61.22 N, 149.85 W), Max day length 19h 22min

Trondheim (63.44 N, 10.40 E),  Max day length 20h 42 m (max temp up to 30 degree)

                                              

Tromso (69.67 N, 19.00 E),   No sunset for two months – from May21 to July 21 (temp up to 28 deg)

Hammerfest (70.68 N, 23.71 E),  No sunset for  2½ months (75 days)

The max day length given above is the time from sunrise to sunset on the summer solstice (around 21 June).

In St Petersburg (Russia) the day length in June is nearly 19 hours, but due to a long twilight the nights do not become dark (which creates the so called white nights) for weeks around June 21.  When the nights do not get dark, how does one determine the Suhr time (which is meant to be in dark), and how long the fasting has to be? In contrast the winter fast-days can be as short as six hours, which cannot really give the experience of hunger, from which Muslims are expected to learn about the suffering of those who do not have enough to eat. Also if the night is so short, how can you pray Maghreb, Isha, Tarawi and Fajr, even if you ignore Tahajjud?

In Norway there are many Muslims today. The ancient and vibrant city of Trondheim (pop 165,000), the day is 20½ hours long (from sunrise to sunset) on the summer solstice, much longer if you count from the Fajr prayer time.  Further north in the city of Tromso (pop 65,000) the sun does not set for two months (May 21 to July 21) in the summer and does not rise for two months in the winter. The twilight effect (white night) of no-darkness lasts for about another three weeks.  Still further north in the city of Hammerfest (pop 9000), the sun does not set for 75 days in the summer, with about another month of white nights.

I imagine if you visit these places, you become alive to the problems faced by Muslims there, not only on the fasting length in Ramadan, but also on the determination of prayer times.  As it happened, I visited these places a while ago, and I certainly feel strongly that we need to explore a solution, even though I am not a theologian. I would like to think that the knowledge of science is helpful in this exploration.

I had a very useful conversation on these issues with the main Imam of the Grand Mosque at St Petersburg, where there are many Muslims. He said he had been very concerned about these issues and visited Al-Azhar (Cairo), Mecca, Medina, Tehran and some other places, looking for a solution.  He offered these three alternatives:

1. Use the fasting times of the area where you originally came from (many Russian Muslims come from their southern countries).
2. Use 12 hour-day fasting
3. Use the  Mecca Times

There is also a proposal for 45 N, instead of Mecca, as the base latitude, which we shall consider later.

In the first approach, different people will fast for different length of times (depending on their original countries), while living in the same city. So I think this approach is least desirable. The second approach is equivalent to using zero degree latitude, where day and night are of equal length, but the holy Prophet fasted for longer than 12 hours in summer. So this approach is also unsatisfactory. Let us then consider the third approach.

2. Use of the Mecca Times

In the third approach, we can select Mecca (21.43 N, 39.75 E) because of its central position in our lives. Alternatively we can consider Medina (24:28 N, 39:36 E) as a kind of sunnah since the Prophet fasted in Medina. Because of its higher latitude, days in Medina are slightly longer in the summer and slightly shorter in the winter than in Mecca, but the maximum difference is around 12 minutes, which is small and hence can be ignored. Therefore we assume Mecca as our canonical location, but if Medina is preferred by most people, then it could be Medina. For the southern hemisphere we shall take the location  ( 21.43 S, 39.75 E) as the southern canonical location – but we shall not generally discuss the southern hemisphere in this piece.  Let us state (or re-state) the terms we are employing.

·     Canonical Location: It is the city we chose to follow, which we have assumed here to be Mecca to start with, but later we shall consider some other candidate locations.

·     Canonical Latitude and Longitude: these are the latitude and longitude of the chosen canonical location (in the northern hemisphere)

·     Southern Canonical Latitude: It is the southern counterpart of the canonical latitude, which would be the latitude 21.43 S if Mecca is the canonical location.

·     Southern Canonical Longitude: It is the same longitude as that of the northern canonical location.

The ideas developed below, using Mecca as an example of a canonical location, will apply to any city chosen as the canonical location (such as Medina at 24:28 N, or a city at latitude 45N, or a city at any other latitude). The basic idea is simple. Suppose you live in a city X at high latitude and Mecca is your chosen canonical location. Then if Suhr is at 4 am and Iftar at 7 pm in the Mecca (21.43 N, 39.75 E) local time, then it will be 4 am for Suhr and 7 pm for Iftar also in your city X in your local time, although in your case the sun might have risen at 3 am and set at 8 pm (again in your local time).

However the local time may not necessarily be the standard time officially used in your city. Let us first define local time, which is also called the longitude (or longitudinal) time. The local time at your place (your longitude) will give you 12 noon at midday. The local time is the same at all points (i.e. all latitudes) on a longitude. For London the local time is given by GMT. The local time is easily calculated for a longitude by multiplying the longitude value by 4 minutes, and then by adding it to GMT if East, or subtracting it from GMT if West. For Mecca the local time should be 39.75×4 = 2h 39m to be added to GMT. However, the official time used in Mecca is not its local time but a standard time, which is obtained by adding 3 hours (not 2 h 39 mins) to GMT.  Therefore the Mecca standard time is (3h – 2h 39 mins) = 21 mins more than its local time. Hence if Fajr is at 5 am in the Mecca (standard) time it, then it will be  (5 am – 21 mins) = 4 hr 39 mins at the Mecca local time. This correction has to be made at your location X for your local time as well, since you are likely to use a standard time.   The time used below is local time (sometimes called longitude time), unless indicated otherwise.

Consider the following table below of some cities with latitude (in degrees), longitude (in degrees), sunrise (am), sunset (pm), day-length (in hours and minutes) and their time difference from Mecca (in hours and minutes). The sunrise, sunset and the day-length are for the longest day (summer solstice, around 21 June).  All times given are approximate and expressed in their respective Longitude Times.  The time  differences from Mecca Local Time (MLT) is negative ( – )  if east of Mecca and positive (+) if west of Mecca   

  

 City                                              Sunrise     Sunset       Day-length      Time-difference from MLT

Beijing (39.93N, 116.38E)             04:30         7:31           15:01                   –  5:07

Mecca (21.43 N, 39.75 E)             05:16         6:43           13:27                       0

Trondheim  (63.44N, 10.40E)       01:39       10:21            20:42                   + 1: 54

London  (51.50N, 00)                    03:41         8:20           16:39                    + 2:39

Anchorage (61.22N, 149.85W))    02:19        9:41            19:22                   +12:39

Tromso (69.67N, 19.00E)              00              00              24:00                   +  1:23

Turin (45.06N, 07.6E)  [Italy]        04:10        7:50            15: 39                    +2:08

Ottawa (45.22N, 75.43 W),          04:09       7:51             15:41                     +7:40

Therefore, again assume Suhr and Iftar times in the Mecca Local Time (MLT) as 4:00 am and 7 pm – these would also be in those times in Tromso (at its local time) where the sun never sets in the summer, with a time difference of 1h 23 mins after Mecca. The same Suhr and Iftar times will be at Anchorage, but 12 hours 13 mins after the Mecca MLT.  The point to emphasize here is that every one at high latitude should be able to follow the Mecca Ramadan and prayer times in their own local times. The time difference from Mecca should not matter, except for crescent sightings for new lunar months (see below)   

[Aside on International Date Line (IDL)

Since Anchorage is more than 180 degrees West of Mecca in longitude, we can treat it to be in the east of Mecca with a negative time difference 11 hours 21 minutes from Mecca. This should not really matter in practice, except in day names. The accepted convention is that new day-name starts from the IDL (International Date Line) and moves westward with the sun. Therefore positive time-difference for Anchorage (more than 180 degrees away) would mean the same day-name as in Mecca, but the negative time-difference would mean the day before the day in Mecca, since we need to cross IDL to reach Mecca from Anchorage if we follow the sun's apparent westward journey. It would be up to the Anchorage community to choose, between these two possibilities.].

3.  Proposal for 45 N

As mentioned earlier, there is an alternative proposal for 45 N as the canonical latitude instead of the Mecca latitude of 21.43N (with 45S for the southern hemisphere). Consider, Turin in Italy and Ottawa in Canada:

Turin (45.06N, 07.6E), max day length 15h 39m,  from Fajr add another 2 hours (long twilight).

Ottawa (45.22N, 75.43 W), max day length 15h 41mins, from Fajr add another 2 hours (long twilight)

Since both the cities are more or less at 45N, we can choose either of them as the canonical location. Let us assume Turin as the canonical location at 45N.  Say you live in a city called X north of the latitude 45N. Then as before if Suhr is at 3 am and Iftar at 8 pm in the Turin local time, then it will be 3 am for Suhr and 8 pm for Iftar also at your location X at your local time, even though the sun might have risen at 2 am and set at 11 pm in your location (in your local time).  

I would personally favour Turin as the canonical location for 45 N as Turin is further away from the International Date Line than Ottawa. But my personal preference is not important. Any further discussion on the choice between the Mecca latitude and the 45 N latitude as the canonical latitude has been deferred to the Fatwa section given later.

4. Crescent Sighting at High Latitudes

Next issue is the crescent sighting at high latitudes, including latitudes where the sun/moon do not sometimes rise or set.  We cannot use the Mecca sighting of the crescent because of the longitudinal difference (i.e. time difference). I have discussed these issues on crescent sighting in my last blog,

[ scid02 in  [www.scienceunderislam.blogspot.com ] ]

where a Longitude-based Crescent Sighting (LCS) scheme has been presented. This scheme can be followed by both the sighters and the calculators, and will work on higher latitudes including the lands under midnight sun, where sun/moon do not rise/set for days. The sighters (implying physical sighters) are those who insist on the physical sighting of the new crescent, while the calculators (who can be called the logical sighters) are those who use calculations to establish the birth of a new crescent. Therefore in our jargon, if the calculations predict the conjunction of the new crescent to take place at or before midday on a longitude (in its local time), then the new crescent has been "logically sighted" at that longitude. You can read that scheme from my last blog, but here I summarise the main outline.

A Longitude-based Crescent Sighting Scheme

Below by sighters we shall mean the physical sighters and by calculators the logical sighters. We have defined a concept of longitudinal sighting, which states that:

(i) if the crescent is physically sighted at any point on a longitude, then it should be accepted as sighted physically at all points (i.e. all latitudes) of that longitude (for the physical sighters).

(ii) Similarly,  if the crescent is logically sighted at any point on a longitude, then it should be accepted as sighted logically at all points (i.e. all latitudes) of that longitude (for the logical sighters).  

This concept can be used by both the sighters and the calculators. Based on this concept, we have defined sighter's and calculator's longitudes, the former is the eastern-most longitude in which the new crescent is physically sighted, and the latter is the longitude where the conjunction for this new crescent takes place exactly at 12 noon (at the longitude time of that longitude) and hence the eastern-most longitude for the logical sighters (i.e. the calculators) for that new crescent.  Furthermore the crescent would be deemed sighted (physically or logically as the case may be) on all longitudes west of it, until the east side of the sighter's or the calculator's (as the case may be) longitude is reached. As discussed above this scheme will work for both sighters and calculators and also at high latitudes (polar latitudes) where sun/moon may not even rise or set for days, i.e. the lands under midnight sun.  (See the blog for scid02 for more details  [www.scienceunderislam.blogspot.com ])

5.  Theological Views (Fatwas):

Many theologians believe that we need a global solution to this problem, but the solutions proposed are not the same. Here I shall present two solutions one favouring latitude 45 degree and the other for a lower latitude:

(i). The European Council of Fatwas and Research [www.IslamOnline.net]

They quote the Islamic Council of Fiqh Academy and its decision at Mecca in 1406 AH. [1985 CE?]]

They divide the northern area into three zones (i) 45N – 48 N, (ii) 48N – 66N, (iii) 66N – 90 N

In zone (i) they follow normal practice, fasting from true dawn to sunset (in compliance with Sharia).  But if the day length is excessive for some people, then those people can fast at another more convenient season.  The zone (ii) usually has very long twilight which makes the separation of Maghreb and Isha difficult, in which case Muslims there are recommended to follow the closet regions, where the twilight is not a serious problem, for which 45N is suggested as a solution. For zone (iii) all times are to be calculated in analogy with 45N. Muslims may use ijtihad, the fatwa says, for their decisions.  For the southern hemisphere 45 S will be the relevant latitude. I do not know why they have chosen 45 deg latitude. Summarising, this fatwa says that 45 deg is to be used as the canonical latitude, and those who find its fast-length too long, they can fast at another season, when the day-length is shorter.

I present below some implications of this fatwa, using Turin as a canonical location.

   Turin (45.06N, 07.6E), max day length 15h 39m,  from Fajr add another 2 hours (long twilight).

Therefore the fast-length near the summer solstice will be around 18 hours. Today, we have numerous older people who will be generally too frail to keep this long fast as is the case in London.  Breaking the Ramadan fast by some sick people is a different thing, from breaking the fast by a whole generation of older people who are not sick in the normal sense, but who just find the days too long.  If they fast at a convenient season for those unfasted days, then different people are likely to be fasting on different seasons and different days, which will break the cohesion of the Ramadan spirit, where people do Iftar together. Furthermore, some people may choose the winter period (shorter days) which will break the meaning of the holy month of Ramadan, since (as mentioned earlier) very short fasting does not give the experience of real hunger, which Muslims are supposed to feel in Ramadan with the hungry. In other words, this fatwa does not pay enough attention for a shared common experience.

Given these issues the obvious question is why 45N, rather than any other latitude? What is so special about 45N? I do not know. I have not seen any theological justification for 45 N. However consider Istanbul  (41.00N, 29.00E) which has the max day length (in the summer) of 15h 08 min, compared to Turin's maximum day length of 15h 39 min, thus Turin (45.06N, 07.6E) having a 31 mins longer day-length at the summer solstice. Istanbul has latitude 41N,and as far as I know, people in the Ottoman Empire did not ask for a fatwa in favour of a lower latitude. So if 41N was OK, then why not 45N (which Turin has) as a general upper limit? This is a valid argument, but I think the problem is the change in demography. In those days there were not many older people and they did not live very long. But now we have a growing number of an elderly population, which is not generally in good health and which is increasingly living to a longer age. They are too frail to keep a long fast, the point argued at the beginning of this article. They need a solution that allows them to fast with everybody else during the holy month of Ramadan (but not in a different month) with shorter fasting length..  The fatwa below provides one.     

(ii) Alternative Fatwa

Since The Quran does not say anything on this, therefore we should invoke ijtihad, they argue. In their view any fasting for a day-light time longer than 14 hours is not easy and causes hardship, which God could not have meant it, since Islamic practices are not meant to be difficult to follow. They usually quote two verses from the Quran:

"It was in the month of Ramadan that the Quran was revealed as guidance for mankind, clear messages giving guidance and distinguishing between right and wrong. So anyone of you who is present that month should fast, and anyone who is ill or on a journey should make up for the lost days by fasting on other days later. God wants ease for you not hardship.  ..  ..  "             [2.185],            [Abdul Haleem]

     "God does not burden any soul with more than it can bear ....."     [2.286],             [Abdul Haleem]

I have used the recent translation by Abdul Haleem

They argue that the  Quran gives a general guidance to Muslims as captured in the verse 2:185 which, after prescribing Ramadan fasting, goes on to say that: "God wants ease for you not hardship". Furthermore in the verse [2:286], the Quran re-enforces this hardship point by saying "God does not burden any soul with more than it can bear." Taken together these imply that God wants that which is easy for you, not that which is overbearing. Therefore the argument continues:  Fasting is not meant to create severe hardship or health-risk, but to teach Taqwa – consciousness and awareness of the Divine. 

Following these thoughts various proposals have been made, ranging from following a country that has more regular day-night division, to an average day length (averaging over the summer and winter) to individually deciding on the start and end hours of fasting the maximum duration not exceeding some 14 hours or so. I guess the idea of 14 hours comes from Mecca, or Medina, where the maximum day length (sunrise to sunset) in June is 13 hrs 27 minutes and 13 hours 39 minutes respectively, to which one must add about one hour for the fasting length from Fajr to sunset (Maghreb).  

The idea of nearby countries or origin-countries have been discussed and found to be wanting, earlier in this discourse.  Average day length is 12 hours (if we average over a year) and hence it is equivalent to taking the day-length at the equator – a position that has also been discussed and found to be wanting earlier. One scholar gave a fatwa in favour of individual decision up to a maximum of about 14-hour-day, starting from 5 am and ending at 7 pm. The same scholar also indicated a preference for the use of fast duration at Medina or Mecca as guidance. He ends his fatwa with the following thoughtful words:

"I realize that there are Muslims who for whatever reason (be it stamina, strict adherence to the tradition, , etc) will view my suggestion as heresy, and stick to the dawn and sunset times in their regions regardless of the extremely long summer days. My recommendation is for those Muslims who concur that Allah does not want the fast to be overly burdensome on us. And Allah knows the best".

      [ www. forpeoplewhothink.org/Answers/Ramadan-Summer-Days.html.]

Our question is how does a Muslim choose? I guess it has to be left to ijtihad. If a Muslim finds the fasting length too hard, he/she can choose either Mecca or (if a higher latitude is preferred) another place on a higher latitude, as the canonical latitude location. It is up to the Muslims to choose. Whatever latitude (45 N, or Mecca latitude, or some other) they choose as the canonical latitude, the people living at high latitude can apply the local time idea proposed above to find their fasting and prayer times from those of their chosen canonical location. This scheme of local times is sound and rigorous and will work at any higher latitude, even in the lands under midnight sun, for whatever location is chosen as the canonical location (Turin, Mecca or some other).  Finally, observe that one can choose a lower latitude for fasting and at the same time feed two persons for each day of Ramadan.

6. Summary

At higher latitudes where the day is too long in the summer and too short in the winter (or even the sun does

not set in the summer and does not rise in the winter), we have a problem for the determination of fasting and

prayer times.  I have described above two fatwas on fasting times, one uses  45 N (say Turin), and the other proposes a lower latitude such as that of Mecca as the canonical location to base their fasting lengths.  (Equivalent definition exists for the southern hemisphere). It is up to the Muslims at the higher latitudes to choose from these, or some other options, using ijtihad (as suggested in the fatwas). Whatever location a Muslim selects as the canonical location, he (she) can use the proposed local time scheme to find the fasting and prayer times from those of the chosen canonical location. Assume a Muslim lives in a high latitude city called X. Now, if Suhr starts at 4 am in the chosen canonical location in its local time, then it will be also at 4 am at the local time of the city X. This is a  simple but rigorous global scheme which will hold at all high latitudes North or South, including in the lands under midnight sun. However, people may or may not agree with my local time scheme, but all Muslims are free to make their own schemes based on ijtihad.  One can of course fast for a lower latitude and at the same time also feed two persons each day during Ramadan. I hope this article will stimulate some discussions on the issues covered.

© S. M. Deen, 2011.

END