Notes on Science and Religion

Brief History of Science and Religion-

Plato and Aristotle
1) Plato- Born in B.C.E. 427- Opposed ideas of earlier thinkers of Cause and effect, one in which
non material ideas had no relevance. Plato was convinced that something other than matter and
motion lay at the heart of reality.
2) Non-material realm of ideas or forms were given importance as he forwarded an understanding
of dualism where earth is a mere poor imitation of the eternal realm which is filled with perfect
forms or ideas.
3) That which is true must be perfectly true which is not subject to decay or degradation, so it
cannot change, it must therefore be eternal.
4) Plato used deductive logic where he deduced reality from abstract ideas to material realities.
5) Plato’s thoughts dominated ethical motive because he was convinced that Truth and Good are
inseparable. Plato emphasized the primacy of ideas over material reality.
6) Aristotle, the student of Plato, did think ideas are important but dismissed the purity and
primacy of ideas.
7) Aristotle was an empiricist, using inductive method.
8) The distinction of Aristotle and Plato could be done using the example of Iron waffle mould
and batter. Plato says that in making a waffle, the most important thing is the iron mould of
waffles that gives waffles the shape while Aristotle says that batter that is the ingredient of
waffles is the most important factor.
9) Plato emphasized in syllogism in his primary quest for science and answers. A=B, B=C
therefore A=C. Humans=Mortals, Mammals=Mortals, therefore Humans=Mammals.
10) Aristotle went beyond syllogism to classification of observed things and that requires
observation and study. Highest probable answer is important in classification. Aristotle studies
and set base for zoology, biology, physics, medicine, etc. Classification is based on senses and
observations which Plato was against as senses was not a constant.
11) Four causes of Aristotle
a) Material- One that the material under investigation is made of- eg- wood is the material
cause of a table
b) Formal- Blueprint or essence is the formal cause in making a table, the very idea, the one
needed to reach its telos
c) Efficient Cause-is the external agent that causes the material change like building and
making it reach to the telos. Carpenter assembles and builds step by step, which is the
efficient cause, so the carpenter is not the efficient cause but the carpenter and his
knowledge and bodily disposition makes the efficient cause without the will.
d) Final Cause- If the stuff reaches its final purpose, that is, if one can sit on the chair, it has
reached its final cause.
12) Three Classification of Aristotlean Science into Productive, Practical and Theoretical
a) Productive Knowledge- On how things function and how making of things are part of it
(techne). Such a science aims at the creation of a product. A science of computers, for
example, aims at the production of computers. For Aristotle only human beings, who alone
have rationality, are capable of engaging in productive science. A bird which builds a nest
is merely acting according to its instincts, and not at all according to reason and scientific
knowledge. Thus, only human beings can engage in productive science, and create a
product through the utilization of theoretical knowledge.
b) Practical- It is concerned with effective human action like ethics or politics. Such a science
aims at knowledge of action, or praxis. The science of action underlies the ability to act
well, or to live the good life, which according to Aristotle was a life guided by reason.
c) This is the theoretical knowledge. Ultimate or absolute truth or rationality. Those who
engage in theoretical science seek knowledge for its own sake. For Aristotle theoretical
science in turn was divided into three sub-categories. The first sub-category studies natural
objects which generate movement and growth internally; that is, living objects as well as
the ‘heavenly bodies’ and geological phenomena. The second sub-category of theoretical
science studies objects in abstraction from their motion. In other words, it studies the
quantitative aspect of objects. This second division of theoretical science is the domain of
mathematics. The third and final sub-category of theoretical science is the study of objects
that are not in motion, or are immovable. This is the study of “first causes”, so to speak,
and is the domain of theology.
Islamic Sciences
Roman Empire can be divided into West and East (Byzantine). The west fell in the 5 th century
and the Byzantine part or east survived till 1203. Since the east survived, all the scholars
migrated there with works of Plato and Aristotle. Islamic Science with Arabic continued the
emphasis of empiricism and experimentation while the west sunk into darkness and
superstition. The dietary prohibitions advanced public health and mortality. Galen’s work was
incorporated and the empiricism was integrated. The Arabic translation of Plato and Aristotle
preserved the works which otherwise would have been destroyed. Islamic Science were very
progressive.
Galen's understanding of anatomy and medicine was principally influenced by the then-current
theory of humorism (also known as the four humors – black bile, yellow bile, blood, and
phlegm), as advanced by ancient Greek physicians such as Hippocrates. His theories dominated
and influenced Western medical science for more than 1,300 years. His anatomical reports,
based mainly on dissection of monkeys, especially the Barbary macaque, and pigs, remained
uncontested until 1543, when printed descriptions and illustrations of human dissections were
published in the seminal work De humani corporis fabrica by Andreas Vesalius[9][10]where
Galen's physiological theory was accommodated to these new observations.[11] Galen's theory
of the physiology of the circulatory system remained unchallenged until ca. 1242, when Ibn al-
Nafis published his book Sharh tashrih al-qanun li’ Ibn Sina (Commentary on Anatomy in
Avicenna's Canon), in which he reported his discovery of the pulmonary circulation.[12]
Galen's approach to medicine became and remains influential in the Islamic world. The first
major translator of Galen into Arabic was the Arab Christian Hunayn ibn Ishaq. He translated
(c. 830–870) 129 works of "Jalinos"[69] into Arabic. Arabic sources, such as Muhammad ibn
Zakarīya al-Rāzi (AD 865–925), continue to be the source of discovery of new or relatively
inaccessible Galenic writings.[63] One of Hunayn's Arabic translations, Kitab ila Aglooqan fi
Shifa al Amrad, which is extant in the Library of Ibn Sina Academy of Medieval Medicine &
Sciences, is regarded as a masterpiece of Galen's literary works. A part of the Alexandrian
compendium of Galen's work, this 10th-century manuscript comprises two parts that include
details regarding various types of fevers (Humyat) and different inflammatory conditions of the
body. More important is that it includes details of more than 150 single and compound
formulations of both herbal and animal origin. The book provides an insight into understanding
the traditions and methods of treatment in the Greek and Roman eras. In addition, this book
provides a direct source for the study of more than 150 single and compound drugs used during
the Greco-Roman period. So the fall of Islamic Science during Crusades got the works of
Aristotle and Islam, Back to West where it was transalted in latin.
Medieval Science (World as Drama)
Aquinas reintroduces Aristotle into West. Medieval writers had a Aristotlean framework where
they were primarily interested in logical realtionships among ideas, and secondarily interested
in testing hypothesis by experiements. Greek science was recovered in 13th century where
Aristotle was translated from Arabic. Science was not autonomous but a branch of Philosophy.
Aristotle sought explanations in terms of
a) True form
b) Intelligible essence
c) Purpose it fulfils
As per Aristotle’s idea an object falls and motion is explained by the tendency of each thing to
seek its own resting place. The end of the motion- in the sense of terminus and of purpose- was
of more interest than the intervening process.
Formal causes and Final causes was given more importance and Efficient Causes was not so
important.
Feature of everything is to change from potentiality to actuality. Categories of explanation were
about essence and potentiality, not mass and motion connected by laws in space and time.
Medieval time, God’s purpose was seen the most important which made the rationality
deductive rather than inductive. The goal was not description, prediction and control of a
limited phenomenon but rather the understanding and contemplation of the meaning of the part
in relation to the whole and to God. Teleology confirmed all theories which Galileo later
discarded.
Nature as a Created Hierarchy
Aristotelian Cosmology and Christian Theology= Medieval picture of the universe where Earth
was fixed central sphere surrounded by the concentric spheres of the heavens. Hierarchy of
reality where everything is fixed. God, planets, angels, men, women, animals, and plants.
Everything was neatly arranged. It was a law abiding world, where laws were moral and not
mechanical. Aquinas and his followers emphasized on rationality of God which was highlighted
in their attitude to nature which gave rise to later science. Rational power of the intellect were
seen enough to grasp the true essence of the world.
Nature was seen as essentially static with all its species created in its present form. Basic image
of the earth is that of a kingdom, fixed, ordered society under a sovereign Lord.
Reason and Revelation
Scholastic theought was based on Reason and Revelation, synthesis of Greek and biblical faith.
God is know through both natural and revealed theology.
Natural truth is revealed through unaided power of human reason.
Revealed truth is revealed from God through Christ and the prophets.
Since all truth is from God, both truths are compatible.
For Aquinas reason is important but subordinate to revealed truth. God’s existence is rationally
demonstrable but incarnation and trinity are not. Faith is the acceptance of the revealed truth
on the authority of the Church rather than trust in personal relationship with God.
Bible was only one element in this total system of thought and scripture was considered
authoritative only as interpreted by the Church. Scripture had levels of truth.
God as Creator and Redeemer
In Aquinas’ conception of God, Aristotle’s Unmoved mover and Bible’s personal father had
become one. The metaphysical First casuse of Greek philosophy was identified with purposeful
creator of the Bible where concepts like omnipotence, omnipresence seem to dominate over
personalistic images of father, judge, saviour, but Aquinas’ writing clearly pictures God’s
concern with redemption.
Aquinas portrays God as continuing ruler of the World unlike deism.
God works through natural causes, governs the world through angels and directly acts
through miracles to achieve specific results. This concept of nature was to be challenged.
Nature was subordinate to humanity.
Nature was a stage setting for the drama of God and humanity.
World History is understood as
a) Creation
b) Covenant
c) Christ
d) Church
e) Consummation

Human was mortal body/ immortal soul

Universe was Theocentric
World was anthropocentric

Reformation and Renaissance

Till the Reformation, the Church was the custodian of truth. Here is where the Reformation
comes to the debate.
Luther challenged the authority of the Church. Through the “Priesthood of all Believers”
the individual emphasis on study paved way for future Scientific revolution. Guttenberg’s print
and printing of the bible gave the entire “Priesthood of all Believers” a great emphasis where
observation and study became critical and the Church as dispenser of reality was challenged.
Renaissance
a) Copernicus was a scholar as opposed to a scientist in the modern sense of the word. As
did many scholars of the time, he immersed himself in the newly translated Classical
literature – not with the intention of making new discoveries, but in order to recover old
discoveries. Copernicus is sometimes credited with discovering the heliocentric model of
the solar system; but in fact, he read about it in a book. Ancient Greek thinkers – principle
 among them the pre-Socratic philosopher Aristarchus – had proposed such a system
centuries before the Common Era.
Copernicus read about this model and realized that it explained, in a simple manner, many
aspects of the motion of the planets – aspects that were explained by complex, implausible
explanations when using Ptolemy’s geocentric model. Copernicus felt that a satisfactory
representation of the solar system should be coherent and physically plausible and not
require a different construction for each phenomenon (as Ptolemy’s system did). To
Copernicus, Ptolemy’s system was ugly and therefore could not represent the work of a
divine Creator. (Upon hearing, in the late thirteenth century, of Ptolemy’s model of the
universe and of the extremely complicated mathematics it required, Pope Alfonso X is said
to have replied, "If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation, I
should have recommended something simpler.”) As early as 1514, Copernicus circulated
among his friends a short manuscript describing his heliocentric views. He was reluctant to
publish it. Most contemporary scholars believe that this reluctance was not due to fear
concerning the reaction of the Church; the Church did not take a hard line on the issue at
the time, and was generally supportive of Copernicus. It was only later, during the period
of the CounterReformation, that thinkers such as Giordano Bruno and Galileo Galilei
suffered retribution for their views on the nature of the universe. In 1533, Johann
Widmannstetter, the personal secretary to Pope Clement VII, delivered a series of lectures
in the Vatican gardens outlining Copernicus' theory. Clement and several cardinals heard
the lectures and were interested in the theory. Clement’s successor, Paul III, probably heard
of Copernicus’ ideas from Cardinal Nikolaus von Schonberg, a confidante of popes Leo X,
Clement VII, and Paul III. At Pope Paul III’s urging, Schonberg wrote Copernicus on
November 1, 1536, saying in part, “Therefore, learned man, without wishing to be
inopportune, I beg you most emphatically to communicate your discovery to the learned
world.” In spite of this support, Copernicus waited six years to publish his views after
receiving Schonberg’s encouraging letter. Finally, his friend and student, Georg Rheticus,
convinced him that it was time to do so. Copernicus died in 1543. He is said to have
received a copy of his printed book, titled On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres and
consisting of about 200 pages written in Latin, for the first time on his deathbed. The likely
explanation for his reluctance to publish was that Copernicus was concerned about how his
ideas would be received by both the devout masses and by his fellow scholars, who all were
deeply committed to the Aristotelian worldview. To put this seemingly outrageous idea
forward with no evidence – other than its greater simplicity – would invite heavy criticism.
In his dedication of the book to Pope Paul III, Copernicus mentioned his concern that after
people heard of his views, he would be “hissed off the stage.”

In fact, the initial religious reaction against Copernicus’ theory came not from Catholics
but from Protestants. The Copernican hypothesis contradicted several passages in Scripture
concerning the fixity of the earth, and biblical literalism was Protestantism’s absolute
authority. Even before the publication of the book, Martin Luther heard of Copernicus’
theory and is reported to have said, “The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy
upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not
the earth.” But 73 years after its publication, the Catholic Church also put the book on a list
of titles Catholics were forbidden to read.

b) Johannes Kepler Although he was hired to make the calculations necessary to demonstrate
the correctness of Brahe’s geocentric model, Johannes Kepler had for some time been a
convinced Copernican. Not that he believed that Copernicus’ model was correct in all its
details; he knew that its slight inaccuracies meant that ultimately it was incorrect. But the
aesthetic superiority of Copernicus’ heliocentric view was compelling to Kepler. Brahe
 died shortly after Kepler was hired. Kepler succeeded Brahe as the mathematician and
astrologer to the Holy Roman Emperor, with the responsibility of completing Brahe’s
unfinished work. Kepler now had access to Brahe’s decades of unprecedentedly accurate
astronomical observations. He had entered Brahe’s employment with a specific heliocentric
model of his own, and Kepler now had the opportunity to check his model against the data.
Kepler soon found that his model was wrong – but he did not give up. Over a period of four
years he repeatedly devised new models, checked them against the data, and found that
they were wrong. In these attempts he focused on the planet Mars. He reasoned that a divine
Creator would not have created a different orbit for each planet; that would be unaesthetic,
something incompatible with Kepler’s view of God. If Kepler could figure out the orbit of
Mars, he was sure it would be the orbit of all the other planets as well. After years of
unsuccessful attempts using various combinations of circles, Kepler gave up on this
approach. Finally, in 1605, he hit upon the correct combination of path and speed that would
match his calculations to Brahe’s observations. Mars moves in an elliptical path, with
varying speeds depending on the distance between it and the sun. Mars speeds up as it
approaches the sun and slows as it recedes. It does this in such a way that an imaginary line
drawn between Mars and the sun sweeps out equal areas in equal time intervals. As Kepler
had suspected, this orbit worked for the other planets as well. Although Kepler’s manuscript
presenting this discovery was completed in 1605, it was not published until 1609 due to
legal disputes over Kepler’s use of Brahe’s observations, which were the property of his
heirs. Kepler’s correct orbit model was arrived at strictly by trial and error. Kepler had no
model in mind that allowed him to predict it and no clear explanation for why the planets
moved in this way. Such an explanation would not be found for another 50 years, when
Isaac Newton presented the answer. However, the accuracy with which Kepler’s model
was able to predict the past locations of the planets in the sky, as verified by Brahe’s
observations, left little doubt that Kepler’s model of orbit was correct.
c) Galileo Galelei (1564- 1642)
He is called as the father of Modern Science

Although Galileo did not invent the telescope, he was the first to use it to gain knowledge
of the heavens. Among his discoveries were the mountains and craters on the moon.
Because the moon was part of the celestial realm, Aristotle and Christian teachings required
it to be perfect. It was clearly “blemished,” perhaps signifying that as the closest celestial
object to the earth, it was a transitional object between the imperfect earth and the
absolutely perfect heavens beyond. In any case, scholars and churches of the time taught
that the moon was a perfectly smooth and spherical object. Looking at the moon with the
naked eye, it would have been easy to believe this to be true. But through Galileo’s
relatively low-power telescope, it clearly was not true. Galileo had trouble convincing
others of this. His colleagues either refused to look through the telescope or claimed that
the irregularities were an artifact of the telescope itself rather than a true image of the moon.
The resemblance of the moon’s features to those on the earth misled Galileo somewhat. He
thought that the dark, relatively smooth surfaces on the moon were oceans and named them
seas. Today we call them maria, the Latin word for seas. Galileo also discovered that the
planet Venus went through phases just as the moon does. This discovery was important
because it proved that Venus orbited the sun rather than the earth, thus proving the
Ptolemaic model wrong. Galileo also was able to demonstrate what some others had
suspected: The Milky Way, the band of diffuse light that arcs across the night sky from
horizon to horizon, is actually composed of hundreds of thousands of stars. In addition,
Galileo observed sunspots and used them to calculate the speed of rotation of the sun to be
about one revolution every 25 days. But perhaps Galileo’s most important discovery was
finding the four (now called Galilean) moons of Jupiter. One of the strongest arguments in
favor of the geocentric model was the fact that our moon orbits the earth. No one disputed
this. But the accepted argument of the day went further to say that the earth could not
possibly move because if it did, it would leave the moon behind. In the days before the
discovery of gravity, this was a very powerful argument. However, whether one believed
in a geocentric or a heliocentric universe, it was clear that Jupiter moved; it had to orbit
something, whether that object was the earth or the sun. The fact that Jupiter was somehow
able to move without leaving its moons behind destroyed the prevailing argument of the
time. As many astronomy students may know, Galileo got into serious trouble with the
Catholic Church later in his life, culminating in his being called before the Inquisition in
1633. The root of his problem with the Church began in 1616. At that time, when with the
Counter-Reformation was well underway, the Catholic Church had joined Protestant
churches in opposing the Copernican model. Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade the
Church authorities not to ban Copernicus' ideas. Although the church did not officially ban
the Copernican model, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine ordered Galileo not to "hold or defend"
the idea that the earth moves and the sun stands still at the center. This decree, however,
did not prevent Galileo from discussing the heliocentric hypothesis as a hypothesis rather
than a fact. In 1623 Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a friend and admirer of Galileo, was elected
Pope Urban VIII. Galileo felt it was now safe to take a stronger position with respect to the
heliocentric model. His book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was
published in 1632. Before publishing, Galileo discussed the book with Urban. The pope
asked that Galileo give arguments both for and against the heliocentric and geocentric
models and offered some of his own in favor of the geocentric over the heliocentric model.
But in the Dialogue as it was published, the arguments for the geocentric model and against
the heliocentric model are made by Simplicio, a word which in Italian has the connotation
of “simpleton.” In Galileo’s book, Simplicio frequently came across as a fool, and the work
clearly is not a balanced discussion of the two models but rather a polemic for the
heliocentric model – a model that Galileo, in 1616, had been forbidden to support. To make
matters worse, Galileo is said to have put the exact words of the pope into the mouth of his
character Simplicio. The Pope was not amused, and Galileo was called to Rome to face the
Inquisition. Galileo was threatened with torture if he did not publicly recant, which
ultimately he did, avoiding torture but being found “vehemently suspect of heresy” and
sentenced to house arrest, under which he lived for the remainder of his life. In spite of his
troubles with the Roman Catholic Church, Galileo remained a devout Catholic throughout
his life. His justification for proposing theories of the universe contrary to the model of the
Bible is summarized in his statement, “The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how
the heavens go.” His trial before the Inquisition ended Galileo’s work as an astronomer.
Fortunately for science, it did not end his work as a physicist. During his near-decade of
house arrest, Galileo made original contributions to the science of motion through an
innovative combination of experimentation and applied mathematics. Galileo was perhaps
the first to clearly state that the laws of nature are mathematical. His studies of motion laid
the groundwork for Isaac Newton’s formulation of his three laws of motion. The first of
these laws, logically just a special case of the second law, is simply a restatement of work
done by Galileo, and was included specifically to recognize Galileo’s contribution.
Galileo’s empirical approach to his studies of motion is what we now know as the scientific
method

i) Method in Science: Mathematics and Observation

The key feature of the new science was combination of mathematical reasoning and
quantifiable observations. Ptolemaic system was very mathematically cumbersome and
arbitrary to prove the Sun revolves around the earth. Copernican model agreed with
available observations with comparable accuracy. With mathematical harmony
emphasized, the universe was more seen as a mathematical structure. The basic
assumption of the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic system was that moon is a perfectly celestial
being. With the invention of Telescope, Galileo saw that the moon was irregular and
imperfect breaking the old worldview. He discovered Jupiter had 4 moons that challenged
the theory of Moon being left behind put forward to show that earth does not rotate but is
fixed. Therefore the Copernican model was emphasized.
Galileo combined mathematical equation with experimentation, which was crucial to
further the cause of science.
He used concepts such as length, time and velocity which could be tied to measurements
and tied to mathematical symbols. He was not wholly successful but instroduced path
breaking features such as distinctive type of concept, the combination of theory and
experiment, and the goal of expressing laws of nature as mathematical relationships among
measurable variables.
Experimental side was indeed crucial with improved instruments in navigation, astronomy,
metallurgy and military weaponry.
ii) Imaginative New Concept-
It is false to believe that Science is only about observation and analysis. Galileo said that
motion arose out of two sources- continuing uniform inertial motion and frictional
retarding force. Galileo refined the concept of inertia. Galileo did not believe the ball came
to a rest because it desired to be in its natural state. The theory of inertia says that an objects
inertia will maintain its state of motion. So the ball should roll on forever. The ball only
stops rolling because an external force (friction) causes the ball to stop. The more inertia
an object has, the harder it is to change its state of motion.
The proof of this idea was that if a ball rolled down one ramp, its inertia would cause it to
roll up an opposite ramp of equal height. If the ramps are placed close to each other, the
effects of friction are minimized. If we lower the slope of the second ramp, the ball will
actually travel farther up the ramp, but to the same height. Using this logic, as the ramp
approaches a level surface, the ball will roll forever. Galileo imagined an ideal frictionless
state and therefore he challenged that things come to rest because of its natural state as
explained by Aristotle, but that friction hinders its uniform motion.
Therefore questions of Final Causes and Formal causes which was the obsession of the
medieval period was discarded for Efficient Causes, thanks to Galileo.
iii) Nature as Particles in Motion
Galileo departed from actuality and potentiality to nature as Matter in motion.
Galileo emphasized on mass, space and time as it could be mathematically treated.
World was seen as composed of particles which were ascribed only two properties:
mass and motion.
Change no longer meant potentiality to actuality but was seen as rearrangement of
particles in space and time.
Galileo called mass and motion “primary quality”, characteristic of the objective
world independent of the observer while “secondary quality” such as color and
temperature are subjective reactions to the senses of the world.
iv) Methods in Theology: Scripture, Nature and the Church
The resistance to Copernican heliocentric model was more due to the centrality of
Aristotelian model which it displaced. Later reformers made Bible inerrant and infallible
which Galileo and the new Science disturbed as Biblical passages indicated a Geocentric
universe
Roman Church as a response to Reformation had counrt-reformation which was very
sensitive to heresy which introduced inquisition, censorship and list of prohibited books
which Galileo confronted.
Galileo proposed two principles when confronted with literal interpretation of scripture.
a) Independence- Science and scripture have different goals. “The intention of the Holy
Spirit is to teach how to go to Heaven, and not how heaven goes.” To speak to common
people bible used common mode of language to address cosmological questions.
Independence model where theology is neutral in respect to cosmology. Scientific
theories and religious teachings are treated as separate realm of discourse.
b) Potential Conflict- Galileo asserted that metaphorical interpretation of the scripture is
acceptable when literal interpretation is in conflict with scientific theory that can be
proved with certainty. But there were issues regarding this where he was put on trial
and house arrest. Pope J P 2 said the Church was harsh on Galileo and said the
knowledge has two realms which theologians of those times did not distinguish.

v) God understanding
Galileo’s concept was not a major departure from classical understanding.
Book of Nature and Book of Scripture do not conflict, as God is the single author.
But there are major departures- God of final cause was long back replaced by God of first
cause, Galileo saw God as the Original Creator of the interacting atoms in which resides all
subsequent causality. Nature, once created, was seen as independent and self-sufficient.
Natural causes or efficient causes made the first cause as God a mere role over the otherwise
Sovereign God.
Mind Body Dualism of Descartes made mind a priori and these thoughts of ideas was way
of reaching God without mingling with matter.
Spinoza said there is no Cosmic purpose as the world functions as per inflexible laws. God
is the immutable structure of the impersonal cosmic order. God is not moral but mechanical.
vi) Anthropology
Medieval cosmology had the celestial realm in opposition to the terrestrial while the
heliocentric model had no such differentiation between corruptible and non-corruptible.
The uniqueness and purpose of life of humans was not anymore important. Galileo
represented threatening of the whole medieval system of purpose and meaning. But humans
were still seen as rational minds.

Isaac Newton
Methods in Science- He invented Calculus
- Experimenter in mechanics and optics
 - His method was of continual interaction between observation and theory
- Concepts were also about imagination
- Apart from Gravity, his novel insight was the idea that the earth’s gravitational pull
might extend to the moon. – i.e. moon might be continually falling towards the earth.
- The force to keep moon in orbit was centripetal force (towards the earth), rather than
tangential force.
- Force necessary for planet to follow an ellipse would be an attraction toward the sun in
inverse square proportion to the distance
- He observed inverse gravitational force towards earth of moon which agreed with data.
- He demonstrated the interaction of observation, theory, mathematical deduction, and
an imaginative new concept.
- He proposed the theory of gravition but did not comment on nature of gravity. He
believed in objective reality and if there were no evidence he would not comment.
Nature as a Law-Abiding Machine-
- Newtons laws of motion and gravity was applicable from smallest particle to the largest
and farthest planet.
- Harmonius order and structure like medieval world, where forces and masses were
important than hierarchy of purposes.
- World as an intricate machine following immutable laws was accepted.
- Philosophy of determinism and materialism was born.
- Machine world had an intelligent designee Creator and laws expressed God’s purpose.
- Mass and motion alone were seen as real while all others were play of the mind.
- Efficient causes was the focus, so causality was reducible to forces between particles
and all changes reducible to rearrangement of particles.
- Man in this system became a puny spectator of vast worldof motion and mechanical
principles constituted the world of nature.
- World became colorless, cold and impersonal
Newton’s 3 Laws of Motion
1) First Law- A body remains at rest or in an uniform motion unless acted upon by a force.
2) Second Law- If a force is applied to an object, it will move in the direction of the force, the
amount of force exerted is directly proportional to the mass of a body. F=m*a
3) 3rd Law of motion- To every action (force) there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Universal Law of Gravity
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every particle attracts every other particle in the
universe with a force which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely
proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.
F = Gm1m2r² where F is the gravitational force of attraction, which increases when the masses
are increased and distance is reduced.
G = Gravitational constant.
A. The gravitational attraction between the two bodies increases when their masses are
increased and distance is reduced
gravity is a force which tries to pull two objects toward each other. Anything which has mass also has
a gravitational pull. The more massive an object is, the stronger its gravitational pull is. Earth's gravity
is what keeps you on the ground and what causes objects to fall. Gravity is what holds the planets in
orbit around the Sun and what keeps the Moon in orbit around Earth. The closer you are to an object,
the stronger its gravitational pull is. Gravity is what gives you weight. It is the force that pulls on all of
the mass in your body.

Space is fixed, absolute and unchanged, while time is fixed absolute and unchanged.

Methods in Theology: Natural Theology

- English authors who are conventional scientists called themselves ‘virtuosi’.
- Robert Boyle said that science is a religious task, “the disclosure of admirable
workmanship which God displayed in the universe.
- There was emphasis on religious universality
- Growing confidence in human reason, optimistic view of human capacities and a
rational defense of essentials of religion was evident in John Locke’s reasonableness
of Christianity.
- Hobbes view of Universe is by Chance was countered by Viruosi by saying that they
are atomists but not materialist atomists.
- They had argument of design by Newton, where there is nothing random and vain in
nature. Eye was the example.
- Pattern of Divine benevolence was emphasized.
- Unlike Medieval world, nature is complete and functioning and not striving towards
any end.
- God is the Original first cause.
- Argument of design assumed that world came into existence fully developed.
- No idea of evolution and change.
- Reasonable and Universal religious faith was emphasized.
- Common core of belief was a) Supreme Being b) Immortal Soul, c) obligation to moral
conduct.
- Major departure from biblical faith.
- God as creator and not as redeemer.
- Utilitarian ethics and minimum moral code.
- Rational Religion was intended to support essentials of Christianity, but it was to
become a substitute for them.
- Reason, originally a supplement to revelation, began to replace it as path to knowledge
of God.
God as Divine Clockmaker
- God became primarily the designer of world-machine
- Boyle associated God to Clockmaker as clock needs intelligent design and works with
precision.
- God as cosmic legislator.
- Laws are instruments through which God governs.
- Newton said God has a continuing role in the physical world.
- Alchemy was Newton’s fascination as he believed God animated in matter.
- Conception of God was still medieval , with personal intelligence and will.
- Not the pantheistic absolute.
 Anthropology
- Humans were still valued for human reason.
- Soul is identified as rational spirit.
- Science of nature to be applied to human nature.
- Concepts like Natural Rights by Locke was in line
- Newtoniam science helped in increased confidence in human reason.
- Mind Body Dualism was born with reason emphasized and emotions lowered.

Darwin
Key concepts are –

1) Change over time among species (Adaptation)-

2) Natural Selection- The process of adaptation- The process of adapatation to certain environmental
conditions is natural selection. “ Owning to his struugle for life, any variation, however slight and from
whatever causes proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an indiv of a species.. will tend to the
preservation of that individual and will generally be inherited by its offspring, I have called this
principle, natural selection, in order to mark its relation to man’s power of selection.” Variation
(phetotype) leads to heritable to offspring to survivaval
3) Struggle for existence
4) Microevolution- Microevolution is evolution on a small scale — within a single population. That
means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life.
If you could zoom in on one branch of the tree of life scale — the insects, for example — you would
see another phylogeny relating all the different insect lineages. If you continue to zoom in, selecting the
branch representing beetles, you would see another phylogeny relating different beetle species. You
could continue zooming in until you saw the relationships between beetle populations. Click on the
button below to see this in action!
What is a population? For animals, it's fairly easy to decide what a population is. It is a group of
organisms that interbreed with each other — that is, they all share a gene pool. So for our species of
beetle, that might be a group of individuals that all live on a particular mountaintop and are potential
mates for one another.
We've defined microevolution as a change in gene frequency in a population and a population as a group
of organisms that share a common gene pool — like all the individuals of one beetle species living on
a particular mountaintop.
Imagine that you go to the mountaintop this year, sample these beetles, and determine that 80% of the
genes in the population are for green coloration and 20% of them are for brown coloration. You go back
the next year, repeat the procedure, and find a new ratio: 60% green genes to 40% brown genes.
There are a few basic ways in which microevolutionary change happens. Mutation, migration, genetic
drift, and natural selection are all processes that can directly affect gene frequencies in a population.
Imagine that you observe an increase in the frequency of brown coloration genes and a decrease in the
frequency of green coloration genes in a beetle population. Any combination of the mechanisms of
microevolution might be responsible for the pattern, and part of the scientist's job is to figure out which
of these mechanisms caused the change:
Mutation
Some "green genes" randomly mutated to "brown genes" (although since any particular mutation is
rare, this process alone cannot account for a big change in allele frequency over one generation).

Migration (or gene flow)

Some beetles with brown genes immigrated from another population, or some beetles carrying green
genes emigrated.

Genetic drift
When the beetles reproduced, just by random luck more brown genes than green genes ended up in the
offspring. In the diagram at right, brown genes occur slightly more frequently in the offspring (29%)
than in the parent generation (25%).

Natural selection
Beetles with brown genes escaped predation and survived to reproduce more frequently than beetles
with green genes, so that more brown genes got into the next generation.
 Download this series of graphics from the Image library.

5) Macroevolution ( Common Descent- Ancestry) Macroevolution is evolution on a grand scale —

what we see when we look at the over-arching history of life: stability, change, lineages arising, and
extinction.

Here, you can examine the patterns of macroevolution in evolutionary history and find out how
scientists investigate deep history.
acroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an
individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life,
to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual

species.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and
transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the
radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are
generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there
are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the
history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and
living organisms.
Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place,
we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, The history of life, on a grand
basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic scale.
drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many
large-scale patterns in the history of life.
The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can
produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

Download this, and the graphic at the top of the page, from the Image
library.
A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle
radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been
accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years —
more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.

en Español print
Patterns in macroevolution
You can think of patterns as "what happened when." All of the changes, diversifications, and extinctions
that happened over the course of life's history are the patterns of macroevolution.
However, beyond the details of individual past events — such as, when the beetle radiation began or
what the first flowers looked like — biologists are interested in general patterns that recur across the
tree of life:
1. Stasis: Many lineages on the tree of life exhibit stasis, which just
means that they don't change much for a long time, as shown in
the figure to the right.
In fact, some lineages have changed so little for such a long time
that they are often called living fossils. Coelacanths comprise a
fish lineage that branched off of the tree near the base of the
vertebrate clade. Until 1938, scientists thought that coelacanths
went extinct 80 million years ago. But in 1938, scientists
discovered a living coelacanth from a population in the Indian
 Ocean that looked very similar to its fossil ancestors. Hence, the coelacanth lineage exhibits about
80 million years' worth of morphological stasis.

A coelacanth swimming near Sulawesi, Indonesia

2. Character change: Lineages can change quickly or slowly.

Character change can happen in a single direction, such as
evolving additional segments, or it can reverse itself by gaining
and then losing segments. Changes can occur within a single
lineage or across several lineages. In the figure to the right,
lineage A changes rapidly but in no particular direction. Lineage
B shows slower, directional change.
Trilobites, animals in the same clade as modern insects and
crustaceans, lived over 300 million years ago. As shown below,
their fossil record clearly suggests that several lineages
underwent similar increases in segment number over the course
of millions of years.

3. Lineage-splitting (or speciation): Patterns of lineage-splitting can be identified by constructing

and examining a phylogeny. The phylogeny might reveal that a particular lineage has undergone
unusually frequent lineage-splitting, generating a "bushy" tuft of branches on the tree (Clade A,
below). It might reveal that a lineage has an unusually low rate of lineage-splitting, represented
by a long branch with very few twigs coming off (Clade B, below). Or it might reveal that several
lineages experienced a burst of lineage-splitting at the same time (Clade C, below).
4. Extinction: Extinction is extremely important in the history
of life. It can be a frequent or rare event within a lineage,
or it can occur simultaneously across many lineages (mass
extinction). Every lineage has some chance of becoming
extinct, and overwhelmingly, species have ended up in the
losing slots on this roulette wheel: over 99% of the species
that have ever lived on Earth have gone extinct. In this
diagram, a mass extinction cuts short the lifetimes of many
specie

Download all the graphics on this

page from the Image library.

6) Progressive Nature of evolution

Linnaues Taxanomy to make everything about
Domain Kingdom phylum class order family genus species
Species is the basic unit, one that interbreeds is a thing that makes species.

Impact of Evolution on prevailing view of nature-

1) Nature is in a state of flux. Nature has a history. From a fixed hierarchical order, it became a
dynamic process.
2) Nature became a complex of interacting force in organic interdependence. Interaction of the
individual with the environment assumed importance. Symbiosis between species is
emphasized as “Web of life.”
3) Extension of the rule of law was established, where everything, even chance was a matter of
law that cannot be predicted yet.
4) Nature included human beings. Everything in the society was seen as evolving and could be
studied as an organism.

Theological Issues in Evolution

1) Challenge to Scri[pture
Biblica infallibility was affirmed by one camp and questioned by the other.
 Some equated atheism amd evolution. Some made this a cultural war to attack clericalism in a
fight for independence of science. Literalism was a conservative position. The modernist were
treating bible as a human document and record of evolving religious insights. Divine or God
was now an immanent force at work within the process, , an indwelling spirit manifest in the
creative advance of life.
2) Challenge to Design- There is no design but randomness. “
3) Challenge to Human status- No special status
4) Challenge to ethics. Evolutionary progress substituted providence, doctrine of creation, et al.
Man could be perfected. Supporting the sick and maimed was frowned uponas it hindered
progress. Herbert Spencer promoted Social Darwinism. Huxley said no ethical norms can be
derived from evolution.
Diverging Currents in Theology
1) Traditionalist response to Evolution- Conservative responses as fundamentalism. There was
catholic acceptance of evolution.

2) Modernist Movement- Evolution decided God understanding. Modernists saw scripture as a

human record and not as a God’s revelation, but of people’s search for God- a story of
developing ideals and growing religious insights. Biblical history is the evolution of progressive
awareness from primitive beginnings to its culmination in ethical monotheism. Bible is not
inspired books but inspiring books. The first chapters of Genesis has to be read as a poetic
expressions of religious convictions concerning our relationship on God. Once-for all creation
is not but creation is evolution within the process and continuous time. God’s nature is
immanence rather than transcendence. Cosmic impersonal force is also God. No dualism of
natural and supernatural. Divine spirit inspires and permeates.

Not sinfulness and opposition to God but moral progress and unity with God were characteristic
themes. Human nature is itself divine. Religion is rooted in experience and theological
interpretations are secondary. Human effort will bring the effort of God. Jesus is a teacher with
high ideals but not saviour. Human knowledge comes through increased knowledge and noble
goals. Henry Ward Beecher made cosmic evolution could be given a theistic interpretation. The
upward march of matter and mind shows us God’s way of bringing about progress. Lyman
Abott says bible represents the dawning of religious insights in authors who were children of
their times. God is not an emperor but a God who iss immanent and brings us to fruition. Deep
commitment to Christ withour external intervention or change of laws was possible.
3) Liberal Theology- a) Growth of Biblical scholarship gave rise to new view on scripture- The
liberals granted human character to biblical record and was not an infallible book dictated by
God, but in the lives of people of Isreal, Prophets and Christ. Scrpture was then not revelation
but human witness to the human experience of revelation. B) Second reason for rise of
liberalism is appeal to religious experience. Basis of religion was religious experience. God is
known through immediate apprehension than indirect inference. “Feeling of absolute
dependence.” Scheiermacher held that theology is derived from reflective interpretation of
religious experience. Not sin but consciousness of guilt and feeling of alienation from God. C)
Primacy of the ethical in religion. Ritschil theology of moral values. Human sphere and sphere
of nature was dichotomized.
Albert Einstein
Einstein's work led to some startling results, which today still seem counterintuitive at first glance even
though his physics is usually introduced at the high school level.

2015 marks 100 years since the publication of Albert Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Learn the
basics of Einstein's theory of relativity in our infographic here.
(Image credit: By Karl Tate, Infographics Artist)
One of the most famous equations in mathematics comes from special relativity. The equation — E =
mc2 — means "energy equals mass times the speed of light squared." It shows that energy (E) and mass
(m) are interchangeable; they are different forms of the same thing. If mass is somehow totally converted
into energy, it also shows how much energy would reside inside that mass: quite a lot. (This equation
is one of the demonstrations for why an atomic bomb is so powerful, once its mass is converted to an
explosion.)
This equation also shows that mass increases with speed, which effectively puts a speed limit on how
fast things can move in the universe. Simply put, the speed of light (c) is the fastest velocity at which
an object can travel in a vacuum. As an object moves, its mass also increases. Near the speed of light,
the mass is so high that it reaches infinity, and would require infinite energy to move it, thus capping
how fast an object can move. The only reason light moves at the speed it does is because photons, the
quantum particles that make up light, have a mass of zero.
Theory of Relativity and Time Dilation
Another strange conclusion of Einstein's work comes from the realization that time moves relative to
the observer. An object in motion experiences time dilation, meaning that time moves more slowly
when one is moving, than when one is standing still. Therefore, a person moving ages more slowly than
a person at rest. So yes, when astronaut Scott Kelly spent nearly a year aboard the International Space
Station in 2015-16, his twin astronaut brother Mark Kelly aged a little faster than Scott.
This becomes extremely apparent at speeds approaching the speed of light. Imagine a 15-year-old
traveling at 99.5 percent the speed of light for five years (from the astronaut's perspective). When the
15-year-old gets back to Earth, according to NASA, he would be only 20 years old. His classmates,
however, would be 65 years old.
Advertisement
While this time dilation sounds very theoretical, it does have practical applications as well. If you have
a Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) receiver in your car, the receiver attempts to find signals from at
least three satellites to coordinate your position. The GPS satellites send out timed radio signals that the
receiver listens to, triangulating (or more properly speaking, trilaterating) its position based on the travel
time of the signals. The challenge is, the atomic clocks on the GPS are moving and would therefore run
faster than atomic clocks on Earth, creating timing issues. So, engineers need to make the clocks on a
GPS tick slower, according to Richard Pogge, an astronomer at Ohio State University.
The clocks in space tick faster, according to Physics Central, because the GPS satellites are above Earth
and experience weaker gravity. So even though the GPS satellites are moving and experience a seven-
microsecond slowing every day because of their movement, the result of the weaker gravity causes the
clocks to tick about 45 microseconds faster than a ground-based clock. Adding the two together results
in the GPS satellite clock ticking faster than a ground-based clock, by about 38 microseconds daily.
As its name suggests this theory is only applicable for special cases, i.e. when both objects are moving
with constant or uniform speed.
Einstein explained that the relative motion of two objects should be the frame of reference rather than
an external, esoteric "etheric" reference system. By way of example, say you were an astronaut in a
spaceship, observing another spaceship at a distance. The only thing that matters is how fast you and
your observed target are moving with respect to each other. One snag, however, special relativity only
applies if you are traveling in a straight line and not accelerating. If acceleration takes place, General
Relativity needs to be applied.
The theory is based on two fundamental principles:
Relativity - The laws of physics do not change. Even for objects moving at inertial, constant speed
frames of reference.
The speed of light - It is the same for all observers regardless of their relative motion to the source of
light.
Einstein's work creates a fundamental link between time and space. We intuitively envisage the universe
as three-dimensional (up and down, left and right, forwards and backward) but also with a time
component or dimension. The combination of these makes the 4-D environment we experience.
If you were to move fast enough through space, any observations you made about space and time would
differ from anyone else moving at a different speed than you. As the difference between speeds
increased, so would the observed differences.
It's all relative
Now, imagine you are in a spaceship with a laser in your hand. The laser beam shoots directly up to the
ceiling, strikes a mirror and gets reflected back to the floor into a detector. Remember now that the ship
is in motion, let's say at around half the speed of light. Relativity states that this move makes no
difference to you, you can't "feel" it (just like on Earth as it is spinning on its axis and hurtling through
space around the sun).
But here comes the twist:
An external observer, however, would witness something very different. If they could "see" into your
ship, they would notice that the laser beam travels "up" at an angle, strikes the mirror and then travels
downwards again at another angle to hit the detector. The observer would notice that the light path
would be longer and at a more pronounced angle than you would observe in your ship. More
importantly, the time taken for the laser to reach the detector would be different. Given that the speed
of light is constant, how can you both reach the same conclusion that proves this theory? Clearly, the
passage of time must be different for you and the external observer.
What the hell? This phenomenon is known as time dilation. In the above example, time must be
"moving" faster for you compared to that of the slower observer. This simple example allows us to
visualize Einstein's theory of relativity, whereby space and time are intimately linked.
As you can imagine such an extreme variance in the passage of time would only be appreciably noticed
at very great speeds, especially close to the speed of light. Experimentation carried out since Einstein's
revelations have validated his theory. Time and space are perceived differently for objects moving near
the speed of light.
Mass, energy and the speed of light
Einstein certainly didn't rest on his laurels. Also in 1905, he applied his principles of relativity to
produce the famous equation e=mc2. This innocuously simple equation expresses the fundamental
relationship between mass (m) and energy (e). Pretty neat.
This little equation found that as we approach the speed of light, c, the objects mass balloons. So you
get to travel really fast but your mass increases in relation to your speed. Bummer. At its extreme, if
you were traveling at the speed of light both your energy and mass would be infinite. As you already
know, the heavier the object, the harder it is; thus more energy needed, to speed it up. So by this token,
it's impossible to exceed the speed of light.
Until Einstein, mass and energy were seen as completely separate things. His work proved that the
principles of the conservation of mass and energy are part of a bigger, more unified conservation of
mass-energy. Matter, therefore, can be turned into energy and vice versa due to the fundamental
connection between them. That is, frankly, amazing.

To summarize, firstly, there is no "absolute" frame of reference, hence the use of the term "relativity".
Secondly, the speed of light is constant for whoever measures it, whether in motion or not - I know
crazy right? Lastly, the speed of light cannot be exceeded, it is the universal "speed limit".
Got it? Great. No? Don't worry if you didn't, it is, by its very nature, counter-intuitive. The greatest
discoveries in science are often found in the realms outside of our "common sense".

Quantum Physics
The term ‘quantum’ was coined by German physicist Max Planck (1858–1947) to describe a discrete
amount of energy- a ‘package’ of energy. Planck, who was one of the founding fathers of quantum
theory- was researching the relationship between intensity (the amount of light) and frequency of light.
At that time, there were only empirical laws to describe this relationship (Wien’s Law for high
frequencies, and the Rayleigh-Jeans law for low frequencies) but no solid theoretical framework which
could successfully make predictions in accordance with these [1].
As part of the solution, Planck postulated that energy can only occur in discrete packages, or ‘quanta’.
From this postulate he was able to derive a law which stood in accordance with experimental data, and
therefore with the empirical laws known at the time.
E=hf
This short, but sweet equation gives one the relationship between the energy (E) associated with a
certain frequency of light (f). h is known as Plancks constant, which is always the same, tiny quantity.
This means that the value of h*f is always the smallest package of energy attainable for a given
frequency.
However, it must be noted that Planck merely postulated this thinking; it was a mathematical trick which
happened to yield promising results- It did not yet occur to him that he had fundamentally changed the
way physicists would view the world[2]. Five years later Albert Einstein used Plancks postulate in order
to provide a theoretical understanding of the Photoelectric effect- A current generated in a conductor,
through illumination with visible light/ Ultraviolet. This work gained Einstein the Nobel Prize in
physics in 1921 (contrary to popular belief Einstein’s work on Relativity, which he is most famous for,
did not win him a Nobel prize) [3].

Figure. 2 Visual representation of the photoelectric effect

From the definition of the quantum sprang a whole new branch of physics which we now know as
Quantum mechanics. Before getting carried away with the fascinating history of quantum mechanics, I
will focus on a few key ideas which have emerged from it- ones I often find myself speaking about
when people ask ‘could you just explain quantum to me?’. I will certainly do my best. I want to note
that this article will not explain how these phenomena work, but rather lay out different phenomena and
present some evidence for these occurring. I will, however, provide several links to papers which
attempt explain how to the most interested of readers.

Wave- Particle Duality

For a very long time scientists were locked in a heated debate about the nature of light. Scientists such
as Christiaan Huygens believed light to be a wave, because of the many wave-like properties exhibited
by light, such as diffraction, polarization and interference. However, Isaac Newton believed light to be
composed of particles- a theory which was mainly popularised through Newton’s prominence. It wasn’t
until the early 20th century, when Albert Einstein successfully explained the photoelectric effect using
particles of light (photons) that the particle theory of light was seriously considered again. [4]
What quantum mechanics has come to show is that light, as well as all other fundamental particles
behave both as a wave, and a particle depending on the circumstances. Lewis de Broglie postulated that
particles of matter are also waves of some sort, which have an associated wavelength (which is known
as de Broglie wavelength).[5]
There is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support this[6,7], and in recent times wave- particle
duality has been extended far beyond photons and electrons. Wave- particle duality has been
demonstrated in objects such as large organic molecules [8]- forcing us to reconsider the definitions for
‘particles’, and ‘waves’ and to ask ourselves the question whether anything ever exists as purely a
particle, or a wave.

Uncertainty

Uncertainty is the biggest factor setting quantum physics aside from classical physics. In fact, this is an
extension of wave-particle duality since the phenomenon of wave-particle duality only arises due to a
particles uncertainty in position; allowing it to exhibit wave like properties. Before going any further I
would like to make a distinction between two types of uncertainty, which both play a big role:
uncertainty arising from our inability to know something (information inaccessible to us due to a variety
of reasons), and inherent uncertainty which exists within nature itself. Yes, as it turns out nature itself
can be uncertain about its own properties- and this has nothing to do with our ignorance, or our method
of probing. The mathematics in quantum mechanics is full of uncertainty relations; inequalities which
restrict the amount of information obtainable about a system. Take for example the most famous of
them all- Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation, which can be seen below.

ΔXΔP≥ħ/2

Where ΔX is the uncertainty position, ΔP is the uncertainty in momentum and ħ is the (reduced) Planck
constant which we have seen above (kind of). This means that the left hand side of the equation can
never equal zero (in fact, never be smaller than ħ/2); there will always be uncertainty in the position,
and the momentum of a given quantum particle. What this means in physical terms is that you can never
exactly know the position and momentum (speed and direction) of a particle at a given time.
How can this be possible? Surely there is something that we’re misunderstanding? One attempt to
explain uncertainty in a classical sense was to suggest that this was merely another form of the ‘observer
effect’ [9]. This effect is a consequence of the inevitability that the properties system cannot be
measured without being altered; take for example measuring the temperature of a hot water bath. When
introducing a thermometer, the temperature of the bath will be (very, very slightly) altered because
energy has to be taken from, or given to the system in order to record a temperature.
The same reasoning can be used for measuring the position of an electron. If you want to know the
momentum of the electron more precisely, you will have to use more energetic light (higher frequency)
which, in turn, will change the momentum of the electron.
Even though this effect does take place, it is distinctly different from the quantum uncertainty being
discussed.

Without making things a lot more complicated there is little I can say except for the fact that
uncertainty is inherent in nature, and that we have more than enough evidence for this to be credible. In
fact, some of our technology even utilises uncertainty, and would not function without it- an example
being the scanning tunnelling microscope (STM) [10] and some forms of touch – screens.

The scanning tunnelling microscope makes use of the phenomenon quantum tunnelling. (Quantum)
Tunnelling is a phenomenon in which particles can appear on the other side of an energy barrier, without
having the necessary energy to make it over the barrier.
A classical analogy to this would be: picture a ball rolling from side- to side in a valley. It does not have
the necessary energy to make it to the top of either side of the valley. Quantum tunnelling would allow
this ball to spontaneously appear on the other side of the valley, without ever having the necessary
energy to make it to the top of one of the hills.
 Figure. 3 Visual
Representation of Quantum tunnelling
However, tunnelling is simply yet another amazing consequence of uncertainty; because uncertainty
also applies to the kinetic energy a particle possess.

A good and more rigorous explanation of tunnelling and its use in touch- screen technology is found
here:

Superposition

The phenomenon of superposition is one where particles tend to have multiple, seemingly mutually
exclusive properties at the same time. For example position; besides there being uncertainty in a
particles position, a particle can occupy numerous positions at the same time. This, again, is not a
desperate attempt at explaining something that we can’t, but rather a phenomenon demonstrated time
and time again [11].
Superposition arises straight from the heart of quantum mechanics- the Schrödinger equation. This
equation is the quantum equivalent of Newton’s equations of motion; it governs the dynamics of a
quantum system. Just like any other equation you input certain parameters, and then solve for possible
solutions- these solutions being properties of the system. As it turns out, there are an infinite number of
solutions to the Schrödinger equation- more precisely the sum of any solutions to this equation is yet
another solution! This means nothing less than a particle exhibiting an infinite number of properties at
the same time. What makes matters even more mind boggling is the fact that when scientists attempt to
measure particles being in several states at once- they never do! Quantum objects start behaving
classically when we measure them; one way we know that superposition exists is through secondary
effects- outcomes which can only occur if two things happened at once.

Superposition has been demonstrated in countless experiments, such as the famous double-slit
experiment. If the reader is not familiar with this experiment I would strongly advise to look it up- it is
mind blowing!
Here is a link to a video explaining it quite well (but it’s slightly cheezy!):

Another more recent experiment placed not a tiny particle, but a nano-sized ‘tuning fork’ into a
superposition of states; researchers got this mechanical object to vibrate at several frequencies at once!
[12] Furthermore superposition is utilised by plants in their photosynthesis process making it up to 99%
efficient! [13] (compared to 25%- 30% for pertol engines [14], and about 22% efficiency for solar
panels [15]).
Surely the biggest application of the superposition phenomenon is the development of quantum
computers; which famously use ‘qubits’ instead of ordinary ‘bits’. Whereas a classical bit of
information is only ever a 1 or a 0, a qubit can also be in the superpositioned state of being a 1 and 0 at
the same time. This is because qubits are made up from something exhibiting quantum properties;
ultracold atoms/ions, photons, or currents in superconductors. This leads to vastly greater computing
power because numerous solutions can be processes/calculated at the same time- once successful
quantum computers will undoubtedly change the world.

Figure 4. This is an image of ultracold ions being held in a line by magnetic fields.
This is one way to implement a quantum computer- the computations are made with these ions

Superposition applies to many different properties; whether its position, momentum, or even the
chronological order of events! [16]
That’s right, it has been recently shown that not only can a particle be in several places at once, but that
there are quantum systems in which things happen both forwards, and backwards in time!
Astonishingly, this does not violate any causal inequality because these events happen in both directions
of time- not just backwards.

It seems quantum mechanics is still getting weirder about 100 years after its initial formulation!

Entanglement

Entanglement is a phenomenon famously called “spooky action at a distance” by Einstein because it

seemingly violated one of physics’ most sacred laws: the speed of light being the maximum achievable
speed in the universe.
A set of entangled particles influence one another instantaneously, regardless of their separation. These
particles could be on opposite ends of the universe, and this would still hold true. The conundrum is
that seemingly this implies that information travels between one particle, and another at faster than the
speed of light (something Einstein had shown to be impossible). As amazing as this is, the paradox is
resolved through interpreting the situation slightly differently [17]- something I definitely do not have
time to explain in this article (for those particularly curious I can suggest the paper, entitled “Quantum
mysteries disentangled” to which I have added a link at the bottom of this page)

Where is this ‘quantum’ and why don’t I see it?

The short answer is: because you’re looking.

For my university dissertation I simulated an experiment demonstrating that quantum mechanics
naturally gives rise to classical physics- which we observe in our day to day life. When fully quantum
particles (with all their weird properties) interact with their environment, they start losing their quantum
properties. With environment, I mean anything.
Since our universe is filled with particles, constantly bumping into once another, interacting- one could
say the universe is constantly measuring itself. As we have learned: measurements get rid of quantum
properties, which is inherently the reason we see a classical, and not a quantum world.

This loss of quantum properties has been coined ‘Decoherence’ and is an area of active research – since
it is one of the biggest obstacles facing quantum computers. In order for qubits to be 1’s and 0’s at the
same time these qubits have to remain quantum, and not ‘decohere’. This means isolating them from
their environment; which is proving to be extremely difficult.

It is very difficult to say anything more about decoherence, or the nature of quantum mechanics without
going a lot further into detail, and writing a book about it which is why I would suggest to anyone
curious or interested to start researching this stuff. I am aware that some of these explanations, to those
more knowledgeable, may be rather simplistic- something I couldn’t really help, due to the sheer
quantity of information I would have to provide to continue making sense.

As promised here is a link to the paper which attempts to explain how entanglement works:
http://www.flownet.com/ron/QM.pdf

And to those who are still unconvinced, I am happy to send my dissertation to upon request, in which I
simulate this quantum to classical transition mentioned above, and explain the how of things in a lot
more detail.