Why is this page here?
Murat brought in an outside comparison list with forty headings. We had already looked at most of them. But some we had not: tunneling, teleportation, the meeting of two photons, heat changing direction. On this page we looked at those.
Our method is the same as before. We do not match the name of a phenomenon to the name of a concept. First we ask: in what form does the unreasonable thing in this phenomenon fail to fit our reason? Then we look at which of the fourteen forms we read in Dost it resembles most. If it resembles none, we say "we did not look at this door."
Let us say at the start: no new closeness came out of this round. Most of the phenomena turned out to be another example of a form we had already recorded. We count that as a result too. This is not a reading summary; it is our own reading frame, and every line is a question.
Tunneling
A ball turns back if it lacks the strength to climb the hill in front of it. In the quantum world a small particle is not like that: there is a chance of finding it on the far side of a barrier it could not climb. We call this tunneling. Binnig and his colleagues left a controlled gap between two metal surfaces and measured a current passing across it. As the gap widened the current fell quickly, but it did not reach zero. This is an experiment, and the observation of something the theory had predicted. The same setup later became the basis of the microscope that shows individual atoms on a surface [Binnig 1982].
We set this phenomenon beside the Reason form. The Reason form is this: reason says "it cannot be," and then it is seen to be. In Dost there is a sentence like this:
«If the state that reason deems impossible were impossible in itself and in reality, that thing would not be described as existing at the level of the barzakh; yet in the barzakh it has been perceived by the senses.» (c15k190)
Here Dost separates reason's saying "impossible" from a thing's actually being impossible. What to notice: first comes the prohibition, then the observed fact.
Our result for tunneling: they greet each other from a distance, and even that is weaker than usual. Tunneling is a result the theory expected. The surprising side is that it is "impossible according to classical thinking," but every difference in passing from classical to quantum can be described that way. It does not carry the same weight as places where reason's own assumption is refuted, such as the Bell experiments or contextuality. Another viewer may see this differently; in tunneling we have added nothing new to the first closeness on the Reason page.
The question we are left with: do "impossible according to classical thinking" and "reason said impossible" look at the same place, or does the second point to a much larger limit?
Teleportation and the state that cannot be copied
The word teleportation misleads. Nothing is sent anywhere. The proposal of Bennett and his colleagues works like this: Alice and Bob share in advance a pair of entangled particles (a state in which the two are no longer described separately but together). Alice makes a joint measurement on the particle in the unknown state that she wants to send and on her own particle. This measurement destroys the original state and leaves an ordinary result of two bits. Alice reports it to Bob by telephone or by letter. Bob then applies a correction to the particle in his hand according to the result; the original state reappears in his hands [Bennett 1993]. Bouwmeester and his colleagues carried this out with photons in an experiment [Bouwmeester 1997]. Nothing travels faster than light, because ordinary news cannot exceed light; and no copying takes place, because the original is destroyed in the measurement. Not matter but only the state is transferred.
Behind this stands a prohibition: a perfect copy of an unknown quantum state cannot be made. Wootters and Zurek derived this from the linearity of the theory's equations [Wootters 1982].
On the Dost side we looked at the Non-repetition form: nothing comes a second time.
«Allah does not disclose Himself twice in the same way to a single person, nor does He appear in a single form to two persons.» (c2k26, p. 366)
And there is this sentence about death:
«The Real does not annihilate things; He makes them go away, because He is the agent… So death is not an annihilation but a making-go-away.» (c5k69, p. 431)
In the first, there is no repetition: the same self-disclosure comes neither to the same person a second time nor to two people at once. In the second, it is said that what departs does not go to non-existence.
Our result: for the not-being-copied part, they stand close, and this is already written on the Non-repetition page. Teleportation added no new closeness to this; it showed one face of the same prohibition. It is tempting to read the original's disappearing and appearing elsewhere as "the spirit goes, the form remains," but we did not do this; that would be a matching of mechanisms, and we look at form. Also, the prohibition in physics is only for an unknown state; a known state we can prepare again as often as we like. In Dost's sentence we could not see such a distinction.
The question we are left with: does the "unknown" qualification make Dost's sentence say something, or is the sentence saying something else that goes beyond that qualification from the start?
Let us also note that entanglement by itself carries no message: an ordinary channel is necessary. For this reason we did not directly match entanglement with a turn of phrase in Dost; that work belongs to the pages where we looked at entanglement.
Hong–Ou–Mandel: two photons, one mirror
Let us imagine sending two light particles, that is two photons, at the same moment from two sides onto a half-transparent mirror. By everyday reckoning four outcomes are expected. If the photons are exactly identical to each other, quantum theory says something different: the possibilities of "coming out of separate exits" cancel each other, and the two always come out together at the same exit. Hong, Ou and Mandel measured this. The small difference between the arrival times of the photons was varied; when the photons coincided exactly, the number of joint signals at the two detectors collapsed. The width of this dip gave the "length" of the photons in time, about a hundred femtoseconds. This is an experimental result, and a very solid one [Hong 1987].
What stops us is this: when two particles become indistinguishable from each other, a measurable difference appears. So "being indistinguishable" is not an empty phrase.
In Dost we looked at the Indistinguishability form: there are two things, but when one asks "which is which," the question finds nothing to hold on to.
«This is like the form of a person looking into a mirror. The form in the mirror is neither the same as the form of the person looking, nor other than it» (c11k139, p. 227-228)
What to notice: the sentence says neither "one" nor "two." Neither the same nor other.
Our result: on the Indistinguishability page this form already stood close; HOM became its most concrete experiment. It brought no new specificity, but it tied Indistinguishability to an experiment with photons. The place where they part is large: in physics indistinguishability is between two identical things. In Dost the two sides are not counted as identical; one is in the form of the other.
The question we are left with: in physics indistinguishability makes a difference, and the two photons come out together. Does Dost's "neither the same nor other" make a difference too, and if it does, where is it seen?
Squeezed state
Even in empty space the light field is not completely calm: there is a small fluctuation, a "vacuum noise." Slusher and his colleagues succeeded in making a state of light that goes below this noise. In an optical cavity they set up a process with sodium atoms. One direction of the field is strengthened while the perpendicular direction is suppressed. An aid to explanation: when you squeeze one side of a balloon, the other side swells. The noise in the suppressed direction fell below the usual noise of the cavity [Slusher 1985]. But the principle was not broken: the product of the noise in the two directions cannot fall below a lower bound. One can go down, the other goes up.
We found this phenomenon close to the Knowledge form, but we did not look at that door. The uncertainty principle is already in the backbone of the Knowledge page; squeezing is a redistribution within its limit. On the Dost side we did not look for a separate sentence that would correspond to it. Why? Because we could not see a new form of the unreasonable; had we found a sentence saying "if you squeeze one side the other swells," we would have looked.
From superfluid to insulator: the quantum phase transition
When water turns to ice the temperature changes. Here something else happens: the temperature is next to nothing, yet the matter passes from one state to another. Greiner and his colleagues placed ultracold atoms in an "egg-carton" lattice built from light. While the lattice is shallow the atoms are in a wave state spread over the whole lattice, flowing like a fluid. When the lattice deepens and crosses a certain limit, each atom settles into a pit and the flow stops [Greiner 2002]. This is an experiment. The theoretical picture behind the transition had been calculated beforehand. What stops us is that this transition can be tuned with light.
We looked at the Continuity form: under what flows smoothly there may be another structure. In Dost there is this sentence:
«The Real is transformed in states; the states are not transformed upon Him.» (c13k149, p. 28)
Our result: they greet each other from a distance, and even that is hard for us to say. A phase transition is not something one could call counterintuitive, and we could not determine in what form it is unreasonable. Matching it with "the different forms of self-disclosure" was tempting, but that would have been forced. We did not match them.
Quantum thermalization: the whole known, the part uncertain
A hot tea warming to its surroundings over time is something we know. But can a completely isolated quantum system that starts out exactly defined also behave as if "warmed"? Kaufman and his colleagues placed six rubidium atoms in the sites of a lattice built from light and looked at them with a quantum microscope. They suddenly switched on the tunneling between the atoms. The whole of the six atoms remained exactly defined; but looked at alone, parts of two or three atoms behaved in line with a thermal distribution, that is, as if random. The cause is entanglement: the parts are bound to each other in such a way that while the whole is defined, a part alone appears uncertain [Kaufman 2016]. This is an experimental result. How it connects to the foundations of statistical physics is discussed separately.
We looked at the Wholeness form: a part cannot be defined apart from the whole.
«Just as a body is nothing other than points, points too are nothing other than the body. But at the same time the body is not points, and points are not the body.» (c12k147, p. 311-312)
In this sentence part and whole are bound to each other, but the two are not the same either.
Our result: they stand close, and this is the only place that stood out in this round. Why different from the others? Because here there is a specific pattern: while the whole is fully known, the part alone is uncertain. It is not a sentence that fits everything, like "everything is connected to everything." The place where they part is large: in physics this is a measurable situation about information and entropy; in Dost the bond between part and whole concerns being itself. One who looks may look here: is there a place in Dost's sentences where the part remains "uncertain alone"? We did not look.
The question we are left with: does this specific pattern by itself deserve a separate round, that is, a deeper reading of the Wholeness form?
Quantum error correction
Quantum information is spoiled by the slightest contact with the environment. Moreover it cannot be copied, which means that one cannot say "make a backup" as in a classical computer. Shor found a path through this wall: to spread a single quantum bit over several physical bits, and, without looking at the information itself, to measure only the question "is there an error somewhere?" [Shor 1995]. This is a proposal of method, which was tested in experiments in the following years. What stops us: that a way was found to protect against corruption an information that we cannot copy.
We placed it next to the Wholeness form but found it weak. This is an engineering achievement; it does not show a new form of the unreasonable that parts from thermalization. We did not match it; we recorded it.
Annealing
The list also had "quantum annealing." This is a computational technique; it carries no astonishing, unreasonable side. Since we dropped it, we did not add a source for this phenomenon either.
Spin and the axis of measurement
Passing through a magnetic field, in which direction might an atom have turned? According to old physics every direction was possible; a single blot would be expected on the screen. Gerlach and Stern passed silver atoms through a non-uniform magnetic field. No blot appeared: two separate traces showed on the screen [Gerlach 1922]. The electron's spin was not known at that time; it was understood a few years later, and the first interpretation differed from today's. The experimental result, though, is certain. What matters for us: how we set up the axis of the apparatus determines which two results will come out.
We looked at the Viewpoint form: one who looks at the same thing sees something according to where he looks.
«O man! The realities do not change. You see it so because of your reality before your Lord. In truth the matter is not so.» (c2k21, p. 218)
Our result: on the Viewpoint page it already stood close; spin is a standard example of it. We added no new line. The place where they part is large: in physics an apparatus that "looks" need not be a conscious human; in Dost the one who looks is the servant. We do not say "consciousness creates reality"; it is neither of the two.
When heat changes direction: entropy and the arrow of time
Heat flows by itself from hot to cold. This is the established rule of thermodynamics, and the rule assumes that two systems are initially unrelated to each other. Micadei and his colleagues prepared two spins correlated, that is, entangled, and saw heat flow from cold to hot. A trade-off between correlations and entropy determined the direction of the flow. The second law of thermodynamics was not violated; the law was reread with a wider view of information [Micadei 2019]. This is an experiment. Take care: it is not time itself but the direction of heat that is tied to the correlation in the initial state.
We looked at the Time form: time does not flow the same for everyone, perhaps it is not even a thing in itself.
«As for the external existence of time and nature, it does not exist.» (c2k26, p. 380)
Our result: they greet each other from a distance. It looked close to the idea that "time is a relation," but Micadei ties not time itself but the direction of time to the correlation in the initial state. The word "relation" appears in both, but we could not see that they say the same thing. We did not match them; we only recorded it. One who looks may find a door between "the direction of time" and "the external existence of time."
The question we are left with: do these two "relations" ask the same question, or is only the word shared?
Many worlds
One of the answers to what happens in a quantum measurement is the many-worlds interpretation. According to this interpretation, in a measurement one of the possibilities is not chosen with the others erased; every possibility is realized in its own world, and these worlds continue independently of each other [SEP: Many-Worlds Interpretation]. This is not an experiment but an interpretation. It cannot be told apart from the other interpretations by experiment, which is why it is contested. We do not present this interpretation as a fact.
On the Dost side we did not look for a form: we did not look at this door. We did not want to build a form match for an idea at the level of interpretation without any observed phenomenon attached to it. In Dost too there is talk of a multiplicity of worlds; but that is a separate subject, to be read on its own.
Quantum fields
Quantum field theory is the framework of present-day particle physics. Roughly, it is quantum mechanics passed from particles to fields. The entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains that the picture of the world that emerges when the theory is taken seriously does not fit the classical understanding of the particle, and that the very concept of "particle" is problematic [SEP: Quantum Field Theory]. This is a survey source; not an experiment.
We looked at the Continuity form: there may be another structure underneath.
«the world is one in its substance; in this substance the Real creates continually.» (c13k150, p. 276)
Our result: they greet each other from a distance. But on the Continuity page we had already chosen Minev's jump experiment and written that the two sides go in opposite directions there [Minev 2019]. Matching the same question a second time would have been forced; we recorded it and left it so.
Quantum gravity
General relativity describes gravity as the curvature of spacetime, while quantum theory describes the other forces. Quantum gravity is the search for a theory that will embrace both, and it has been under construction for more than a century. What is expected is that it will describe how spacetime looks at very small scales; but that scale is very far from our experiments. For this reason we have no settled result [SEP: Quantum Gravity].
We did not look at this door. There is no experiment, no completed theory. The idea that "time may not be fundamental" is already on the Time page, through Rovelli's "Forget time" paper [Rovelli 2009].
What did we take from the outside list, and what did we not?
The incoming list had good sides. It separated three questions: ontological, epistemological, methodological. And it said "similarity is not scientific evidence." We use both too.
There were also places where we parted. The list built pairs of concepts: superposition and the possible, imagination and wave–particle, spirit and teleportation. We look not at the name of the concept but at the form of the unreasonable; for this reason we did not match the pairs of concepts. The Dost sentences in the list were a general frame, with no quotation carrying a section number; we took the quotations from our own reading.
Two details. The list said "the 63rd chapter is imagination and the barzakh." According to our site's own data the 63rd chapter is about the barzakh: in the Futuhat at c2k27, p. 418-429, the general principle of the barzakh. The main chapter on imagination is around c11k135. So the sentence is partly right, partly too general. The second: a page citation in the list rested on an internet link whose edition was not specified; we did not take it as a source. Those whose bibliographic details are solid, like the delayed-choice eraser, we had already used on other pages [Kim 2000], and the Nobel 2022 as well [SEP: The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 (press release)].
Questions we are left with
- Fourteen phenomena did not give rise to a new form. Does this show that our list of fourteen forms covers the physics side sufficiently, or that our forms remained too general?
- Quantum thermalization (the whole is known, the part is uncertain) was the only place that came out specific. Does the Wholeness form deserve a separate round?
- Do "the direction of time depends on correlation" and "time has no external existence" ask the same question, or do they share only the word "relation"?
- In teleportation, can the original's disappearing and appearing elsewhere come together with the sentence "He does not annihilate, He makes go away," or is this only a similarity of words?
What did we not do?
We did not compare Dost's words with the Arabic original. What we read were the site's Turkish section summaries. We also reported the physics sources not by reading the full texts but with the summaries we had.
This page is the record of an effort; not a result. We do not understand Dost, and we do not give up trying to understand.