Abstract

This essay explores a novel parallel between quantum mechanical principles and the biblical creation narrative through etymological analysis of the Hebrew terms “erev” (evening) and “boker” (morning). The study reveals that these terms, which punctuate each day of creation in Genesis, carry meanings that remarkably align with fundamental quantum concepts. "Erev," rooted in the concept of "mixture," parallels quantum superposition, while "boker," stemming from differentiation and discernment, mirrors quantum measurement and wave function collapse. This linguistic correspondence offers new insights into both the biblical text and quantum phenomena, suggesting an unexpected convergence between the Torah and modern physics. The essay examines these parallels through multiple lenses—linguistic, theological, and scientific—while considering their implications for our understanding of the Creator, creation, and the nature of reality itself.

Introduction

The opening chapter of Genesis has long captivated theologians, philosophers, and scholars with its profound and poetic account of the creation of the universe. Each of the first six days of creation concludes with a remarkable refrain: “And there was evening (erev) and there was morning (boker).”[1] While this phrase has been studied and interpreted in various ways for millennia, a deeper etymological analysis of the Hebrew words – “erev” and “boker” – reveals a striking parallel with principles of quantum mechanics. This convergence offers a fresh and intriguing perspective on the biblical creation narrative, suggesting that it may hold insights that resonate with contemporary scientific understanding.

The Evening State: Superposition and Mixture

The Hebrew word “erev” (ערב), evening, carries multiple layers of meaning that resonate deeply with quantum mechanical concepts. Its root of the word ערב (A-R-B) means “mix.”[2] Evening is called erev because dusk is a mixture of light and darkness. The concept of mixture is central to understanding the deeper implications of “erev” in the creation narrative.

The notion of mixing – erev – is related to the state of chaos when things are not in their places but are mixed up. Erev, therefore, hints at Olam Ha’Tohu, the Universe of Chaos. The darkness of evenings conceals the information. Indeed, high entropy states (chaotic states) correlate with low information.

In quantum mechanics, the principle of superposition states that a quantum system can exist in multiple states or configurations simultaneously until it is observed or measured. This means that particles like electrons or photons do not have definite properties or locations until a measurement causes the collapse of their wave function. They exist in a “mixed” state of all possible outcomes—a concept that mirrors the intrinsic meaning of the word “erev.” The state of superposition is also a state that lacks order. For example, a particle could be in two places simultaneously, and its position is indeterminate.

In fact, in modern Hebrew physics terminology, the word for quantum superposition is “irbuv matzavim” ערבוב מצבים, literally translating to “mixing of states.” Just as erev signifies a state where distinctions between objects blur, superposition represents a condition where distinctions between states blur. Thus, the Schrödinger cat can be in a mixed state of being dead and alive at the same time.

The Morning State: Measurement and Revelation

Conversely, the Hebrew word “boker” (בקר), morning, stems from the root בקר (B-Q-R), which means “distinguishing,” “inquiring,” and “discriminating.” Morning is called “boker” because the dawn of light dispels darkness, allowing for clarity and differentiation. The Talmud (Berakhot 9b) discusses that the time to recite the Shema in the morning is when one can distinguish between blue (techelet) and white threads—a metaphor for the onset of discernible reality. This perfectly aligns with the quantum mechanical concept of measurement.

The notion of morning – boker – is related to the state of order when boundaries are clearly delineated, and things are in well-defined places. Boker, therefore, hints at Olam Ha’Tikkun, the Universe of Rectification and Order. The morning sunlight reveals information. Indeed, low entropy states (orderly states) correlate with the capacity to encode more information. The collapse of the wave function results in the discovery of information regarding the state of the particle.

In quantum mechanics, measurement fundamentally transforms a quantum system. When we observe or measure a quantum particle, such as an electron or a proton, its wave function—the mathematical description encompassing all possible states—collapses into a single, definite state. A blurry state of superposition is clarified. The act of measurement reveals new information about the state of the system. This process mirrors the transition from evening to morning: just as evening (erev) represents a time when different objects are blurry and indistinct, the morning (boker) shines a light on these objects and brings clarity and distinction. The morning light reveals information about objects—their shape, color, identity—which suddenly emerge from the darkness just as measurement reveals information about a specific quantum state—the position of the particle or its spin—from the murky state of superposition.[3] The collapse of the wave function restores order, assigning definitive values to the observed physical properties and revealing information, parallel to the transition from erev to boker.

The Nature of Quantum States: A Tale of Light and Darkness

There’s a telling story—perhaps more metaphorical than historical—about Werner Heisenberg’s breakthrough in quantum mechanics.[4] One night in June 1925, so the story goes, the young German physicist was walking through a darkened park, his mind wrestling with the puzzling behavior of electrons in atoms. The park was sparsely lit by streetlights, creating islands of light in the surrounding darkness. As Heisenberg walked, he noticed a man walking along the path ahead of him. The figure would momentarily appear in the pool of light beneath each streetlamp, only to vanish into the darkness between them, then reappear again under the next light.

This rhythmic pattern of appearance and disappearance sparked a profound insight. Heisenberg realized that electrons in atoms behave similarly—they don’t exist in a continuous path like classical particles but rather appear only in specific, discrete energy states (like the pools of light), seemingly vanishing in between. This insight led him to work through the night, developing the mathematical framework of matrix mechanics—the first formulation of quantum mechanics. As he later wrote:

It was about three o’clock at night when the final result of the calculation lay before me. At first, I was deeply shaken. I was so excited that I could not think of sleep. So I left the house and awaited the sunrise on the top of a rock.[5]

This anecdote, whether historical or metaphorical, perfectly illustrates the quantum mechanical principle that would later help us understand the nature of reality at its most fundamental level. Like the man visible only in pools of lamplight, quantum particles exist in discrete, measurable states, with their existence between these states described only by probability waves.

Just as Heisenberg’s man in the park seemed to materialize only under streetlights, disappearing into the uncertainty of darkness between them, so does the biblical pattern of erev and boker mirror this quantum dance. In the evening (erev), when darkness reigns, we lose the ability to pinpoint exact locations and states—much like the quantum particle in a blurry state of superposition or the mysterious figure vanishing between streetlights. But with the coming of the morning (boker), as light floods the scene, indefinite possibilities collapse into concrete realities. The morning light reveals not just the presence of objects but their definite positions and properties—just as measurement reveals an electron’s specific orbital state. This daily cycle of creation—from the mixed, uncertain states of erev to the defined, manifested reality of boker—reflects the very process Heisenberg glimpsed that night in the park: the fundamental quantum nature of our universe, where matter moves from superposition to definition, from probability to reality, from darkness to light.

The Creation Process: From Superposition to Manifestation

This linguistic parallel suggests a novel interpretation of the creation narrative: each day of creation proceeded in two phases:

1. An evening (erev) phase where matter existed in a state of quantum superposition—multiple possibilities coexisting in a mixed state; and

2. A morning (boker) phase where these possibilities collapse into definite, manifested forms through divine speech or observation.

This interpretation aligns remarkably well with classical Jewish commentaries. Commentators like Rashi,[6] Ibn Ezra,[7] Nachmanides (Ramban),[8] and Sforno[9] all suggested that creation began with everything in potentiality or general terms before being differentiated into specific forms.[10] Kabbalistic sources take the same view.[11] The quantum mechanical parallel provides a modern scientific framework for understanding this ancient wisdom.

Shadows and Wavefunctions

In the twilight of erev (evening), boundaries blur, and objects lose their distinct identities, leaving us with only shadows—nebulous forms that hint at underlying realities without revealing them fully. In quantum mechanics, we cannot know a particle’s definite state while it exists in superposition either. Instead, we work with its wave function—a mathematical shadow that encodes not the particle itself but the probabilities of its possible states.

The transition to boker (morning) mirrors the quantum measurement process. As the rising sun banishes shadows to reveal objects in their true form and location, so does measurement collapse the probabilistic wavefunction into a definite state. This parallel is embedded in the very meaning of boker, which carries the connotations of investigation and differentiation. Just as morning light transforms shadowy possibilities into concrete realities, measurement transforms quantum probabilities into definite physical states.

Entanglement and disentanglement

The mixing of erev (lit., “to mix”) can symbolize the quantum entanglement of particles, where the state of one cannot be described independently of the state of another. Nighttime is often associated with mysteries and unseen connections. So, too, the entangled particles remain mysteriously connected no matter how far apart from each other. The darkness of the night evokes spookiness. Einstein called entanglement “spooky.”

Morning (boker) dispels the mysteries and spookiness of the night, bringing clarity and discernment. This mirrors the disentanglement of entangled particles.

Duality and Complementarity

The fundamental duality established at creation—the separation between Creator and creation[12]—manifests itself in the primordial contrasts of darkness versus light and erev (evening) versus boker (morning). This cosmic duality finds a striking parallel in wave-particle duality, where matter exhibits contradictory wave-like and particle-like characteristics.

Consider how erev, with its blurred boundaries and uncertain positions, embodies wave-like properties. In evening darkness, objects lose their precise locations and distinct edges, becoming more like waves—spread out and indeterminate. Conversely, boker brings the clarity and precision characteristic of particles: in the morning light, objects acquire definite positions and sharp boundaries, just as quantum entities appear particle-like when measured.

Yet these apparent opposites are not truly contradictory but complementary. The biblical text emphasizes this unity: “And there was evening and there was morning, day one.” Unlike the subsequent days, which are numbered as “second,” “third,” etc., the first day is referred to as “one.” The Hebrew word for “one” (echad) here suggests not merely a number but a fundamental unity—evening and morning combining to form a complete whole. Similarly, Niels Bohr, one of quantum mechanics’ founding fathers, captured this profound truth in his motto Contraria sunt complementa (“opposites are complementary”). Just as we need both wave and particle descriptions to fully understand quantum phenomena, the full nature of creation emerges only through the complementary aspects of erev and boker.

The Divine Paradox

This parallel reveals an even deeper truth about the nature of reality. While G-d represents absolute unity, devoid of any duality or corporeality, our limited human understanding necessarily introduces apparent dualities when describing the Divine. Although Judaism holds as axiomatic that G-d is one, it also maintains that G-d is perfect and lacks nothing. This creates an apparent paradox: any attribute we ascribe to G-d cannot be limiting. When we say G-d is infinite, He is not limited by His infinitude and thus also possesses the potential for finitude (ko’ach hagevul). G-d is nimna hanimna’ot (נמנע הנמנעות)—unrestricted by any restrictions.[13]

This paradox extends even to existence itself. To say something “exists” in our world implies the possibility of non-existence. As Maimonides argued, G-d’s existence is necessary—He cannot not exist. Yet this very necessity would seem to be a limitation. In the language of quantum mechanics, we might say that from our limited perspective, G-d exists in a superposition of existence and non-existence, though this apparent duality exists only in our perception, not in G‑d’s essence.

The Purpose of Creation

According to Midrash Tanchuma, the purpose of creation was that G‑d desired a dwelling place in the lowest of the worlds (dira b’tachtonim)[14]—the cornerstone of Chasidic theology.[15],[16] This suggests that our physical world must reflect all Divine attributes, including this paradox of existence and non-existence. Thus, the biblical contrasts of light (ohr) versus darkness (ḥosheḥ), day (yom) versus night (lailah), morning (boker) versus evening (erev)—all this fundamental dichotomy.

In our limited world, which cannot sustain paradoxes, these opposites must be separated, as the Torah states:

And G‑d saw the light, that it was good; and G‑d divided the light from the darkness. And G‑d called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day (Genesis, 1:4,5)

This cosmic pattern finds its echo in quantum mechanics: particles in their collapsed state reflect existence, while their wavefunctions in superposition reflect a kind of non-existence or potential existence.  As I explained in my paper, “Towards Reconciliation of Biblical and Cosmological Ages of the Universe,”[17] the wavefunction represents not physical reality but pure mathematical abstraction—what we might call a “protophysical” state. Only when measurement collapses the wave function does the potential become actual, mirroring the transition from Divine potential to physical manifestation.

Thus, the parallel between quantum mechanics and creation extends beyond metaphor to touch the deepest mysteries of both Jewish metaphysics and modern physics, suggesting that these two languages might be describing the same underlying reality from different perspectives.

Conclusion

This analysis reveals a remarkable convergence between the etymology of Hebrew terms in Genesis and the fundamental principles of quantum mechanics. The linguistic roots of “erev” and “boker” appear to encode core quantum mechanical concepts: superposition, measurement, and wave function collapse. More than mere coincidence, this parallel suggests a profound connection between biblical wisdom and modern physical understanding.

These findings demonstrate how biblical texts contain layers of meaning that become accessible through advances in scientific knowledge. Moreover, they suggest that the biblical creation narrative may offer insights into quantum phenomena that complement our theoretical and experimental understanding. Finally, they provide a framework for understanding how the fundamental nature of reality—as described by quantum mechanics—might be reflected in the very structure of creation as portrayed in Genesis.

This convergence offers a unique perspective on how the wisdom of the Torah and modern science might inform and enrich each other and opens new avenues for exploring how quantum mechanical principles might help illuminate other aspects of religious and philosophical thought.

Bibliography

Heisenberg, Werner. Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations. Translated by A. J. Pomerans. New York: Harper & Row, 1971.

Ibn Ezra, Abraham ben Meir. Commentary on the Torah. Translated by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. New York: Menorah, 1988.

Maimonides, Moses. The Guide for the Perplexed. Translated by M. Friedländer. 2nd ed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1904.

Midrash Genesis Rabbah. Translated by H. Freedman and Maurice Simon. London: Soncino, 1939.

Midrash Tanchuma. Translated by John T. Townsend. Hoboken: Ktav, 1989.

Nachmanides (Moses ben Nahman). Commentary on the Torah. Translated by Charles B. Chavel. New York: Shilo, 1971.

Poltorak, Alexander. Towards Reconciliation of Biblical and Cosmological Ages of the Universe. B’Or HaTorah, 13, 2002, p. 19

Vital, Hayyim, Rabbi. Sha’ar Ruach ha-Kodesh. Jerusalem, 1912.

Schneerson, Menachem Mendel, Rabbi. Maamar Gadol Yiheyeh Kavod HaBayis HaZeh. Brooklyn: Kehot, 1962.

Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Rabbi. Likkutei Amarim—Tanya. Translated by Nissan Mindel. Brooklyn: Kehot, 1962.

Solomon ben Isaac, Rabbi (Rashi). Pentateuch with Rashi’s Commentary. Translated by M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann. London: Shapiro, Vallentine & Co., 1929.

Solomon ben Abraham Adret, Rabbi (Rashba). Responsa. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: Makhon Or ha-Mizraḥ, 1997.

Schneersohn, Menachem Mendel, Rabbi (Tzemach Tzedek). Sefer HaChakirah. Brooklyn: Kehot, 1958.

Schneerson, Menachem Mendel, Rabbi. Sefer HaMa’amarim 5643. Brooklyn: Kehot, n.d.

Schneerson, Menachem Mendel, Rabbi. Sefer HaMa’amarim 5665. Brooklyn: Kehot, n.d.

Sefer Yetzirah: The Book of Creation. Translated by Aryeh Kaplan. York Beach: Samuel Weiser, 1997.

Sforno, Ovadiah, Rabbi. Commentary on the Torah. Translated by Raphael Pelcovitz. Brooklyn: Mesorah, 1987.

Tikunei Zohar. Translated by Moshe Miller. Jerusalem: Fiftieth Gate, 2001.

Endnotes:

[1] See Genesis 1:5,8,13,19,23,31.

[2] For instance, in Exodus 12:38, the term “erev rav” refers to a “mixed multitude” that left Egypt with the Israelites. Similarly, eiruv tavshilin (“mixed cooked dishes”) denotes the mixing of different foods.

[3] In my essay, “Collapse and Revelation,” I drew the parallel between the Splitting of the Sea (Keriat Yam Suf) and the collapse of the wave function in quantum mechanics. The Splitting of the Sea is the transition from Alma d’Iskasya (the hidden world), as symbolized by the yam (“sea”), into Alma d’Isgalya (“revealed world”), as symbolized by dry land. In the present example, Alma d’Iskasya (the hidden world) is symbolized by the evening when the darkness (like the water) hides the details from our eyes, and Alma d’Isgalya (“revealed world”), is symbolized by the morning, when the information becomes revealed.

[4] I described this story in my post, “Mishkan – a Metaphor for Quantum Reality” on May 26, 2017.

[5] Heisenberg, W. (1971). Physics and Beyond: Encounters and Conversations (A. J. Pomerans, Trans.). Harper & Row. (Original work published 1969).

[6] In his commentary on Genesis 1:1 and 1:14, Rashi suggests that all elements of creation were brought into existence at once in a general sense during the initial act of creation. For instance, regarding the luminaries (sun, moon, and stars), he explains that they were created on the first day but were assigned their specific functions and positions on the fourth day.

[7] In his commentary on Genesis 1:1, Ibn Ezra discusses the creation of the world starting from a formless state. He interprets “Tohu va’Vohu” (formless and void) as an initial, undifferentiated substance that G‑d subsequently shaped into the ordered universe.

[8] In his classical commentary on the first chapter of Genesis, Nachmanides explains that in the beginning, G‑d created all things in a general, potential state. This initial act of creation brought forth a primordial matter or substance—sometimes referred to as “hyuli“—from which all specific, differentiated forms would later emerge. According to Nachmanides, the subsequent days of creation involved the formation and differentiation of this initial, undifferentiated matter into the concrete entities we recognize in the world.

[9] In his commentary on Genesis 1:1, Sforno explains that G‑d first brought forth a simple, undifferentiated substance. The six days of creation then describe the process of differentiating and perfecting this substance into specific forms and beings.

[10] The Midrash Genesis Rabbah discusses that all elements of creation were created simultaneously in a potential state and then revealed in their final forms over the six days.

[11] According to the Zohar, “The world was created in a state of mixture (erev rav), like a mixture of good and evil… Then, the Holy One, blessed be He, began to separate and differentiate the good from the evil.” Tikunei Zohar (Tikun 17, Page 35b). Sefer Yetzirah states, “The Infinite One created the world by combining the 22 letters of the alphabet… At first, the letters were in a state of mixture and confusion, but then the Infinite One began to differentiate and separate them.”Sefer Yetzirah (Chapter 1, Mishnah 1). The Arizal taught that, “In the beginning, the creation was in a state of keter (crown), which is the highest level of abstraction… Then, the creation descended and became differentiated into the various levels of reality.” Etz Chaim, Shaar HaKlalim, Chapter 1. His student, Rabbi Chaim Vital, writes, “The world was created in a state of undifferentiation, like a seed that contains all the potential for growth… Then, the Holy One, blessed be He, began to differentiate and separate the elements, creating the world as we know it.” Shaar Ruach HaKodesh, Chapter 1.

[12] That is why we call G‑d “kadosh,” that is, “separated.”

[13] Responsa of the Rashba (Shu”t HaRashb”a), Vol. I, sec. 418; see also Sefer HaChakirah by the Tzemach Tzedek, p. 34b ff. See alo Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, Maamar Gadol Yiheyeh Kavod HaBayis HaZeh. See also Sefer HaMa’amarim 5643, p. 100; and loc. cit. 5665 p. 185.

[14] Midrash Tanhuma, Naso, which says, “God desired to have a dwelling place in the lower realms.”

[15] Maggid Devarav LeYa’akov, Parshat Naso, discourse beginning with “Vayedaber Hashem el Moshe,” where the Magid states, “The ultimate intent of the creation of the worlds is that the Holy One, blessed be He, desired to have a dwelling place in the lower realms (‘Dirah Betachtonim’), as it is stated in Midrash Tanchuma, Parshat Naso.” See also Or Torah, Parshat Naso.

[16] Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Tanya. Chapters 36 and 37.

[17]  Alexander Poltorak, “Towards Reconciliation of Biblical and Cosmological Ages of the Universe,” Presented at the Third Miami International Conference on Torah & Science in Dec. 1999 and published in B’Or HaTorah, 13 (2002) p. 19. Online: https://quantumtorah.com/towards-reconciliation-of-biblical-and-cosmological-ages-of-the-universe, August 15th, 2012.