Creation of the Universe

The Enigma of the Electron

Electrons and positrons both possess a mass of exactly 510.998918 keV/c². This level of precision is astonishing. What mechanism ensures that electrons and positrons throughout the universe consistently share this identical mass?

Consider the following analogy:

An engineer says, "In my factory, we produce sugar packets labeled 500 grams, each weighing precisely 510.998918 grams. The accuracy is 0.0000086%. We can manufacture millions of packets, all with that exact weight."

Such precision, replicated across millions of units, is virtually impossible in any industrial setting. Yet this is precisely the scenario we observe with electrons and positrons — produced in astronomical quantities, always with the same mass and the same extraordinary precision of 0.0000086%.

This consistency defies ordinary explanation. There must be a deeper mechanism at play — a hidden symmetry, a fundamental law, or perhaps a ‘trick’ of nature still waiting to be uncovered.

Two Possibilities

Among the various possible solutions, two appear particularly plausible:

• Division of spacetime,
• Replication of sCells.

These two approaches, explored below, share notable similarities. However, replication appears to be the more credible option, as it is already observed in biological systems on Earth.

1 - Division of Spacetime

This scenario is illustrated in the two figures below.

• Phase 1: Spacetime was initially formed as a continuum composed of three components: neutral, negative, and positive. In the diagrams, positive spacetime densities are shown in red, and negative ones in blue — preserving the symmetry of charge.

• Phase 2: A binary division process unfolds: 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64... and so on. This division continues until the quantum threshold of 511 keV/c² is reached, resulting in sCells of identical volume.

The emergence of 511 keV/c² quanta from a spacetime continuum is conceptually straightforward. However, several fundamental questions remain:

• What is the origin of this continuum? It’s worth noting that such a continuum does not exist on Earth.
• What mechanism governs the division process?
• How does this model relate to our understanding of the universe’s expansion? …and many more.

2 - Replication of sCells

This scenario appears more plausible, as it mirrors a process already observed on Earth.

A single original cell grows and, at a certain point, divides into two. This process — known as cell replication — is repeated many times. Through successive divisions, we obtain 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128... eventually reaching billions of genetically identical cells.

Humans, animals, plants, and other organisms are formed through this same replication model. While the specifics vary across species, the underlying principle remains consistent: each cell divides into two, then four, eight, and so on.

This replication process exhibits several remarkable properties:

• Precision: A cell of a given type is an exact replica of another cell of the same type.
• Reproducibility: All eight billion human beings on Earth are created through the same cellular replication process. For example, liver cells are virtually identical across individuals — and even closely resemble those in animals. Nature’s ability to replicate cells with such consistency on a massive scale is extraordinary.
• Massive Output: To create a human being, only two initial cells are needed. Through replication, these give rise to billions upon billions of cells within just nine months.
• Universal Principle: Replication can be extremely simple, as in bacteria, or highly complex, as in multicellular organisms. Yet the fundamental process remains the same. Its elegance lies in its simplicity and its astonishing capacity for reproduction in nature.

Quantum Darwinism

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his groundbreaking work "On the Origin of Species", proposing that species evolve over time and that all living organisms descend from a common ancestor.

His theory, centered on evolution and natural selection, is well known. Interestingly, similar principles of evolution can be applied to physics. Starting from a simple foundational unit — the sCell — it is possible to generate increasingly complex systems.

Darwin was the first to highlight the importance of division and replication in the development of life. Inspired by this concept, we refer to a comparable process in the formation of the universe as "Quantum Darwinism".

The creation of the universe can be envisioned in three evolutionary phases, each echoing Darwinian principles observed on Earth:

• Primary Darwinism: This phase began 13.8 billion years ago with only sCells and culminated in the emergence of the 24 particles and antiparticles of the Standard Model.
• Secondary Darwinism: In this phase, the Standard Model provided the building blocks for atoms and molecules. The earliest cells — fossilized microorganisms dating back 3.5 billion years — are a direct result of this stage.
• Current Darwinism: This is the Darwinism we recognize today. It begins with the first living cell and leads to the development of complex organisms, including human beings.

Replication Scenario

The following scenario, inspired by Quantum Darwinism, outlines a possible process for the creation of the universe.

The initial phase must necessarily be extremely simple. This is a crucial point. Moreover, the scenario must incorporate quantum theory, which is an established reality. The sCell is hypothesized to have a mass of 511 keV/c², though this remains to be confirmed.

On Earth, similar replication processes are well known, particularly in bacterial reproduction. Nothing in this model is invented. It reflects nature’s tendency to repeat successful patterns. This makes the scenario especially relevant.

The table below details the various phases. The t₂ phase is familiar in terrestrial biology.

Creation of Spacetime

A fundamental question arises in this process: Does space give rise to time, or does time give rise to space? At the moment of the universe's creation, there was no enclosed volume — hence, no mass. Spacetime was flat, a condition known as Minkowski spacetime.

Let us consider the following premises:

• The universe emerged from nothing — no space, no time.
• Perfect symmetry must be maintained. Without compensatory mechanisms, creation would be impossible.

Under these conditions, the spacetime metric simplifies to the Minkowski form:

ds² = c²dt²−(dx²+dy²+dz²)

ds² = -c²dt²− (dr²+r²(dθ²+sin²θ dφ²))

At the origin of the universe, all values of ds² were zero — there was no space, no time. Given spherical symmetry, we can neglect the angular components dθ² and dφ², reducing the equation to:

0 = c²dt² - dr²

In physics, length is typically denoted by 𝑥 rather than 𝑟, so we rewrite:

c.dt = dx

This relation implies that:

It is important to note that the dimensional quantities of time (r) and space (L) are fundamentally distinct. This aligns with Einstein’s formulation of the universe as a four-dimensional continuum: one temporal dimension t, and three spatial dimensions x,y,z.

The constant c ensures dimensional homogeneity in the equation. Preserving this constant is essential. Therefore, the phrase “Time creates space” should be avoided — it is mathematically misleading. Such expressions are as imprecise as saying “money creates jobs”. From a mathematical standpoint, this analogy fails because money and employment are conceptually and dimensionally different entities.

Creation of the Universe

From a philosophical standpoint, the question “What existed before the creation of the universe?” is inherently flawed. Since time itself came into existence alongside the spatial dimensions, the notion of a “before” becomes meaningless — there was no temporal framework in which anything could have existed.

A similar idea can be illustrated with a more familiar example.

Imagine a newborn baby. Now ask the mother, “How tall was your baby two years ago?” The question is nonsensical: the baby was conceived only nine months ago. Time and space — in this case, the baby’s age and physical size — began together. There is no “two years ago” for someone who didn’t yet exist.

The same logic applies to the universe. Nothing existed prior to 13.8 billion years ago — not matter, not space, not even time. The universe had not yet come into being. In this context, the word “before” has no meaning, because there was no temporal dimension in which “before” could occur.

Creation of Objects

Imagine a company being founded. Prior to its creation, neither time nor space existed in relation to it — no office, no employees, no timeline. This mirrors the earlier analogy of the newborn baby: just as it makes no sense to ask about a baby’s height two years before birth, it is equally meaningless to speak of a company’s attributes before its inception. Many such examples illustrate this principle.

The creation of the universe follows a similar logic. Nature often repeats successful patterns, and the mechanisms observed on Earth may reflect deeper universal laws. Thus, the most meaningful question is not what came before, but how the universe came into being. More precisely: How was the original replicating sCell created?

Enigmas of the Universe

Darwinism can be seen as a variation of the replication process of sCells. This model offers several advantages over the traditional Big Bang theory:

• Observable Phenomena on Earth: The replication scenario is more credible than the speculative Big Bang model, as it reflects processes we observe in nature on Earth. Cell replication is well understood in biology, whereas spontaneous creation — as implied by the Big Bang — is entirely foreign to our experience. This makes the Big Bang scenario implausible and calls for its reconsideration.
• The Enigma of Electrons: Quantum Darwinism provides a compelling explanation for the precise mass of electrons (510.998918 keV/c²), a mystery left unresolved by the Big Bang theory.
• Origin from Nothing: The Quantum Darwinism model begins with absolute nothingness, no time, no space. According to Minkowski’s relation, Δx = cΔt, space and time co-create one another. While the full mechanism remains unknown, this formula offers a conceptual starting point.
• Matter Density: The probability of a replication error (phase t2 in the previous figure) transforming an sCell into an electron–positron pair is extremely low — on the order of 10^-60 to to 10^-100. This aligns with experimental data showing that the average matter density in the universe is just a few electrons per cubic meter.
• Big Bang to Standard Model Transition: The Big Bang posits a universe emerging from a Planck-length singularity. Yet it offers no explanation for the sudden appearance of the 24 particles and antiparticles of the Standard Model. This unresolved issue is discussed earlier.
• Identical Charges of Electron–Positron Pairs: In phase 2 of the replication model, charge is symmetrically transferred between sCells. The Δq of one matches the Δq of the other, explaining why electrons and positrons have equal but opposite charges — an observation famously noted by Feynman. The Big Bang theory does not address this symmetry.
• Universe Expansion: Quantum Darwinism accommodates the expansion of the universe, with approximately 300,000 km of space generated every second. This dynamic is not accounted for in the Big Bang model.
• Antimatter Distribution: At the moment of their creation, electrons and positrons were necessarily close together. Evidence suggests that antimatter resides within quarks. The Big Bang theory does not specify the location or behavior of antimatter.
• Random Creation of e⁺e⁻ Pairs: Matter emerged in isolated “islands” throughout the universe, without initial connectivity. This randomness led to diverse interactions among electrons, positrons, gamma rays, and other particles. See the figure below.
• The Enigma of the Horizon: The temperature of the deep universe is approximately 2.7° K in all directions. To account for this uniformity, physicists proposed the inflation model — a speculative theory appended to the already highly conjectural Big Bang framework. The issue, as Einstein once remarked, is that “Nature does not invent itself". The physicist must describe Nature as it is, not fabricate a fictitious version to fit mathematical equations. In contrast, the Spacetime Model offers a straightforward explanation for the 2.7° K background temperature. It originates from the isolated “islands” depicted in the figure below.

Dark Matter

During the creation of an electron–positron pair, a portion of the charge — interpreted here as a fraction of spacetime density — is transferred from one sCell to another.

Assume the initial spacetime density is 100. The transfer between cells occurs randomly. For example, if 1% is transferred, the electron would have a density of 99 (−1%), and the positron 101 (+1%). In another galaxy, this transfer rate could differ — perhaps 10%, 20%, 50%, ...or 0,0001%.

Such variations in charge distribution across galaxy clusters could account for the discrepancy in observed mass — commonly referred to as dark matter.

This variation in charge, regardless of its magnitude, also explains the transformation of two neutral sCells into an electron–positron pair (see the previous figure).

Big Bang Hypothesis

The table below contrasts the theory presented here with the Big Bang model. The central enigma remains the electron, as discussed earlier in the chapter.

The Big Bang theory can be likened to a volcano. Can we reasonably believe that a volcano could produce millions of stones, each weighing exactly 510.998918 grams, with a precision of 0.0000086%? In the case of the universe, why would matter and antimatter emerge with such perfect symmetry under these conditions? And crucially, as noted: "Where is the antimatter?"

In summary, the Big Bang theory contains too many unresolved contradictions to be considered a robust scientific explanation. It resembles science fiction more than serious science.

The following table presents a comparison between the Big Bang theory and the Spacetime Model.

The Main Question