1

The conceptual fallacy at the heart of big bang cosmology

Quantum cosmology: mechanics of a self-creating universe

Anton Biermans

selfcreatinguniverse@gmail.com

If there would be only a single electrically charged particle in the universe so it cannot

express its charge in interactions, then it cannot be charged itself, so charge ­any

property­ is something which lives within particle interactions. As in that case particles,

their properties must be as much the cause as the effect of their interactions, their

communication is instantaneous. The contradiction that according to the photon its

transmission is instant but we measure it to take a time proportional to the distance it

covers cannot be solved in a universe where time passes at the same pace everywhere.

Like a particle cannot be charged itself if there is no other charge; as by definition there

is nothing outside the universe relative to which it can be said to exist, nothing it can

interact with to express its properties, a self­creating universe cannot have certain

properties, be in some particular state as a whole as ‘seen’ from without nor as seen

from within. As it only exists as seen from within so contains, produces all time inside

of it, then clocks cannot be observed to run at the same pace at all distances even

when at rest: as there is no universe­wide now, past, present and future are relative,

local notions ­as opposed to a big bang universe which, as it has certain properties and

at any time is in some particular state as a whole, has an external if, for practical

reasons, unobservable reality so lives in a time continuum not of its own making.

If why quantum mechanics works still isn’t understood, then that is because the

constant of nature called ‘the speed’ of light is misinterpreted as a velocity instead of

the property of spacetime it is in a self­creating universe: as the communication

between particles ­and the transmission of light­ in this universe is instantaneous, it is

obvious why nothing goes faster than light. While light in a big bang universe moves

through space, in time, the universe growing older as it travels; in a universe where

there is no universe­wide now, its transmission is instant over any spacetime distance.

This study explores how a universe might create itself out of nothing yet have no

beginning since if it can create itself, it always could. However simplified things are

represented in this study and however many serious flaws it has; it will become clear

that if there is one thing which completely blocks the progress of physics ­unification of

forces, of general relativity with quantum mechanics, why quantum mechanics works­

then is the embarrassingly naïve, medievally outdated hodgepodge of ad hoc

assumptions, absurdities and contradictions called big bang cosmology.

2

Contents

1 Introduction / summary . . . . . . 3

2 The why of gravity; gravity and time. . . . . 47

3 The equality of gravitational and inertial mass . . . 57

4 The energy of empty spacetime. . . . . . 62

5 The distance redshift inherent to a selfcreating universe. . . 67

6 The selfcreation of energy: particles and antiparticles . . 69

7 The origin of particle species / the unification of forces . . 78

8 The second law of thermodynamics . . . . . 84

9 The speed of light . . . . . . . 86

10 Feynman’s path integral . . . . . . 91

11 Why quantum mechanics works . . . . . 94

The double­slit experiment

Schrödinger’s cat

Quantum entanglement ­ the Einstein­Podolski­Rosen (EPR) paradox

12 Higgs and the origin of mass . . . . . 102

13 Observational evidence for a big bang versus a selfcreating universe 107

The cosmic microwave background radiation

The abundance of light elements

The distribution of quasars and the metallicity of stars and nebula

Evolution of galaxies and the large scale structure of spacetime

ABBRIVIATIONS . . . . . . . . 117

3

The universe is all of time and space and its contents. Wikipedia1

People before me believed that if all the matter in the universe were removed, only space and

time would exist. My theory proves that space and time would disappear along with matter.

Albert Einstein2

1

Introduction / summaryIF THE UNIVERSE can create itself out of nothing without any outside interference,

what kind of particles to craft, what physical laws to install and what constants of

nature to select, then we should, in principle, be able to figure it out as well, especially

if we can reverse engineer it from what we see how it is and works.

However, if when it can create itself, it always must have been able to, then can it have

a beginning? For if it has a beginning, then this would imply a decision when to start its

creation, an intent to create it, that it has been created by some outside intervention,

that time already passes before there is a universe even though nothing much may

happen, last, before the big bang, that time passes even outside of it, that it has a

beginning and grows older in time: that it lives in a time realm not of its own making.

While big bang cosmology (BBC) states that there is no time, that time isn’t defined

outside the universe, that time only started at the big bang so there was no time in

which it didn’t exist; as a beginning presupposes a previous state ­a previous time­ in

which it didn’t yet exist, time in BBC is nevertheless thought to pass even before the

big bang and even outside the universe despite its (cl)aim to describe the universe

from within. This study explores how the universe can create itself out of nothing,

without any outside interference without having a beginning as a whole and what this

implies for the origin of energy, of mass, for the nature of gravity, of space and time.

As BBC conceives of the universe as an ordinary object which has particular properties

and at any time is in some particular state as a whole, here we may imagine to look at

it from the outside ­which in this text is referred to as the global view.

If by definition there is nothing outside the universe relative to which it can be said to

exist, if it cannot have particular properties and be in some particular state as a whole

as ‘seen’ from without nor as seen from within so it only exists as seen from within,

then it doesn’t, like a big bang universe (BBU), live in a time realm not of its own

making but contains,3 produces all time within, then it cannot have a beginning, a

definite age as a whole nor are we allowed to imagine looking at the universe from the

outside as to do so is to assume that it has certain properties and is in some particular

state: that it has been created by some outside intervention, violating the definition of

what a universe is. If when the universe can create itself, it always could and there is no

school where it can learn how to create itself, if before it exists, there is nothing with

which it might wish to create itself, then, as far as it makes sense to speak about a

beginning, its mechanics ­the general principle which enables its selfcreation­ should

be self­evident, even though things may get quite complicated as it keeps evolving.

1 Unless specified otherwise, all quotations from Wikipedia are from the years 2018­20 ­which is often

referred to make this study more accessible, reader­friendly to a larger public interested in physics. 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hole_argument&oldid=520160850

‘It was formerly believed that if all material things disappeared out of the universe, time and space would

be left. According to relativity theory, however, time and space disappear together with the things.’ (1921)3 Quote marks as the term contains wrongly suggests that all time, every event which ever happens

somehow is conserved, as if it remains accessible, in principle, to observation to all observers.

4

If particles only can be said to exist if they can express their existence, their properties

in interactions, and this they only can if they have energy and the universe is to create

itself out of nothing, then that must mean that energy ­whatever kind of stuff it may

turn out to be­ has the tendency to increase, to keep creating itself ­a tendency which

manifests itself as gravity and which, as will be discussed, relativity theory predicts.

If reason tells us that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing ­if conservation

laws are to be obeyed, the net energy of the universe to remain zero­ then that must

mean that the energy of particles is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, something which in

one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next, the sign of which alternates at a

frequency proportional to their energy. If so, then this has profound consequences for

our understanding of time, for the origin of mass and the nature of gravity.

If the uncertainty principle (UP) implies that the energy of particles1 increases as the

uncertainty in their position decreases ­which it does as they contract to clusters (stars,

galaxies), if energy is a source of gravity and we may call anything which exerts gravity

‘mass’ and mass in a SCU cannot causally precede gravity, then instead of, as in BBC,

saying that particles contract because they in some mysterious manner have been

endowed with a certain rest mass at their creation at the big bang and masses for

some unfathomable reason attract ­that their mass is the cause of their gravitational

attraction­ we can as well say that their mass only increases if and when they contract ­

as opposed to the present, classical view according to which the mass of particles is the

cause of their attraction so decreases as they contract to clusters.

The misleading thing about gravity, then, is that in driving the changes we experience

as the passing of time ­the contraction of particles to stars and galaxies­ we have a

sequence between events we misinterpret as proof that one ­their mass­ is cause of

the other, of their contraction, as if mass causally precedes gravity and time eternally

passes at some particular, unperturbable pace no matter whether something happens,

changes or not, as if the universe lives in a time realm not of its own making. if, on the

other hand, we insist that mass causally precedes gravity, that the mass of particles

only is the cause, but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their interactions, then the

origin of mass, of energy, the nature of gravity cannot be understood even in principle.

If the definition of what a universe is implies that it cannot have certain properties, be

in any single, particular state so cannot have a beginning as a whole, then that doesn’t

mean that particles cannot evolve to higher energies. If when there is nothing outside

the universe, it cannot be in any particular state as a whole but only exists as seen from

within, then we must specify the observer or observing particle when describing how

his/her/its universe looks like, then it can be seen that, in the case of an observing

particle, its universe changes as it changes itself since, due to the tendency of energy to

increase (a tendency which, as will be argued, general relativity predicts), it tends to

evolve to ever­higher energies and the energy it observes the objects within its inter­

action horizon (IH), its universe to have depends on its own rest energy, its distance

and motion relative to the observed. If we associate a lower rest energy of particles, of

the galaxy they form with an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase, then the phase an observing

particle observes its universe to be depends on the evolutionary phase it is in itself ­

quote marks as in a SCU there is no such thing as cosmic time as in this universe there

is no universe­wide now, where past, present and future are relative, local notions.

(As an interaction between particles is an exchange of energy, of information, particles

in this study also appear as observers, as sources, carriers and receivers of information.

1 The lower their rest energy, the greater the uncertainty in the position from which their

energy acts, the less they act like particles, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase they are in.

5

Unless specified otherwise, the protagonists in this text are an unspecified kind of

particles though they may, for the sake of argument, adopt any property of any particle

species. Depending on the context, ‘particle’ can mean an elementary particle, a

particle which is in the process of evolving to an elementary particle, but also to a star,

a galaxy or cluster of galaxies. Observation doesn’t imply consciousness, a capability to

reflect on the received information ­unless we call the process whereby a change in the

observation of particles of each other, in the force they feel from each other is

processed into an adjustment of their motion relative to each other ‘consciousness.’)

Though according to BBC there’s nothing, no energy, space nor time outside so (cl)aims

to describe the universe from within; as it conceives of the universe as an ordinary

object which has particular properties and at any moment in cosmic time is in some

single, particular state as a whole, it nevertheless investigates the universe from an

imaginary a vantage point outside of it ­which only makes sense if it has been created

by some outside intervention, if it lives in a time realm not of its own making.

If a SCU only exists as seen from within ­if its particles only exist to each other if, for as

long and to the extent they interact, exchange energy, information, and not, as in BBC,

to an imaginary observer outside the universe­ then we must specify the observer or

observing particle when speaking about the evolutionary phase she / it observes her /

its universe to be in ­a phase which then is different to different observing particles,

meaning that the IH, the universe of every observing particle always contains objects in

all possible phases of their evolution ­be it that, for reasons to be discussed, not all

phases are accessible to observation by any observing particle as the energy it observes

the objects within its interaction horizon, its universe to have, the phase it observes

them to be in also depends on its own energy, on the evolutionary phase it is in itself:

that there is no single, universe­wide reality and hence no universe­wide now, that

past, present and future in a selfcreating universe are relative, local notions.

Carlo Rovelli1

… the idea that there exists a ‘‘now’’ all over the universe does not square with what we

know about the universe. … The picture of a Universe changing from one global instant

to the next is incompatible with what we know about the world.

If the universe is to create itself without violating any conservation law, then that must

mean that there either are as much particles with a positive as a negative energy ­a

possibility we can exclude if there is much more matter than antimatter in the universe

as a surplus is like saying that the universe has a net electric charge of 42 Coulombs,

say­ or that the energy of particles isn’t a static quantity, either positive or negative,

always, but something dynamic, something the sign of which alternates, the magnitude

of which varies in a wavelike manner in space and time. If energy is a dynamic quantity,

something which only exists, manifests itself as it is exchanged between particles to

express and preserve their, each other’s properties, then a scenario suggests itself in

which particles alternately borrow and lend each other the energy to exist: that their

energy in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next2 so the net energy of the

universe is and remains zero ­which is as it should be as it has no external reality but

only exists as seen from within.

IF WE MAY speak of a beginning of the universe (which we may not), if before it exists,

it has nothing with which it might be able to create or even wish to create itself and

1 The Disappearance of Space and Time in The Ontology of Spacetime (2006) p. 34 Edited by Dennis Dieks2 In which case, as will be discussed in § 6, every elementary particle would be its own antiparticle ­not to

be confused with Majorana particles.

6

calculate what kinds of particles, laws and constants of nature might result in a viable

universe, then the universe must be the result of a more or less gradual trial and error

evolution ­what manages to survive, survives … for as long as it survives­ rather than a

Hollywood scenario whereby the universe suddenly pops up from one moment to the

next () in a dramatic explosion.1

As a BBU seems to be the end result of a calculation prior to the big bang about what

particles are to be created in what amounts, what properties they are going to have,

about the initial conditions in which they are to be created and what constants and

laws of nature to install to create a viable universe, one can ask who or what decided

when to start the calculation and how it is going to look like, especially if before the big

bang there’s nothing, no material calculator nor Calculator to design it.

Moreover, as the concept ‘energy density of the universe’ ­which in BBC determines its

rate of expansion­ only makes sense if the universe has a nonzero energy content, the

creation of a BBU not only violates the energy conservation law but also defines energy

and space as independent quantities, implying that energy, space and time, the joule,

the length of the meter and duration of the second are defined even before and even

outside the universe: that it lives in a space and time realm not of its own making.

If what comes out of nothing must add to nothing ­let’s call this the Nix law, the most

fundamental of all laws of physics, the mother of all conservation laws­ then the total

energy of the universe cannot but be and remain zero. As the amounts of matter and

energy created at the big bang could have been different, it cannot be explained why

they are what they are but must have been set by something outside the universe: as

the creation of a BBU then cannot be understood even in principle, big bang cosmology

constitutes a premature capitulation of reason, of physics to metaphysics.

The fallacy at the heart of big bang cosmology, then, is that in speaking about the state

and properties of the universe, by imagining to look at it from the outside ­as if looking

over God’s shoulders at Her creation­ we state that the universe has been created by

some outside creator, so BBC is an exercise in religion rather than science.

While according to BBC the universe ­time itself­ is 13.8 billion years old;2 the concept

of cosmic time, the idea that the universe has a beginning, a definite age ­that it is the

same time, that time passes at the same pace everywhere3 inside of it­ anyhow is at

odds with the gravitational time dilation (GTD) of general relativity (GR) according to

which the observed pace of a clock is slower (faster) as the gravitational field at the

clock is stronger (weaker) than it is at the observer.

IF WE MAY associate a lower energy with an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase and the

energy a particle observes the objects within its IH to have also depends on its own rest

energy, its distance and motion relative to these objects, then so does the evolutionary

phase it observes its universe to be in. The lower its own rest energy is and the more

distant a galaxy is, the weaker its interactions are with the galaxy are, the lower the

energy it observes the galaxy to have so if we associate a lower energy with an ‘earlier’

evolutionary phase, then the particle observes the galaxy, its universe to be in an

earlier evolutionary phase at larger distances and/or as its own rest energy is lower, as

1 According to big bang cosmology it is not an explosion in space but an ‘abrupt appearance of expanding

spacetime containing radiation.’ For an introductory course on cosmology, watch this video, for example.2 The time as measured by a clock which always has been at rest relative to the Hubble flow since the big

bang. Wikipedia: “The comoving time coordinate is the elapsed time since the Big Bang according to a

clock of a comoving observer and is a measure of cosmological time. The comoving spatial coordinates tell

where an event occurs while cosmological time tells when an event occurs.”3 Except, according to general relativity, near masses, near localized energy.

7

it is in an earlier phase of its evolution to ever­higher energies itself. As there is no

threshold between a zero and an infinitesimal energy, its creation can be said to have

started infinitely long ago, that it never didn’t exist even though its existence for all its

effects is less distinguishable from its nonexistence as its energy is lower, implying that

the universe of every observing particle always contains objects it all possible phases of

their evolution ­though not all phases are accessible to observation by all particles as

the phase they observe their universe to be in depends on their own energy.

Only if particle properties would only be the source, but not also, simultaneously, the

product of their interactions, of their energy exchange, of their behavior relative to

each other would it be defensible to conceive of the universe as an object which has

certain properties and at any time is in some single, particular state as a whole as

‘seen’ from without and as seen from within, to imagine looking at it from the outside.

However, if the universe by definition cannot be in any particular evolutionary phase as

a whole, if it has no external reality so doesn’t live in a time continuum not of its own

making, then we cannot think of time as passing at the same pace everywhere inside of

it, so if BBC ­despite what seems to be overwhelming observational evidence for the

big bang­ cannot be a valid theory, then there must be something wrong with the

interpretations of those observations, with the assumptions they are based upon.

THIS STUDY INVESTIGATES how particles might create themselves, each other: how, if

energy tends to increase, to keep creating itself and particle properties are cause and

effect of their interactions, of an energy exchange the magnitude, the frequency of

which depends on their distance and relative motion, they might evolve to elementary

particles, acquire the properties we find them to have ­why they have the properties

they have, what the origin is of their energy ­of any kind of charge which contributes to

and, in a SCU, is a manifestation of their energy­ from their own point of view, taking

the Nix law as starting point and guideline.1

Whereas the progress of classical mechanics (CM), of a physics which limits itself to

discover, analyze and quantify phenomena, to how nature works2 in terms of cause

and effect and may give clues to why things are as they are and happen as they do has

been impressive; when its progress is obstructed by misinterpretations of observations

and outdated ideas, it may be helpful to work from the other direction, to infer from

first principle ­the Nix law­ how the universe might go about creating itself, how things

ought to be and work rather than how we concluded that it works from observations:

whether we can infer what particle species, properties, laws and constants of nature

we can expect and let any (dis)agreement of its predictions with observations guide

our investigation ­keeping in mind that a SCU has no beginning as a whole.

However important it is to analyze and quantitatively describe how the universe works;

only if we can infer why it is as it is from first principle can we hope to understand how

it can create itself, why particles have the properties they have, the nature, the origin

of mass, of the energy they observe, cause each other to have (defined as proportional

to the force they feel/exert or to the frequency at which they exchange energy), why

1 Though we cannot speak about particles before they evolve to elementary particles, a process whereby,

as will be discussed in § 6, the uncertainty or indefiniteness in their location and motion (which, as we

infer their properties from their behavior, translates as the indefiniteness) in their properties, in their

nature and magnitude­ decreases as the position and motion of the point their energy acts from becomes

less indefinite; in this text these ‘unfinished,’ ill­defined blobs of energy are called ‘particles’ for short.2 “Newton’s theory of mechanics and gravitation cannot be accepted as an explanation in the true sense of

the word.” Max Jammer in Concepts of force (1957) p. 206. The same holds, to some extent, for many

present theories. If we can describe gravity quantitatively, then that doesn’t necessarily mean that we

understand its nature, why there is such a thing like gravity ­which is one of the aims of this study.

8

the laws of nature are what they are, why quantum mechanics (QM) works and figure

out how general relativity can reformulated, be unified with quantum mechanics.

To avoid any misunderstanding from the outset, a selfcreating universe should not be

confused with Hoyle’s steady­state universe (SSU) as this suffers the same flaw as a

BBU in that it is thought of as an ordinary object which has particular properties as a

whole and similarly lives in a time continuum not of its own making, the difference

being that a SSU has no beginning and always looks about the same.

As a BBU doesn’t satisfy the definition of what a universe is so the big bang hypothesis

describes a fictitious universe yet is accepted by almost all physicists due to what

seems to be overwhelming observational evidence, any description and conclusion this

study may arrive at will fundamentally differ from the gospel according to BBC and

therefore seem suspect, hard to digest, to take serious at first sight.

WHILE CAUSALITY is useful in classical, causal mechanics ­which describes the world at

macroscopic level, the world we are familiar with as we can see it with the naked eye;

in a universe where particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions, things

at particle ­quantum­ level obviously cannot be understood causally, only rationally.

Though the distinction between cause and effect was instrumental to the development

of physics; the flaw of causality is that if we understand some event only if we can

identify it as the result, the effect of a previous event and can comprehend this event

only if we can trace it back to another, preceding event which caused it and this chain

of cause and effect goes on ad infinitum, then we can never understand or prove

anything definitely, whereas if this chain ends somewhere ­if it starts with a primordial

cause which, as it cannot be explained as the effect of a previous event, cannot be

understood by definition­ then causality ultimately cannot explain anything.

In a universe where particles create, cause each other into existence, things explain

each other in a circular way: here we can take any element of an explanation, any link

of the chain of reasoning without proof, use it to explain the next link and so on, to

follow the circle back to the assumption we started with, which this time is explained,

proved by the foregoing reasoning ­if our reasoning is sound and our assumptions are

valid ­a reasoning which ought to work as well in the reverse direction.

In the words of T.S. Eliot1

We shall not cease from exploration / And the end of all our exploring

Will be to arrive where we started / And know the place for the first time.

While a meteorologist can explain rain causally ­sun heats air (and water) so absorbs

more water as gas and expands as it heats, and, as its specific weight decreases as it

expands, it starts to ascend and cools on the way up until it becomes oversaturated

with water which then condenses, forms droplets which grow and eventually start to

fall as rain; a physicist has to explain why raindrops fall, why there is such a thing as

gravity, what the nature and origin is of the mass of particles.

However material causality has been to the development of physics, of classical aka

causal mechanics; as any causal reasoning only can start from some primal cause which

cannot be understood by definition, the assumption that the universe has a beginning

presupposes just such primordial ­incomprehensible­ cause.

In assuming that the universe has a beginning, in conceiving of it as an ordinary object

which at any time is in some particular state as a whole ­where it is the same time,

where time passes at the same pace everywhere­ BBC, while refraining from making

1 T.S. Eliot, Four quartets

9

statements about what caused the universe into existence, nevertheless asserts that it

has been created by some outside intervention as only in that case it would be justified

to imagine looking at it from without, to speak about its age, properties and state.

Causality has become an obstruction to the progress of physics, the source of some

fundamental problems which despite efforts of generations of physicists refuse to be

solved as it are pseudo problems, problems which arose from a skewed way of looking

at things, such as regarding the universe as if it is an ordinary object, an object which

has been created by some outside interference, a universe the particles of which only

are the source but not also the product of their interactions, particles which in some

mysterious manner have been provided with the occult propensity to cause events, to

power forces but not to be driven by anything themselves ­which is impossible as it

takes energy to perform work and conservation laws are to be obeyed.

As it took me a long time to even get used to the insight that if the energy of particles

indeed is source and product of their interactions, their communication and hence the

transmission of light must be instantaneous ­which relativity theory appears to forbid­ I

can well imagine the trouble readers will have not to discard this study right away.

One reason to suspend their disbelief is that only in a universe where it is the same

time, where time passes at the same pace everywhere, action at a distance implies an

infinite light velocity, not in a universe where there is no universe­wide now, where

time cannot be thought of as passing a the same pace everywhere: in a SCU there is no

action at a space distance but action at a spacetime distance.

Though in a BBU we can speak about the spacetime distance of objects as due to what

in this universe is a finite light velocity, we look farther into the past as we look at

larger distances, that it in this sense contains, produces all time inside of it; the all­

important difference is that since the universe by definition only exists as seen from

within so doesn’t live in a time realm not of its own making, it cannot be in any single,

particular state as a whole so it cannot be the same time, time be observed to pass at

the same pace everywhere, we cannot say that we a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in

a distant past, in the past as we look at larger distances: in a SCU we don’t see it as it is,

of itself, but as is, to us, in what only to us is the present. As the universe only can have

a beginning, can be said to exist, have properties if there is something outside of it to

interact with to express its properties, something relative to which it starts to exist; in

assuming that all objects and observers anywhere only are real, live, within an infinitely

narrow time interval called ‘now,’ a BBU lives in a time realm not of its own making.

Only in a universe which has an external reality, which has particular properties and at

any time is in some particular state as a whole is there a single, objective reality at the

origin of our observations which is the same to all observers (if they account for the

effect of their distance and motion relative to the observed on their observations), not

in a universe which only exists as seen from within: here we must specify the observer

or observing particle when describing the universe they observe, not the universe as

there is no such thing: here there are as many more or less different universes1 as

there are observers or observing particles. If particles exchange energy to express and

at the same time preserve their, each other’s properties, they can be said to be made

out of each other, then we cannot ask how a particle ­or galaxy­ is, of itself ­which of

course doesn’t mean that we cannot speak about its properties or behavior: the point

is that their origin, and nature, why they are and act as they do only can be understood

1 At least at quantum level. This may be different when we look at macroscopic scale, at classical

objects and events as their behavior does seem to obey causality.

10

if we keep in mind that the properties of the particles and the galaxies they form are

cause and effect of their interactions. Similarly, though a SCU only exists as seen from

within so is completely self­contained, that doesn’t mean that we cannot explore it

scientifically as long as we specify the observer or observing particle.

If we are to figure out how the universe can create itself out of nothing, without any

outside interference ­without having a beginning as a whole, then we must investigate

it from the point of view of the particles doing the creating, by following how their

universe looks like in different phases of their evolution to ever­higher energies.

IF PARTICLES AND the objects they form tend to evolve to higher energies, we may

associate a higher energy with a ‘later’ evolutionary phase and clocks are observed to

run at a slower pace as they are more distant even when at rest ­so the energy of an

elementary particle, the frequency it is observed to oscillate at­ is lower as observed

from a larger distance, then we see things in an ‘earlier’ phase as they are more

distant, not as they were in a more distant past, in the past, at an earlier moment in

cosmic time as there is no such thing in a SCU, but as it is, to us, as we look at it, at

what only to us is the present ­quote marks on earlier and later to emphasize that in

this universe past, present and future are relative notions. Although an observer in a

distant galaxy may observe the Milky Way in an equally early evolutionary phase as we

see her galaxy; that doesn’t allow us to conclude that the universe grows older at the

same pace everywhere, that we see her galaxy not just in an early phase but as it was

at an earlier moment in cosmic time because it takes its light so long to reach us: if

their properties are cause and effect of their interactions, then we cannot escape the

conclusion that their communication ­and the transmission of light­ is instantaneous.

If the universe of any observer or observing particle everywhere at all times contains

objects in all possible phases of their evolution, then it can be seen how the universe of

any observer or observing particle always can contain its own beginning ­if it can be

called a beginning if the threshold between the existence and nonexistence of a

particle, between a zero and an infinitesimal, nonzero energy­ yet have no beginning as

a whole ­as indeed it only exists as seen from within.

The insight this study started with is that only a universe which creates itself out of

nothing, without any outside interference can be understood in principle ­not casually,

only rationally. If it is not easy to understand it in practice, then that is because it is

difficult to discard some cherished but naïve, outdated ideas, like the assumption that

light is something which moves through space, in time, that time passes at the same

pace everywhere in empty space, that there is a universe­wide now. While CM, GR and

BBC are based on the assumption that there is a single, objective, universe­wide reality,

a reality which only for practical reasons cannot be observed from outside the universe

(like finding the exit and the absence of space and time for an observer to be in); as in a

SCU there is no single, objective universe­wide reality all observers and objects share,

live in, we must specify the observer or observing particle when speaking about ­not

the universe as there is no such thing­ but the universe they observe.

The idea of a universe­wide now only applies to a universe which has a beginning as a

whole, which has been created by some outside creator: where particle properties only

are the cause, but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their interactions ­in which

case their entire future behavior ­every single future event­ would be predetermined

to the last detail, to the last of an infinite number of decimals at their creation.

@@@@ 14­5­2020 (9:20)

In this text the expression ‘spacetime distance’ means that points only can be observed

to be separated spatially, to be at different distances if time is observed to pass at a

11

(slightly) slower pace at the more remote point. In a SCU the communication between

particles is instant over any spacetime distance in the sense that we don’t see a distant

galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant past, in the past, but as it is, to us as we look at it.

The idea of instantaneity or simultaneity only means that we cannot think of light as

something which moves through space in time, the universe growing older as it travels.

In a SCU we cannot think of all observers and objects everywhere as being real, live (as

in attending a concert rather than watching a video) only within an infinitely narrow

time interval at some particular moment in cosmic time, in what in a BBU would be a

global now, in the present: in a SCU past, present and future are relative, local notions.

WHILE THE EQUATION which describes how the observed pace of a moving clock varies

with its velocity relative to the observer is quite straightforward ­at the speed of light it

is completely frozen in time, so according to the observer, the transmission of a photon

is instant from the point of view of the photon even though he himself measures its

transmission to take a time proportional to the distance it covers.

As will be argued in § 5 and 9, both points of view only can be reconciled in a universe

where clocks at rest are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant ­

even though it remains to be seen whether this implies some kind of expansion.

It is because a particle moving at the speed of light is completely frozen in time why its

state, its energy cannot change, why it cannot express its energy in interactions with

the objects relative to which it is supposed to move why it is massless.

If at the speed of light it cannot interact with the objects in the environment it travels

through, it has no physical reality to these objects, if it doesn’t exist to these objects

nor the environment to the photon, then it doesn’t even make sense to speak about its

velocity relative to the environment. Though we certainly can predict where we can

intercept a photon when if we know where and when it was emitted in what direction;

this does not mean that we may interpret the constant of nature denoted by c as a

velocity: as will be argued in § 9, in a SCU it refers to a property of spacetime.

If due to the velocity time dilation of relativity theory the frequency at which a particle

exchanges energy with the objects in the environment it travels through is lower ­if its

interactions with these objects are weaker, slowed further down in time­ as it moves

faster1 and we may interpret weaker interactions to mean that its position is less

definite, then this suggests that the energy of a particle is higher as its interactions with

objects in the environment are stronger, that it is a stronger source of gravity as its

position is less indefinite: that in a SCU the rest energy of a particle depends on the

extent to which it is expressed in interactions ­instead of the other way around, as in

the classical view where its rest energy is fixed and it only is its expression as a force

which depends on its distance and motion relative to the objects it interacts with.

That is, if when a particle is accelerated, its interactions in directions perpendicular to

its path and decrease but increases in both forward and backward directions (with the

rocket which is accelerating it), then its energy or mass, like the force has a vector

character, so it maybe that it isn’t so much that its total energy changes, but only the

directions it acts in. The stronger the force the rocket exerts upon the particle, the

shorter, the less indefinite the distance between the rocket point and the particle is,

the stronger its inertia, its opposition to a further acceleration, the greater the mass it

1 While a light source looks shifted farther to red as it recedes or passes the observer at a higher velocity

and farther to blue as it nears the observer; this doesn’t hold for a photon as from its own point of view its

departure at one point doesn’t precede its arrival at the other so it cannot even be ascribed a direction of

motion ­even though the energy it is observed to have on absorption by an observer is higher, shifted

farther to blue as the light source nears the observer at a higher velocity.

12

exhibits in that direction. Though modern accelerators can accelerate electrons close

to the speed of light, as it never can attain the speed of light, this is still infinitely far

removed from the speed of light. In a SCU we cannot cause a particle to move at the

speed of light; we only can increase the probability that a lamp emits a photon if we

provide it with energy: a lamp is a device made in such manner that this probability is

extremely close ­but not equal to­ 1.

IF ACCORDING TO the uncertainty principle (UP) the energy of a particle is higher as it

is confined to a smaller volume ­as its position is less uncertain or less indefinite­ then

this suggests that energy is a stronger source of gravity as the position it acts from is

less indefinite, so if in this study we call any source of gravity ‘mass,’ then the rest mass

of an object is greater as the position of its mass center is less indefinite, as more of its

energy can be localized within (what as seen from outside its gravitational field is) a

smaller space. Though the predictions of quantum electrodynamics (QED) where

photons behave as real particles which interact with electrically charged particles on

their path as they travel at the speed of light, like a billiard ball colliding with other

balls on its path are extremely accurate; as will be discussed in § 10, this doesn’t

necessarily mean that it are real, physical particles if we define a real particle as a

particle which always have a definite position ­which massless particles haven’t.

As will be discussed in § 9, the question whether we live in a big bang or a selfcreating

universe critically hinges on whether light is something which moves through space, in

time, the entire universe growing older as it travels, on whether its transmission is or

isn’t instant: on whether the constant called the speed of light refers to the velocity of

light ­in which case its observed value ought to vary with the velocity of the observer

relative to the light source­ or to a property of spacetime ­in which case its value

should not depend on the motion of the observer relative to the light source ­which

according to special relativity theory, it doesn’t.

IF WHEN THE universe by definition cannot have particular properties, be in any single,

particular state as a whole as ‘seen’ from without, it also cannot have such properties

and be in any single, particular state as a whole as seen from within, then there must

be something fundamentally wrong with the interpretation of the observations which

as yet seem to prove that we live in a big bang universe. If nature at its most basic ­

quantum­ level just isn't causal, then we need to revise our ideas as to what is and isn't

logical. While our logic developed in the course of a long evolution of living in a world

we only know at macroscopic level ­the world we can see with the naked eye and

which seems to obey causality; in a universe where particle properties are cause and

effect of their interactions, events at particle level cannot be understood casually, only

rationally. Our logic isn’t an infallible ability we are born with to distinguish sense from

nonsense but evolved as our species evolved and at best is a poor reflection of nature’s

logic ­which is what we want to decipher. Instead of demanding nature to follow

causality and risk misinterpreting observations to agree with what seems logical to us,

we need to keep an open mind as to what might be logical to nature itself.

A UNIVERSE WHICH cannot be understood causally, only rationally, which only exists as

seen from within differs fundamentally, radically from the ordinary object it is in BBC.

Though the conclusions the Nix law forces us to draw may seem too weird to possibly

make sense; a new way of looking at, of thinking about things opens up a new world ­a

world which may seem weird only because we’re not yet familiar with it.

A new paradigm, a new way of looking at, of thinking about at nature is not unlike

seeing the world for the first time in color after having known it only in black and

13

white. The problem, however, is that the black­and­white language and semantics, its

inherent logic is inadequate to express, communicate how the world looks like in color.

Not only does a new paradigm contradict the old view on some, often subtle yet crucial

points; as it doesn’t (chrono)logically follow from the old view, from the old ways of

looking at, of thinking about things, it cannot be understood within the conceptual

framework of the old paradigm. It usually is the other way around: only as we discover

how the world looks in color does it become clear why objects in the black­and­white

view have the particular shade of grey they have.

Like the image of a jigsaw puzzle only becomes recognizable when a minimum number

of pieces have been laid out; to make sense of it, to see how the world looks in color

and become familiar with it, the reader will have to be patient, to be able and willing to

suspend her disbelief, to allow me to set out the different pieces which only together

make sense.

The work of a physicist is not unlike a blind mountaineer who cannot know whether his

path leads to the top of the mountain or only to the top of a foothill. Though almost all

physicists believe that big bang cosmology is the right track to the peak, this study

shows why this is wishful thinking: that we’re familiar with the big bang tale

unfortunately doesn’t make it true. It is big bang cosmology ­the assumption that the

universe has a beginning, that it is the same time, that time passes at the same pace

everywhere­ why we came to think of light as something which moves through space,

in time: why we are mystified to find that experiments show that the communication

between entangled particles is instant, why some ninety years after its discovery, it still

is unclear why quantum mechanics works ­which seems a requisite to even think about

merging general relativity with quantum mechanics.

Whereas the discovery that the Earth, despite appearances, isn’t the center of the

universe was generalized to the idea that no point in space is more special than any

other, that any point or particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of the universe;

in a universe which only exists as seen from within so doesn’t live in a time realm not

of its own making, there also is no point in time which is more special than any other,

no unique, universe­wide present all observers and objects live in. In a selfcreating

universe there is no objective, fixed, observer independent pace of time:1 here time

cannot be thought of as passing at the same pace everywhere, at all distances.

AS A CAUSAL reasoning starts with a primordial cause which cannot be understood by

definition, it isn’t surprising that BBC doesn’t offer any idea about the origin of the

energy created at the big bang, of its cause, why it happened when it did (), explain

how the universe might create itself, how particles might evolve, acquire properties

but can only try to reconstruct the sequence of events from observations ­if such

sequence would be meaningful if the universe by definition doesn’t live in a time realm

not of its own making but contains, produces all time within.

As the universe in BBC is an ordinary objects so could have been different, it cannot be

understood even in principle why it is as it is and hence not how it can create itself.

Unable to explain things from first principle, BBC only can keep track of what happens,

not predict what will happen right from the start of the big bang ever after ­which any

theory worthy of the name should be able to. In trying to concoct a recipe, when to

add what kinds of matter and energy in what amounts are needed to reproduce the

observed redshifts of galaxies, BBC looks at the universe from the point of view of its

1 Which anyhow would require the existence of a clock outside the universe to compare its pace with,

whether it passes slow or fast, a clock the pace of which to quantify would require … ad infinitum.

14

creator, as if it is an ordinary object which can be composed, assembled from all kinds

of stuff ­the nature and origin of which then cannot but remain a mystery.

As the concept ‘energy density of the universe’ ­which is supposed to determine its

rate of expansion but which, as it could have been different, it cannot be explained

even in principle why it has the value it has­ defines energy and space as independent

quantities, it conceives of energy as something which can be put into an already

existing space, as if space and its unit are defined even in a universe devoid of energy

so despite its claim to the contrary, BBC conceives of the universe as an object which

lives in a space continuum not of its own making.

By contrast, as in a selfcreating universe it is localized energy which makes positions at

different distances physically different, which turns an abstract, mathematical space

into a real, physical spacetime ­defined as a space where the observed pace of clocks

and length of measuring rods (rods for short) differs from one point, one distance to

the next, however slightly­ here energy and space spacetime1 are intrinsically related:

as will be discussed, in a SCU the creation2 of energy is the creation ­not of space in

time as in BBC­ but of spacetime: as in this universe you cannot have one without the

other, a concept like the energy density of the universe doesn’t make any sense.

WHILE THE TERM cosmic time in BBC implies that if to all observers everywhere the

universe is isotropic ­about the same in all directions­ it also is homogeneous; in a SCU

such isotropy doesn’t imply homogeneity as it then would be an ordinary object which

has particular properties and at any time is in some particular state as a whole.

As traditionally the mass of particles is thought to be only the cause of forces, a fixed,

interaction ­space­ independent quantity, this should have caused an inhomogeneous

distribution of matter over space, so the observation that the universe at large scale

nevertheless is quite flat and homogeneous, the cosmic microwave radiation to be

isotropic to about one part in 100,000 forced big bang cosmologists to invent an some

artificial, far­fetched ad hoc inflation to ‘explain’ this. Quote marks to emphasize that

inflation doesn’t explain anything unless it can be predicted, inferred to happen from

first principle when it will start and stop and happen at what rate ­which it doesn’t as

these times and its rate of are inferred from observations.

By contrast, in a SCU such isotropy follows automatically, naturally from the fact that

the energy (and, as it is a source of gravity, the mass) of particles is cause and effect of

their interactions and according to Newton’s 3rd law, a force only can become as strong

as the counterforce it meets or is able to evoke, a particle always is at such place and /

or moves in such manner that as seen from its own point of view, forces on it from all

particles to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes are equal

from all directions, it tends to evolve to higher energies at such places where this is the

case, implying what at large but not too large a scale looks like a homogeneous mass

distribution as the same goes for all particles within its interaction horizon, especially in

a universe where the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime.

Since according to the uncertainty /indeterminacy / indefiniteness principle (UP) the

energy of particles is higher as the indefiniteness of their position is smaller ­which for

reasons which will become clear, in this text is chosen to be smaller as their distance is

smaller, as there is more energy involved in a change of their distance per unit distance

(as measured outside their gravitational field), then their energy ­the energy they

1 Strictly speaking, we only can speak about spacetime in a SCU, not in a BBU where it is the same (cosmic)

time, where time passes at the same pace everywhere in empty pace, far from masses.2 In English a thing is created, as if it is something which happens to it, implying a creator ­unlike the

German ‘entstehen’ which is neutral as to its cause, leaving open the possibility of an unaided selfcreation.

15

observe each other to have1­ and, as it is a source of gravity, their mass, ought to

increase as they contract at places ­provided this doesn’t violate any conservation law.

However, as traditionally particles were thought to have been endowed with a certain

rest mass at their creation by God / at the Big Bang and it takes energy from the

particles to contract to stars, in this, present view, their mass should decrease.

Clearly, in a universe where their energy is as much the cause as the effect of their

interactions (with all other particles within their IH), of forces between them, their

energy, and hence their mass should increase if and when forces between them

increase ­a mechanism which isn’t self­evident as the creation, the increase of their

energy is accompanied by, is indistinguishable from the creation, the increase of the

distances between their mass centers, as measured inside their gravitational field.

As particles in CM, in BBC have an autonomous existence so once created by God / at

the Big Bang, a particle stays created, keeps existing even if we could isolate it, prevent

it to interact, to physically communicate its existence, its rest energy is thought of as a

privately owned, mortgage free, fixed, static quantity ­which if true would mean that

any kind of charge similarly should be a static quantity. If a charge only can power a

force, a force only can perform work if the charge powering it is a form of energy, then

any kind of charge contributes to and is a manifestation of the energy of particles.

As classically the rest energy of particles is thought of as an intrinsic, fixed quantity, as

being only the source of forces, here the energy or charge sign of a particle should be a

static quantity, either positive or negative, always. By contrast, if in a SCU particles only

exist to each other if, to the extent and for as long as they interact, exchange energy to

express and at the same time preserve their, each other’s properties so here energy is

a dynamic quantity ­and hence any kind of charge which contributes to, which is a

manifestation of their energy­ something which flows back and forth, something the

magnitude of which varies in a wavelike manner, alternately increasing and decreasing,

something the sign of which alternates at a frequency proportional to its energy (E = hv

­ with v the frequency and h the Planck constant) ­or, equivalently, the sign of which

alternates in space over a distance inversely proportional to its energy, meaning, as will

be argued in § 6, that in a SCU any particle is its own antiparticle (not to be confused with

Majorana particles), its energy sign in one phase as positive as it is negative in the next,2

implying that the sign of the electric charge of a particle isn’t, as in the current view, is

either positive or negative, but alternates at a frequency proportional to its energy.3

Whereas particles in CM, in BBC, once created, stay created without this taking any

effort on the part of the particles; in a SCU they would cease to exist to each other,

vanish without trace and with it the universe if we could cut off their communication, if

we could prevent them to exchange energy, to alternatively lend and borrow each

other the energy to exist, to express and preserve their, each other’s properties.

AS IN A selfcreating universe the energy particles observe each other to have ­here

loosely defined as the frequency at which they exchange energy­ is source and product

of their inter­actions with all other particles within their IH so varies with their distance

1 An observing particle is unlikely to be able to distinguish between the energy another particle has and its

expression in interactions with it ­which according to us depends on their distance.2 The fact that the photon a hydrogen atom emits as it deexcites, as the distance between its electron and

proton decreases, is its own antiparticle, that its energy in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the

next already suggests that the same should hold for the energy of both the electron and proton.3 “The supposition that the electric charges of electrons and protons seem to cancel each other exactly to

extreme precision is essential for the existence of the macroscopic world as we know it, but this important

property of elementary particles is not explained in the Standard Model of particle physics.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory#Motivation (26­4­2020)

16

and relative motion, energy, space and time are intrinsically related ­as opposed to a

big bang universe where, as their rest energy is an interaction independent quantity, it

only is its expression in interactions which depends on their distance and relative

motion, energy, space and time only are superficially related.

Now if any particle alternates, oscillates between opposite states, its energy in one

phase as positive as it is negative in the next so two identical particles can annihilate if

they meet in counter phase, then they also can create each other without violating any

conservation law if they pop up with an opposite energy sign, if one particle borrows

its positive energy from the other particle, which then pops up with an equal, negative

energy. As according to the UP their lifetime is inversely proportional to their energy,

they would cease to exist, to each other after a time which is shorter as their energy is

higher ­unless they manage to set up an energy exchange by means of which they force

each other to reappear after every disappearance: the shorter, the less indefinite their

distance is, the higher the frequency or the shorter the wavelength they exchange

energy in, the higher the energy they observe, cause each other to have.

While classically the sign of the rest energy of particles is always positive and that of

antiparticles negative1 as it is thought to be a fixed, static quantity so a particle either is

a particle or antiparticle; if in a SCU their energy sign alternates, then it depends on the

phase the observing particle is in itself and its distance to the another particle in which

phase ­particle or antiparticle­ it observes the other particle to be.

As any two particles at equilibrium exchange energy in counterphase ­which they are

distance equal to (2n +1)/2 times the wavelength they exchange energy in (with n an

integer), the amount of energy involved in a change from one equilibrium distance to

the next is quantified and hence their distance ­which then changes in discrete steps.

As will argued in § 7, it is because their energy is quantized ­because it is something the

sign and magnitude of which varies in a wavelike manner within every cycle of their

oscillation, of their energy exchange2­ why particles can achieve a stable equilibrium,

form stable matter, why there can be a universe at all.

While classically, the annihilation of an electron and antielectron (positron) produces

two identical photons moving apart in opposite directions ­so reversely, an electron­

positron pair isn’t created out of nothing but out of photons, out of an already existing

quantity of energy; as in a SCU both electrons owe their energy to, contribute to the

energy of all other particles within their IH, they only can annihilate with the consent,

the cooperation of all these particles, the emission of photons as they annihilate can be

seen as the refund of the energy out of which they were created by these particles ­

even though, as will be argued in § 9, each photon is absorbed by a single atom, say.

As in a SCU particles exist to each other, are part of each other’s universe only if they

exchange energy, as energy is something which lives within their interactions, it ­and

the particles between which it is exchanged­ have no reality to an imaginary observer

outside the universe: as it is as positive in one phase as it is negative in the next and

particles preferably exchange energy in counter phase, the total net energy of a SCU

1 As a negative energy (E = hv) suggests a negative frequency v and this makes no sense, one has decided

that the energy sign of a positron is positive but its charge sign opposite to that of the electron or,

equivalently, that the positron moves in a backward time direction.2 We only can say that a particle oscillates, that the sign and magnitude of its energy changes in a wavelike

manner if it actually is observed to oscillate: if such change is communicated to the particles within its IH, if

there is a continuous energy exchange between all particles within each other’s interaction horizon.

To communicate a change in their position or motion requires that all points of spacetime must be

informed about it, requiring the transmission of something the magnitude (and hence sign) of which varies

in time and hence in space: that energy be a dynamic, wavelike quantity, and with it spacetime itself.

17

cannot but remain zero, so the selfcreation of energy, of particles doesn’t violate any

conservation law ­as opposed to a BBU where its creation violates conservation laws.

As in a BBU their rest energy is a privately owned quantity, only the cause of forces,

here it is an objective, absolute quantity which but for practical difficulties (BFPD) can

be measured even from without the universe ­as indeed, a concept like the energy

density of the universe otherwise wouldn’t make any sense and it wouldn’t be possible

to think of the universe as an ordinary object we can describe from the outside, to

speak about its properties and state.

As the rest mass of particles classically was supposed to be an intrinsic, interaction ­

distance and motion, space and time­ independent quantity, an additional kinetic

energy had to be created at the big bang to make the universe, space expand in time,

to increase the distance between the freshly created particles and, after contracting to

galaxies, between clusters of galaxies against gravity between them (so the rate of

expansion should decrease in time), begging the question who or what determined the

amounts of the different kinds of matter and energy to be created at the big bang.

If by definition there is nothing outside the universe relative to which it exists, nothing

it can interact with, express its properties, nothing relative to which it can be said to

exist, to have some property and be in some particular state as a whole, it cannot have

such properties and be in such state as a whole, as seen from within, so it makes no

sense, as in BBC, to try to quantify its properties and state from an imaginary vantage

point outside of it.

Though BBC claims to describe the universe from within conform the view that there is

no space nor time outside of it, that the length of the meter and duration of the second

aren’t defined outside of it ­i.e., that the universe only exists as seen from within; the

concepts cosmic time and energy density of the universe ­the idea that the universe

has a definite age, that time passes at the same pace everywhere (in empty space) and

that energy and space are unrelated quantities­ implies that it lives in a spacetime

space and time realm not of its own making: which only would be if it has been created

by some outside intervention ­violating the definition of what a universe is.

Not only is it a mystery who / what determined the relative amounts of different kinds

of energy and matter to be created and when to start its creation ­why the universe

has the age it has, why, how if it can create itself, it always could, waited until the big

bang to actually create itself, it can have a beginning, a definite age; whereas the rate

of expansion of space for the first nine billion years is observed to slow down in time

due to gravity agreeing with expectations, observations indicate that its expansion

suddenly started to accelerate some four billion years ago ­an acceleration the timing

and magnitude of which either has been preprogrammed at the big bang or is adjusted

from the outside as we speak.

This acceleration is supposed to be driven by an unknown kind of energy ­called dark

energy aka cosmological constant (denoted by Λ), an energy which, despite the fact

that its value is supposed to have been different in different epochs, nevertheless is

supposed to be an intrinsic property of space ­though it is a mystery why Λ is so small

or rather how, why it has the values it has to have had in different epochs to explain

(our present interpretation of) observations.

The problem is that we only can say that space comes with a definite energy density if

energy and space are unrelated quantities, if they exist separately, if there is a kind of

space which comes without energy but the dimensions of which nevertheless can be

expressed in cubic meters, a space waiting to eventually be filled by God knows what

kinds and amounts of stuff, a space which somehow is filled with energy until it has

18

attained the energy density which is supposed to be intrinsic to it, that is, to the value

BBC needs it to have at the right times to ‘explain’ observations.

The origin of this confusion is the assumption that the rest energy of particles only is

the cause of interactions, that, while its expression as a force does depend on the

distance between and relative motion of particles, its magnitude is unrelated to space

and time: that we conceive of particles as fremdkörper in an alien environment.

While the creation of a big bang universe violates the energy conservation law as the

concept energy density of the universe otherwise wouldn’t make any sense; if, as will

be discussed in some detail, the energy of particles in a selfcreating universe in one

phase is as positive as it is negative in the next ­if a particle only can have a positive

energy in one phase as it borrows that energy from another particle which then is left

with an equal, negative energy­ so the net energy of this universe cannot but remain

zero, here energy is created ex nihilo, without violating any conservation law.

Whereas the rest energy of a particle in a BBU is an intrinsic, interaction ­space and

time­ independent quantity, only the cause of forces so it is defensible to imagine to

measure it from outside the universe), to treat it as an absolute, objective quantity; as

a SCU has no external reality but only exists as seen from within, its observed value

depends on the observer or observing particle so is a subjective, a relative quantity.

That is, while we can calculate the energy it is observed to have ­the frequency it is

observed to oscillate at by another particle­ knowing the rest energy, the distance and

velocity of the observing particle relative to the observed, a predictability we assume

originates in the fact that its rest energy is an intrinsic, fixed quantity; this it owes to its

interactions, its energy exchange with all other particles within its IH. In other words,

while it is handy to use its rest energy as if it is an absolute, objective quantity, only the

cause of interactions; in a SCU it has a different energy to different observing particles

if with its energy we mean the frequency it is observed to oscillate at. As this frequency

depends on the rest energy, distance and motion of the observing particle so is

different to different observing particles, the observed particle can be said to have

different energies, to be in different states simultaneously: that its energy is the sum,

the superposition of all wavelengths / frequencies it simultaneously exchanges energy

in / at with all other particles within its IH.

Whereas the properties of a particle in BBC are absolute, objective quantities which

BFPD can be observed from outside the universe; in a SCU we have to specify the

observer or observing particle when speaking about its energy, about the frequency it

oscillates at, which is different to different observing particles. Put differently, whereas

BBC assumes that there is a single, objective reality all objects and observers share, live

in, a universe­wide now; as a SCU only exists as seen from within, there are as many

more or less different realities, universes as there are observing particles.

In other words, whereas the rest energy of particles in CM is the starting point of

calculations, causing events, enabling us to quantify their interactions; in a SCU it is an

artificial construct, the product of all interactions particles are simultaneously involved

in and just as useful to quantify things as it is in CM, in BBC.

As in a universe where particle properties are source and product of their interactions,

their rest energy ­the rest energy they observe, cause each other to have­ depends on

their own rest energy, their distance and relative motion, here energy, space and time

are intrinsically related ­as opposed to a BBU where, as it only is the expression of their

energy in interactions which depends on such things, energy, space and time only are

superficially related. In fact, the idea that the rest energy of particles is an interaction

independent quantity, only the cause of forces, implies that space exists, is defined

19

even when devoid of energy: in BBC energy is something which can be put into space,

as if, though it does curve space, it has additional properties unrelated to space.

While the conservation law according to which the total energy in a perfectly isolated,

closed system cannot change is handy for bookkeeping purposes, to keep track from

outside some system what goes in and out; in a SCU it also holds for nature itself in the

sense that the creation of an amount of positive energy at one place is impossible

without the simultaneous creation of an equal quantity negative energy elsewhere.

As conservation laws imply that all information a particle contains in its rest energy,

distance and motion relative to all particles to which it owes its energy and to the

energy of which it contributes is present, in real­time, at all these particles, the Nix law

implies, all by itself, that the communication between particles is instant.

If, as will be argued in § 5, particles exchange energy in a longer wavelength as they are

farther apart and a longer wavelength corresponds to a less definite distance, to a

greater uncertainty in their distance, then the information they exchange about their

behavior or properties is less definite, of a lower grade or quality, of less import as

their distance is greater, less definite. The farther apart they are, the less their IH’s,

their universes coincide, overlap, the weaker their interactions area, the less definite

according to one particle, the position, the behavior of the other particle is, and hence

the less definite the properties it ‘infers’ the observed particle to have. The father

apart, the lower the energy they observe each other to have, the ‘earlier’ the

evolutionary phase they observe each other to be in, so information in a SCU is not the

absolute, objective quantity it is in a BBU ­something which exclusively lies in its sender

or carrier­ but also in the reader of that information: in a SCU information ­the energy

of a particle, the magnitude of its properties­ is something relative.

As the exchange of energy, of information between particles only serves to preserve

the status quo, the world we see, a world which at macroscopic scale seems so solid,

indestructible, it isn't observable so doesn’t seem to exist, to occur at all: it only would

become observable if we could cut off their energy exchange, their communication ­in

which case they would cease to exist to each other and the universe would vanish like

the picture on a tv screen when we pull its plug.

As in the classical view the rest energy of particles is thought of as a privately owned

and hence static quantity they were endowed with at their creation by God / at the Big

Bang, not something they alternately borrow and lend from and to each other, the

fundamental interactions of the standard model of physics merely describe changes,

perturbations of this status quo, events whereby the motion (or even the identity) of

particles changes due to collisions or to the exchange of force­carrying particles like

gravitons and photons to express their mass and electric charge, but don’t comprise

the continuous exchange of energy between particles by means of which they express

and preserve all properties which contribute to, are manifestations of their energy.

TO SUMMARIZE, IF the Nix law, the definition of what a universe is implies that particle

properties are cause and effect of their interactions, of their behavior relative to each

other, of forces between them, then this has the following far­reaching consequences:

� The transmission of light, the communication between particles is instant: as

the universe by definition cannot be in any particular state as a whole, time

cannot be thought of as passing at the same pace everywhere;

20

� A particle then cannot have a boundary surface separating its energy from (its

effect upon) space, the source of a gravitational or electric field from the field

itself, no infinitely sharp, fundamental boundary surface where the particle, its

properties end and space begins, between energy and space, so we cannot

think of elementary particles as having a definite dimension, as fremdkörper in

an alien space, as solid balls which live in space, of their energy as something

they have independently from space, from their distance and relative motion.

� If when any kind of charge is cause and effect of forces between particles, a

force cannot be either attractive or repulsive, of itself (agreeing with Newton’s

3rd law according to which a force cannot be unequal to the counter force it

meets or is able to evoke), then this throws a different light on the unification

of forces.

That is, if the distance between particles A and B changes then that isn’t so much

because their attraction overcomes their repulsion or the other way around ­as would

be the case if particle properties only would be the cause, but not also the effect of

their interactions­ but because the distance at which both forces are equal changes if

the system AB absorbs or emits energy, when the strength of both, opposite forces

increases or decreases equally, at a smaller respectively greater distance.

If when a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive of itself, then that must mean

that the sign (or color) of any kind of charge cannot be either plus or minus (red or blue

or green) but, if any kind of charge contributes to and is an expression of their energy

and energy is a dynamic quantity, something the sign (color) and magnitude of which

varies in a wavelike manner within every cycle of their energy exchange.

It should be noted, that if, as will be discussed in § 7, particles acquire properties,

evolve to the different species of elementary particles as they form atomic nuclei in the

high temperature, high pressure conditions in stars, it is likely that when they are

ejected in supernova explosions and end up in much less extreme conditions in

ordinary matter, they act as if they actually do have an autonomous existence, as if

their properties only are the cause of forces, that, depending on circumstances, they

exert a force which is either attractive or repulsive, as if the energy or charge powering

it is a static quantity, either positive or negative.

If they are forged in the extreme conditions in stars in a state of equilibrium, whereby

their attraction due to one force, one kind of charge equals their repulsion due to

another kind of charge at the extremely short distances they assume in stars and these

opposite forces have a different distance dependence, then it can be seen that in the

much less extreme conditions in ordinary matter ­where their distance is much larger­

one force appears to be stronger, of itself, than the other, as if they are powered by

qualitatively different, yet opposite kinds of kinds of charge, one driving an attractive

and the other a repulsive force, as if their sign is fixed, either positive or negative.

However, if according to the uncertainty principle, the energy particles observe each

other to have increases as (the indefiniteness in) their distance decreases, then so does

magnitude of any charge ­though this also depends on things like their relative motion,

including any kind of spin.

Though the electric charge of particles may seem to be either positive or negative,

always; if energy is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, something the magnitude of which

only can change if its sign alternates ­the higher the frequency a particle oscillates

between opposite states, the higher its energy is­ then so is the sign of any charge.

If any kind of charge contributes to, is an expression of the energy of a particle ­if the

energy involved in one interaction, one force, due to one kind of charge powers and is

powered by all other interactions due to all other kinds of charge it simultaneously is

21

involved in, then the different kinds of charges aren’t the qualitatively different,

independent quantities they are in the present, classical ­causal­ view.

If when according to the UP the energy of particles increases as (the uncertainty in)

their distance decreases, that energy must be supplied by their environment and,

depending on their distance dependence, all kinds of charge contribute to, are the

expression of the energy of two particles, then this suggests that there is some kind of

communication of all these different kinds of charge of the two particles with those of

the particles within their interaction horizon. If the color force has a very short range,

then it is conceivable that the energy associated with the color charge of quarks is

communicated in the guise of mass, of their inertia, their opposition to a change in

their distance and relative motion in atomic nuclei, to a change of the position or

motion of atomic nuclei, of atoms, of ordinary matter: that it manifests itself as mass.

AS BBC ASSUMES that the universe at any time is in some particular state as a whole,

that it is the same time, that time passes at the same pace anywhere, the discovery

that the light of galaxies is shifted farther to red as they are more distant had to be

interpreted as caused by their receding motion, as proof that space expands, that the

universe must have had a beginning. If a SCU only exists as seen from within, if by

definition it cannot be in any single, particular state as a whole so doesn’t, like a BBU,

live in a time realm not of its own making but contains, produces all time inside of it so

time cannot be observed to pass at the same pace everywhere, then, as will be argued

in § 5, this suggests that the redshift of galaxies isn’t a velocity but a distance redshift:

that clocks in a SCU are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant even

when at rest relative to the observer. It remains to be seen, however, whether or not

or to what extent this implies some kind of expansion ­‘some kind’ as in a SCU going

back in time we don’t, as in a BBU, end in a gravitational singularity, in a state of

infinite energy density, not to mention that in a universal where there is no universe­

wide now, it is impossible to go back in time, that it has no beginning as a whole.

Unlike in a BBU, in a SCU there is no absolute time, no universe­wide now, no infinitely

narrow time interval called ‘present’ all objects and observers, share, live in: meaning

that past, present and future are local concepts, that there is no universe­wide pace of

time, that the pace of time itself is relative, observer dependent quantity, the observed

pace of a clock depending on the gravitational field at the clock and at the observer, on

their spacetime distance and its rate of change.

Whereas clocks in a BBU in empty space, far from masses, moving with the Hubble flow

all run at the same pace, showing the same (cosmic) time; in a SCU two points only can

be observed to be separated in spacetime ­to be at physically different, distinguishable

places, distances­ if the pace of clocks and length of measuring rods at those points are

observed to differ, however slightly. If in a SCU there is no infinitely sharp, fundamental

boundary separating the energy of a particle from (its effect on) spacetime so empty

space isn’t devoid of energy and energy is a source of gravity, then the observed pace

of clocks and length of rods must vary from one point, one distance to the next. If it is

localized energy which makes positions at different distances physically different, then

the (self)creation of energy is (accompanied by, impossible without, indistinguishable

from) the creation ­not of space in time as in a BBU­ but of spacetime.

Whereas concepts like ‘cosmic time’ and ‘energy density of the universe’ in BBC define

energy, space and time as independent quantities, as if time passes anyhow, no matter

whether or not something happens, changes and space is an abstract, mathematical,

rarefied kind of stuff which is the same everywhere and expands in time at the same

rate everywhere, at a rate which is supposed to be determined by an energy content

22

the amount of which to ensure a uniform expansion rate must be the same anywhere,

where we only can speak abouts its energy density if energy and spacetime space

would be independent quantities, a density which, as it could have been different,

cannot be explained even in principle why it has the value it has; in a SCU it is localized

energy which makes positions at different distances physically different ­which makes

that the observed pace of clocks and length of rods differs from one point to the next.

That is, whereas in BBC the rate of expansion of space in time in different epochs

depends on the relative amounts of attractive (gravitating) and a hypothetical,

mysterious repulsive kind of energy; as the creation of energy in a SCU is the creation

not of space in time but of spacetime, there is no need for two unrelated, opposite

kinds of energy to explain observations ­energies the origin of which BBC cannot

explain since their ratio could have been different.

An expanding BBU means that galaxy clusters A and B eventually will get sufficiently far

apart that they recede from each other faster than the speed of light. The problem is

that if galaxy cluster C halfway between A and B keeps interacting with both A and B, A

and B are and remain physically connected to each other via C, however weakly, this is

impossible if we interpret the constant of nature c as a velocity instead of the property

of spacetime it is in a SCU. It is because BBC tries to ‘explain’ things globally, to imagine

looking from outside the universe in why it can make a statement about galaxies which

don’t physically belong to each other’s universe when they became incommunicado as

their receding velocity exceeded the speed of light. As a SCU only exists as seen from

within and we can define the interaction / observation horizon of observers anywhere

at that distance at which they observe time to pass at an infinitesimal pace (a horizon

which then is different to different observers / observing particles); it is unlikely that in

this universe galaxy clusters can vanish from view as they eventually will in a BBU, so

the creation of space in a SCU cannot be interpreted as an expansion of space in time.

Though a galaxy outside our IH does exchange energy with galaxies within our IH so

belongs indirectly to our universe; if to us time passes at an infinitesimal pace at

observation horizon (OH) then we see a galaxy at that horizon in its most ‘early’ phase

of its evolution, at what to us is the time at which we observe its particles have an

infinitesimal energy, i.e., an infinitely indefinite position ­a state which can be thought

of as the beginning/end of the our universe and to us lasts for an infinite time.

Only if we imagine looking at the universe from without ­thereby conceding that it has

been created by some outside intervention­ can we say that the universe is larger that

we can observe. The problem is that if a BBU is infinite in space, it always was infinite

so cannot have a beginning, whereas if we say that it has a finite, possibly expanding

dimension, we state that space and time are defined even outside the universe: that it

lives in a spacetime space and time realm not of its own making ­which is why BBC

presumes that it is legitimate to imagine and describe the universe from the outside in

the first place, to conceive of it as the ordinary object it by definition isn’t.

If the creation of energy in a SCU is the creation, not of space in time but of spacetime ­

meaning that it cannot be the same time, time pass at the same pace everywhere, that

there is no single, objective reality, no universe­wide now, that we are not allowed to

imagine looking from the outside in but must specify the observer or observing particle

when describing how their universe looks as seen from within and the universe of any

observer / observing particle always contains objects in all possible phases of their

evolution, then space is not some rarefied kind of stuff which is the same at all

distances, always. If, as will be discussed shortly, the UP implies it to ‘contain’ vacuum

energy in the form of virtual particles but clocks are observed to run at a slower pace,

23

particles to oscillate at a slower frequency, to have a lower energy and hence a less

definite distance as they are more distant, then spacetime is less defined as seen from

a larger distance, so if time is observed to pass at a slower pace at larger distances,

then our interaction or observation horizon can be localized at that distance at which

we observe time to pass at an infinitesimal pace ­the point being that unlike in a BBU,

in a SCU space is not something which is about the same everywhere as the universe

then would have some particular property ­a definite graininess, say­ as a whole.

In a SCU we are not allowed to imagine looking at the universe from the outside and

speak about its properties but, as it only exists as seen from within, have to specify the

observer/ observing particle when describing the universe she / it observes.

WHILE THE CLASSICAL assumption that particle properties only are the cause of forces

implies that there is an objective reality at the origin of our observations (or rather,

because we assume that there is an objective reality, we came to believe that their

properties only are the cause of interactions); if when their properties are cause and

effect of their interactions means that their communication is instant, then there is no

longer a single, objective reality which causally precedes its observation, meaning that,

at particle level, an observation affects the observed. While there is a classical observer

effect like when we put a cold thermometer in cup of tea, we cool the tea so measure

too low a temperature; this is a quantum mechanical effect: an instantaneity effect.

As the rest energy of a particle in CM only is the cause of interactions, it is an absolute,

objective quantity, something which causally precedes its observation and BFPD can be

measured from outside the universe. Whereas in a BBU it only is the expression of the

rest energy of a particle in interactions which depends on its distance and motion as it

has an autonomous existence so would keep existing even when isolated, prevented to

express its existence; as in a SCU particles are source and product of their interactions,

their properties don’t causally precede, predetermine their expression as they do in a

BBU. Though the rest energy of a particle is invariant as a change requires a change of

the energy of all particles to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it

contributes ­which takes much energy to temporarily achieve; the finding that it is

invariant does not mean that it is an interaction independent quantity, only the cause

of forces if only because in that case the force it exerts wouldn’t then also depend on

the rest energy of the particle it acts upon ­which the inverse square law says it isn’t.

The problem with the idea of particle properties as intrinsic, interaction independent

quantities, as being only the cause of forces is that they cannot then gain anything by

behaving in some particular manner, by contracting at places rather than move apart,

say, so they wouldn’t be able to interact, feel and exert force at all ­so it wouldn’t be

properties and there would exist no particles, no universe. If, on the other hand, their

properties are cause and effect of their interactions so would vary with the conditions

they create, find themselves in, then it similarly wouldn’t be properties.

As will be discussed, it proves to be gravity together with the fact that in a SCU energy

is quantized and their communication is instantaneous which provides particles with

the backbone to preserve their identity, yet enable them to interact and gradually,

sometimes in fits and starts, evolve to ever­higher densities, i.e., (UP) energies.

As in nature, in physics, everything is about energy as particles only can be said to exist

if they have the energy (whatever kind of stuff it may turn out to be) to communicate

their existence, to express and simultaneously preserve their, each other’s energy, we

can imagine the evolution of a particle to start with an infinitesimal, nonzero energy,

24

an energy so low that its presence cannot be distinguished from its absence, its non­

existence and the position it acts from, its whereabouts is almost completely indefinite.

As the energy it is observed to have also depends on the energy of the observing

particle, their distance and relative motion, its energy ­the evolutionary phase it is

observed to be in­ is a relative quantity, different to identical observing particles at

different distances, so in a SCU it cannot, as BBC, be said to have a definite beginning in

(cosmic) time, to have an objective age as in a BBU its existence doesn’t depend on

whether or not it actually is observed to exist.

Though a SCU by definition cannot have a beginning, be in any particular evolutionary

phase as a whole; that doesn’t mean that particles cannot acquire energy, evolve to

elementary particles, to higher energies, contract to stars and galaxies and eventually

end up in the black holes at the center of galaxies, that particles and galaxies cannot

evolve in time without this implying that the universe has a beginning a whole and

grows older in cosmic time at the same pace everywhere ­not only because there is no

universe­wide now, but also because this universe only exists as seen from within so

we cannot speak about its properties and state as a whole, how it might look in the

global view as in a BBU, but have to specify the observer / observing particle when

describing not the universe but his / its universe.

If it cannot be in any particular state as a whole, then the universe of any observer or

observing particle at all times must contain objects in all possible phases of their

evolution even though not all phases are accessible to observation by all observers /

observing particles as what an observing particle observes also depends on its own

energy. The lower its energy, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase it is in itself, the lower

it observes the energy to be of the galaxies within its interaction horizon, its universe,

the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase it observes these galaxies, its universe to be in.

If a particle owes its energy to particles at all distances, then its energy is the sum, the

superposition of all wavelengths it exchanges energy in with all these particles: the

more distant they are or the lower their energy is, the longer the wavelength in which

they contribute to its energy, the less they contribute to its energy, the lower it

observes their energy to be, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase it observes them to be

in; the higher their energy or the shorter their distance is, the shorter the wavelength

they exchange energy in with the particle, the more they contribute to its energy.

Unlike in a BBU where we see a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant past, in the

past; in a SCU we observe the galaxy as it is when we look at, not as it is, of itself, but as

we observe it to be in what only to us is the present.

If time in a SCU is observed to pass at a slower pace at larger distances so galaxies are

observed to be in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution as they are more distant, then

particles at the rim of each other’s interaction horizon,1 each other’s universe see each

other evolve, time pass at the other particle at an infinitely slow pace. The farther

apart, the (s)lower the frequency they exchange energy at, the lower the energy they

observe each other to have, the weaker they interact, the less to one particle the

existence of the other particle is distinguishable from its nonexistence. The farther

apart, the less their IH’s, their universes coincide, overlap, the longer the wavelength

they exchange energy in, the less definite to one particle the position and motion of

the other particle is, the vaguer, the less defined, developed, evolved they observe

1 While in a BBU the interaction / observation horizon of a particle is a sharp boundary which, if we were

to ignore the expansion of space, would lie at a distance equal to the speed of light times the age of the

universe; as in a SCU the communication between particles is instant, there is no such sharp, fundamental

boundary: here the interactions between particles fades out gradually with their distance, the frequency

they exchange energy at slowing down with distance without ever completely stopping.

25

each other’s properties to be as expressed in their behavior, so if we may associate a

less evolved state with an ‘earlier’ phase of its evolution, then they observe each other

to be in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution as they are farther apart and/or their own

energy is lower.

The lower the rest energy of a particle, the weaker the force it feels from the objects in

its environment, to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes,

the less energy is involved in a displacement or acceleration, the lower it observes their

energy to be, the less definite it observes their position and motion to be and the less

definite its own position and motion is, the less, to the particle, spacetime is defined in

the area where it can be localized, the more to the particle all positions in a larger area

are physically, energetically identical, indistinguishable, the less definite it observes the

position of a particle in that area to be, the lower it observes its mass to be.1

If particles tend to evolve to ever­higher energies but the energy a particle is observed

to have, the frequency it is observed to oscillate at also depends on the rest energy of

the observing particle, their distance and relative motion, then there always will be

particles at the rim of its observation horizon it observes to be in their ‘earliest,’ lowest

energy phase of their evolution so, as far as it makes sense to speak about the creation,

the beginning of a particle, it is not an event which can be thought of as having been

finished, completed in the past, to have happened at a definite moment in cosmic time

as in a BBU: if there is no universe­wide present in a SCU present, then there also is no

universe­wide past and future, no single, objective ­universe­wide­ reality which is the

same to all observers everywhere.

The lower the energy of the observing particle or the more distant it is, the lower the

energy it observes the objects in its environment to have, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary

phase it observes its universe to be in, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase it is in itself.

As its energy is the sum, the superposition of all wavelengths it exchanges energy in

with particles at all distances, a particle ­or galaxy­ is observed to have a different

energy, to be in a different evolutionary phase by identical observing particles at

different distances, the state a particle ort galaxy is in similarly can be thought of as a

superposition of states, of evolutionary phases whereby it depends on the rest energy

of the observing particle, its distance and motion relative to the observed in what

evolutionary phase it observes the particle or galaxy to be in. Put differently, whereas

in a BBU any present evolutionary phase of an object makes place for the next so the

previous phase ought to have vanished from the universe, into the past; in a SCU any

previous state remains an active part of (the superposition of states it is in) any later

phase ­keeping in mind that as there is no universe­wide now, there also is no single,

universe­wide reality in a SCU, no unique, privileged observer whose observations are

more true than those of any other observer.

Whereas in a universe where it is the same time, where time passes at the same pace

everywhere, particle A observes particle B as B was, of itself, in a more distant past as

they are farther apart, in the past due to what in a BBU is a finite light velocity; as the

communication between particles in a SCU is instant, A observes B as B is at the time of

the observation: not as B is, of itself, but as it is observed to be by A, in what only to A

is the present (i.e., the time we investigate what A might observe).

1 The greater the mass of a black hole is ­the less indefinite the position is from which its energy acts as a

source of gravity, of its mass center­ and the smaller the radius is of a circular orbit about the hole, the less

all positions of that orbit differ, physically to an observing particle in that orbit, the less it can be at rest,

have a well­defined position on that path, the higher its velocity must be and / or the smaller its radius is

observed to be from a position where the gravitational field of the hole is weaker.

26

While B’s properties in CM are objective quantities, causally preceding their expression

in interactions so shouldn’t in any way depend on A, on the observing particle ­it only is

the observation of B’s state and properties which ought to depend on A’s energy,

distance and motion; as B in a SCU owes its energy to all other particles within its IH,

including to A, part of what A observes is the effect of A’s own presence upon B’s state

and properties, so B doesn’t, as in a BBU, just look different to different observers but

is a (more or less) different object to different observing particles.

So whereas BBC assumes that there is a single, unique, objective, universe­wide reality

all objects and observers live in so all observers everywhere agree on what it they see

when they account for the effects on their observation of their distance and motion

relative to the observed, a reality which causally precedes its observation and which

only for practical difficulties cannot actually be observed from outside the universe; in

a universe which has no external reality but only exists as seen from within, there are

as many (more or less) different realities ­universes­ as there are different observers or

observing particles. So if when, as will be discussed in § 6, a particle or atom can be in

different states simultaneously, its energy is a superposition of energies, its state a

superposition of states, of evolutionary phases, then that is because it expresses and

preserves its properties ­the state we observe it to be in­ by exchanging energy with

particles at all distances, which observe it to have a different energy, be in a different

state, and are themselves observed to be in a different state or evolutionary phase by

the particle, depending on their own rest energy, distance and motion relative to it.

AS IN THE classical view the rest energy of a particle only is the cause of its interactions,

it at all times should have a perfectly defined position and momentum, both should be

measurable to an arbitrary accuracy at the same time: except for the classical observer

effect, a measurement of one should not affect the magnitude of the other.

However, according to the uncertainty principle, the uncertainty or indefiniteness in

the position of a particle is smaller as that in its momentum is greater and vice versa:

the smaller the space it is confined to, the less indefinite its position is, the greater the

indefiniteness in its momentum is ­i.e., the greater its rate of change is, the faster it

alternately accelerates and decelerates and changes its direction of motion inside that

smaller volume, the higher its energy is.

Now if energy is a source of gravity and we take the gravitational force it exerts as a

measure of its mass and we may call any source of gravity ‘mass,’ then the mass of

particles should increase as they confine each other to a smaller volume of space, as

they contract at places to clusters of particles, to mass concentrations ­provided that

space itself isn’t affected, warped itself by the energy of the particles.

Now if for reasons which will become clear (and contrary to custom) we define the

distance between particles as being less indefinite as there is more energy involved in a

change of their distance per unit distance ­which it is as their distance is smaller1­ then

the UP is another way of saying that, in a universe where the energy of particles is

cause and effect of forces between them, their energy ­the energy they observe each

other to have­ increases as (the indefiniteness in) their distance decreases, as forces

between them increase, as they contract to clusters ­which they will for reasons to be

discussed in the next section.

As energy in a SCU is something which lives within particle interactions, as particles

alternately borrow and lend each other the energy to exist, to express and at the same

time preserve their, each other’s energy so the net energy of the universe is zero, they

can create themselves, each other out of nothing without violating conservation laws.

If when their energy is source and product of their interactions (with all particles within

1 The exception is the strong force, which seems to decrease at shorter distances.

27

their IH), of forces between them ­forces which increase as they contract so the energy

they observe each other to have is higher, the wavelength in which they exchange

energy is shorter, less indefinite, and energy is a source of gravity, then their mass

should increase as they contract to clusters.

This is contrary to the classical view where, as particles in some mysterious manner

were endowed with a definite rest mass at their creation at the big bang ­where their

mass only is the cause of forces­ and gravity is an attractive force so it takes energy to

pull them apart so reversely, there is energy liberated, radiated away as they contract

to stars and galaxies, their mass should decrease as they contract to stars and galaxies.

However, if the UP insists that the energy of particles increases as (the indefiniteness

in) their distance decreases, as they contract, as they confine each other to a smaller

space ­i.e., if energy is a stronger source of gravity as the position it acts from is less

indefinite and vice versa, if the rest energy of an object is higher as the position of its

mass center is less indefinite) and we take the gravitational force objects exert as felt

by a test particle as observed from the same distance as a measure of its mass, then

the mass of the particles should increase as they contract to clusters.

If the force particles which are in the process of evolving to elementary particles feel

from the center of the cluster they contract to only can increase as much as it increases

from the opposite direction, from particles in the outer layers of their own cluster and

beyond, of neighboring clusters, as the energy the observe each other to have in one

cluster only can increase if the energy increases of neighboring clusters, then particles

only can contract to clusters (of clusters) if they do so everywhere, in concert.

As the speed of light is the same everywhere as measured locally, the gravitational

time dilation inside a gravitational field ­a clock inside the field is observed to run at a

slower pace as the field at the clock is stronger than it is at the observer­ implies a

proportional length contraction, meaning that the distance between an observer at a

position where the field is negligible and the mass center of the source of the field as

measured inside the field is larger than as measured outside of it ­i.e., as calculated

from the positions of the observer and source relative to surrounding objects ­stars,

say­ if we ignore the effect of their gravitational field on their observed distance.

Now if according to the UP the energy of particles increases as they contract, and with

it the energy, the mass of the cluster they contract to but the increased strength of its

gravitational field constitutes an increased distance between the observer and the

mass center of the cluster as measured inside the field compared to their distance as

‘measured’ outside of it, then the mass of the cluster as inferred from the gravitational

force it exerts seems to be smaller so if we ignore this effect, we may not notice its

mass increase ­an effect which is greater as the position of its mass center is less

indefinite, as the object is more massive and compact.

The crucial difference is that while the rest energy of particles in BBC only is the cause

of interactions so is unrelated to space, as the concept ‘energy density of the universe’

defines energy and space as independent quantities (even though this is at odds with

the fact that energy curves space and that its energy content is supposed to determine

its expansion rate ­not to mention that, as its density could have any value at all, it

cannot be understood even in principle why it has the value it has); as in a SCU it is

localized energy which turns an abstract, mathematical space ­a space devoid of

energy­ where it would be the same time, time pass at the same pace everywhere if it

would make sense to say that time passes in a completely empty space, where all

points are identical except for their arbitrarily assigned coordinate numbers (arbitrary

as the distance between successive coordinate numbers isn’t defined, i.e., related to

28

the length of its unit, the meter) into a real, physical spacetime, which makes positions

at different distances physically, energetically different, distinguishable to a test

particle, which makes that the pace of clocks and length of rods is observed to differ

from one distance to the next, here the creation of energy is (indistinguishable from,

accompanied by) the creation ­not of space in time, as in a BBU­ but of spacetime.

In assuming that there is an objective reality at the origin of our observations ­that the

rest energy of particles only is the cause of interactions, unrelated to space so energy

and space in BBC only are superficially related in the sense that it only is its expression

in interactions which depends on their distance and relative motion­ we state that

space already exists even before there is energy ­as opposed to a SCU where the

selfcreation of energy is the creation of spacetime, a creation which doesn’t violate any

conservation law.

Though the UP implies that what appears to be empty space is filled to the brim with

virtual particles, the quanta of all kinds of fields

… the whole of spacetime is occupied by the fields of the elementary particles. Even in the

absence of matter, the fields of the virtual particles constitutes an all­pervasive

background which can in no way be eliminated. In fact, matter is only a small perturbation

of it. This background … can be looked upon as a modern ether. Since it possesses no net

energy it makes no contribution to curvature ... but it does suggest the a priori existence

of spacetime, which matter merely modifies and does not create.1

in a SCU this vacuum energy doesn’t exist prior to the presence of matter, of localized

energy which is to cause space to curve, nor can its density be a property of spacetime

as the universe then would have some particular property as a whole.

The idea of a space which exists, which ‘contains’ vacuum energy in the form of virtual

particles even before there is matter consisting of real elementary particles also is at

odds with the supposition of BBC that all particles of the standard model were created

ready­made at or shortly into the big bang ­quote marks on contains as in a SCU it isn’t

so that space exists, is defined even when devoid of energy, something waiting to be

filled with stuff. As in BBC their rest energy only is the cause of forces, here particles

have a boundary surface separating (any kind of charge which contributes to, which is a

manifestation) of their energy from (its effect upon) space so it are fremdkörper in an

alien space, here we only can say that space contains, is filled with all kinds of particles

if space exists, if the meter is defined even when devoid of energy; in a SCU energy,

space and time are intrinsically related, as one doesn’t exist without the other, the

selfcreation of energy is the creation not of space in time but of spacetime.

IF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES in a SCU are wave phenomena, then the virtual particles the

UP says space ‘contains’ may be the volatile interference products of the real particles

of stars and galaxies: the quanta of their gravitational field ­so their energy should be

lower, their position less definite farther from the source of the field, as space is

emptier, farther from masses ­even though what appears to be a uniform large scale

mass distribution in the universe may smooth out such gradients far from individual

galaxy clusters so space looks flat at this scale and is only curved near galaxies.

Whereas the UP in the present, causal view is interpreted to say that the density of the

vacuum energy of empty space is the same everywhere (which presupposes that time

passes at the same pace everywhere), that it is a property of space as the energy of its

1 Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2001), Wolfgang Rindler 2nd edition p 244

If this this vacuum energy background would possess no net energy, then it cannot be identified as the

dark energy which is to drive what appears to be the accelerating expansion of the big bang universe.

29

quanta, of the virtual particles is supposed to be only the cause of whatever effects

they are supposed to cause ­like driving the hypothetic exponential expansion of the

universe shortly after the big bang and, some 9 billion years later, the accelerating

expansion of the universe, to exert a repulsive, antigravitational force between masses.

To save the big bang tale, to explain how its rate of expansion can vary so enormously ­

a short burst of an exponential expansion shortly into the big bang followed by some

nine billion years of decelerating expansion due to gravity after which its expansion for

some unfathomable reason suddenly starts to accelerate again, this vacuum aka zero­

point aka dark energy aka cosmological constant (denoted by Λ) has been recruited to

drive this expansion by saying that it is an intrinsic property of space, which is at odds

with the fact that to fit observations its energy density ­the nature of space­ must be

different in different epochs, meaning that the UP from which its density is derived

says different things at different times ­and we haven’t explained anything.

The reasoning how this vacuum energy can drive the expansion goes like this.1

If we think of space as some kind of gas with pressure P and it takes a container inside

of it filled with gas an amount of work −PdV to expand its volume V to V + dV, but its

increased volume contains an increased amount of vacuum energy ρ(V + dV) to keep

its expansion going, with ρ its density, then P = −ρ: the higher its density, the higher its

rate of expansion. As space can be thought of as divided into adjoining expanding

containers, Λ drives the inflation and accelerated expansion, acting as a repulsive, anti­

gravitational kind of energy against the attractive, gravitational energy of masses.

This doesn’t only contradict the idea that the quanta of the vacuum energy are

intrinsically related to the properties of the elementary particles of ordinary matter:

According to QFT [quantum field theory] the universe is made up of matter fields, whose

quanta are fermions (i.e. leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons

(e.g. photons and gluons). All these fields have zero­point energy. Recent experiments

advocate the idea that particles themselves can be thought of as excited states of the

underlying quantum vacuum, and that all properties of matter are merely vacuum

fluctuations arising from interactions of the zero­point field.2

­so you’d expect this vacuum energy to drive an attractive force; another problem is

that its observed value is some 120 orders of magnitude smaller than calculated.3

However, as a force in a SCU cannot be either attractive or repulsive, of itself, if the

energy of particles, real and virtual, is cause and effect of interactions, then we cannot

think of energy as if it comes in 57 2 independent varieties, an attractive and repulsive

kind: that only would be possible required to ‘explain’ the expansion if their energy

only would be the cause but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their interactions.

If in a SCU the particles of the vacuum energy aren’t only the interference products of

the real particles of galaxies, the quanta of their gravitational field, and the field itself is

a source of gravity so the virtual particles of this vacuum energy have mass and belong

to the mass of galaxies (the farther from a galaxy, the less they belong to, contribute to

its energy, the lower their energy), then the effects their presence by BBC is ordered to

cause already is accounted for in the mass of galaxies so cannot cause space to expand.

Obviously, as a SCU cannot have some particular property, be in any particular state as

a whole, as it has no universe­wide now empty space spacetime cannot have some

particular vacuum energy density as a whole, its value be the same at all distances.

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant (19­3­2019)2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero­point_energy (3­4­2020)3 https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.17850

30

As this universe only exists as seen from within, it only can be described ­its energy

density quantified­ from within so we must specify the observer / observing particle

when describing what she / it observes. If clocks in a SCU are observed to run at a

slower pace, the frequency at which the virtual particles of empty space oscillate is

lower, their energy observed to be lower, their distance to be less definite at larger

distances ­an observed pace, an observed energy which is lower as the rest energy of

the observing particle is lower­ then space cannot have the same energy density at the

same time, space be defined to the same extent at all distances. The more distant and

/ or the lower the energy of the observing particle, the lower it observes the virtual

particles of the vacuum energy to be, the less to the observing particle one distance

differs from the next, the less defined spacetime is from its own point of view.

In a SCU space spacetime is less defined at larger distances ­as opposed to the present,

classical view where spacetime space is defined down to the Planck length (which is

where the huge calculated energy density of Λ comes from), as if the universe can have

a definite graininess of space and time, implying that space and time ­the length of the

meter and duration of the second­ are defined even outside the universe: that it lives

in a spacetime space and time realm not of its own making.

THE FARTHER APART two electrically charged point­particles are, the longer the wave­

length they exchange energy in, the less energy the wave carries, the less definite the

distance between two successive crests or troughs is, the less definite the wavelength

of the wave is, the less definite their distance is, the less to one particle the exact

position and behavior of the other particles matters, energetically, the less definite its

observed position and motion are, the less definite ­the lower, the poorer­ the quality

is of the information the wave carries between the particles, the less definite they

observe each other’s position and motion to be ­and with it the properties one particle

might infer the other to have from its behavior. If so, if particles exchange energy in a

longer, less definite wavelength as they are they are farther apart,1 then this opens the

possibility that violins are tuned differently elsewhere. That is, we cannot think of a

SCU as composed of regions where the properties of elementary particles are different,

as a conglomerate of different sub­universes as this would mean that it is qualitatively

different, of itself, in different regions, in which case it would be the ordinary object it

by definition isn’t: in a SCU two particles have less in common, their properties are less

related as the part of their energy they owe to and contribute to each other is smaller,

as their interactions weaker as their IH’s, their universes coincide, overlap less without

this meaning that it are qualitatively different objects. If, on the other hand we were to

associate a lower observed energy, less definite properties with an ‘earlier’ phase of

their evolution to elementary particles, then we might say that they observe each

other to be in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution as they are farther apart.

If so, then particles ejected in supernova explosions at large distances may in the

course of time immigrate to our observable universe: if they owe the main part of their

energy to the particles with which they evolved elsewhere so interact weakly with

indigenous particles of our part of the universe, then it would be candidates for one

kind of dark matter, the other kind possibly being the indigenous virtual particles which

are in the process of evolving to the elementary particles of what to us is ordinary

matter, but the energy of which as yet is too low to be detected except gravitationally.

1 This would be a distance redshift if not for the fact that the wave doesn’t lose energy, stretches, shifts its

wavelength to red as it travels, since unlike in a BBU, in a SCU their communication is instant over any

spacetime distance.

31

If, as will be discussed in § 7, the properties of elementary particles in a SCU cannot

causally precede, predetermine those of the subatomic particles, of stars nor the other

way around, then this suggests that their evolution to elementary particles, to the

constituents of atomic nuclei and atoms, the formation of elements already starts,

coincides with the formation of the ‘first’ stars and galaxies, especially if ‘all properties

of matter are merely vacuum fluctuations arising from interactions of the zero­point

field,’ including elements which apparently cannot be synthesized in stars if we keep in

mind that quantum tunneling shows that particles can jump energy barriers they

classically cannot cross. However small the probability is of such events, given enough

time they eventually should be formed in observable quantities even though they may

in the ‘earliest’ phase of their evolution, disintegrate at almost the same rate: if the

zero­point energy ‘whose quanta are fermions (i.e. leptons and quarks), and force

fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g. photons and gluons),’ then it cannot be excluded

that they can form virtual atomic nuclei, volatile spatial configurations resembling

those of the different particle species in different atomic nuclei, configurations which

in stars are forged to stable atomic nuclei and atoms.

IF THE GRAVITATIONAL field of a particle is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime as seen

from outside its field, if (GTD) time is observed to pass at a slower pace where the field

is stronger so spacetime seems to be more viscous ­frozen in time­ nearer to its mass

center, then it is its field which opposes the penetration of other particles ­of tiny

fingers trying to pinch it, so to say­ which grants it the tangibility which, together with

its inertia, we associate with a solid, massive object ­quote marks on condensed as it

wrongly suggests that its mass warps an already existing amount of space: though it

does curve spacetime in its vicinity; it is itself also a local extension of spacetime.

The point is that a particle in a SCU has no boundary surface separating its energy from

(its effect upon) spacetime, that there is nothing special at its center which causes it to

behave in some specific manner:1 it only is the strength of its gravitational field, its

observed energy density2 which increases nearer to its mass center without becoming

infinite at its center as would be the case if, as in CM, its rest energy would only be the

cause of its interactions. In a SCU the energy content in some area can be expressed as

the extent to which the pace of clocks and length of rods is observed to vary from one

distance to its mass center to the next as measured outside its gravitational field, as

calculated from the position of its mass center relative to surrounding particles.

It is because the rest energy of particles in BBC is unrelated to space and time why, to

increase the distance between the particles created at the big bang or, at later times,

of galaxy clusters against gravity between them why one had to invent a repulsive kind

of energy to make the universe expand, the problem being that as the relative amounts

of the different kinds of energy could have been different, BBC cannot explain even in

principle why these amounts are what they are, why the rate of expansion of space is

what it is (supposed to be), why there is a universe, how it can create itself.

If the value of some quantity cannot be inferred from first principle, then that may be

because it is irrelevant, that it isn’t part of the answer why the universe is as it is, for

understanding how it can create itself. If some fundamental problems refuse to be

1 Well, as will be discussed in § 7, as in a SCU the behavior of particles relative to each other is cause and

effect of their properties, different properties, kinds of charge originate in the different, independent ways

particles can move relative to each other.2 That is, the magnitudes of its energy divided by the volume it occupies, its volume measured outside its

gravitational field.

32

solved despite efforts of generations of physicist, then that isn’t necessarily because

they are way too complicated to be solved but because it are pseudo problems arising

from the belief that there is an objective reality at the origin of our observations at

quantum level, that the universe has been created by some outside intervention,

because we conceive of it, try to comprehend it as an ordinary object, to reverse­

engineer it causally ­from the point of view of its Creator­ instead of rationally. 1

THE ATTRACTION BETWEEN particles only can increase as much as the counterforce it

meets or is able to evoke. As according to the UP their energy increases as (the

indefiniteness in) their distance decreases as they contract to clusters (and clusters of

clusters) and energy is a source of gravity, then the mass of the cluster increases as it

contracts, the mass its particles have according to each other, so we might say that for

gravity to seem to be an exclusively attractive force it needs the UP to act as a counter

force: that gravity and the UP are the two sides of a single coin.

Whereas classically the energy conservation law says that the energy increase of the

cluster and its particles must be supplied by the environment if particles are to contract

to clusters; as Newton’s 3rd law only says that the force the particles feel from the

center of their cluster must be equal to the force they feel from opposite directions,

from the outer layers of their own cluster and neighboring clusters, the only condition

for particles to be able to contract to clusters if they contract to clusters (and clusters

of clusters) everywhere, in concert ­which requires their communication to be instant.

In other words, while the creation of a big bang universe is incomprehensible because

it violates the law according to which energy cannot be created nor destroyed; there is

no such limitation, no conservation law is violated, especially as the energy of particles

in a SCU is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, as positive in one phase as it is negative.

However, it isn’t so that, as in BBC, particles contract to clusters, mass concentrations

just by moving through space, in time: if in SCU the increase of the energy of particles

and clusters increases, if the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime and the

gravitational field of the particles and clusters increases as their energy increases, then

this results in an increase of the distance between the clusters as measured inside their

gravitational field, from the mass center of one cluster to that of the other. If as seen

from outside the field in, the field is an area of condensed spacetime and most of the

created spacetime is localized near to the mass center of the cluster (if we say that its

energy acts from that point), then such creation of spacetime may not be conspicuous

enough to be observed and contradict the classical assumption that the mass of

particles decreases as they contract to clusters ­which it should if their rest mass only

would be the cause, and not also, simultaneously, the effect of their interactions.

In other words, the creation, the increase of their energy is payed and cashed for by

the creation of spacetime, by the increase of the spacetime distance between their

mass centers as measured from inside their gravitational field.

We can only say that gravity is an exclusively attractive force if there is an equally

strong opposition to it, meaning, for example, that if the electric repulsion between

two protons is great, then so must be the force pushing or keeping them close together

or, if they stay far apart when left alone, the electric force is as weak as the opposition

to it gravity provides: only if their properties would be the cause of their interactions

can we say that one force is stronger, of itself, than the other. If, depending on

1 So one can, as in string theory (ST) get lost in a math which approaches the universe from the point of

view of its Creator, making things more complicated than nature, while ingenious, would invent itself.

33

circumstances, forces between particles nevertheless appear to be either attractive or

repulsive, then that is because we encounter them out of the high temperature, high

pressure conditions in which they evolved to elementary particles. If particles of all

species have to keep exchanging energy to express and preserve their, each other’s,

apparently qualitatively different properties even outside the stars they were forged in,

in which they acquired their properties, then their properties, the behavior they exhibit

in the far less extreme conditions in ordinary matter may appear to be only the cause

of forces, forces to be either attractive or repulsive ­even though this is at odds with

the fact that the force a particle exerts also depends on the energy, distance and

motion of the particle it acts upon.

Though one may object that the counterforce to gravity between protons in a star is

their electric repulsion and has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle; as gravity

causes the extreme, high temperature, high pressure conditions in stars which makes

them collide at sufficiently high energies that their distance becomes small enough for

the (attractive) strong nuclear force to kick in, to overcome their electric repulsion and

bind them in atomic nuclei, gravity does overcome their electric repulsion even though

bot forces have an infinite range, so gravity isn’t the weak force it is portrayed to be.

As gravity is the expression of the tendency of energy in a SCU to increase, to keep

crating itself and any kind of charge contributes to, is a manifestation of the energy of

particles,1 then we can even say that their electric charge assist in pressing protons

closer together in stars.

It is the same principle which prevents that we fall through the floor as the pressure of

our feet forces the protons and electrons of the floor closer together, making their

position less indefinite so the indefiniteness in their momenta increases and with it the

energy to push against the sole of our shoe, so we might say that it is our stepping on

the floor which increases the effective magnitude of their electric charge.

AS PARTICLE PROPERTIES in CM only are the cause of forces, the different properties,

kinds of charge of particles are thought to power qualitatively different, independent

forces of nature, so here a force is either attractive or repulsive, of itself, always, no

matter whether or not there is an equal counterforce to oppose it. By contrast, if in a

SCU any charge contributes to and is an expression of a single quantity, of the rest

energy of particles, if their energy ­any kind of charge­is cause and effect of forces

between them and their energy in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next

so a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive, of itself, then the sign of any kind of

charge of particles cannot be a static quantity, either positive or negative, red, blue or

green always, their charge be only the cause of forces.

If the electric and color charge of quarks in baryons would be static, independent

quantities, only the cause of forces, i.e., either attractive or repulsive, depending on

circumstances, then like charged quarks would go sit and stay on top of each other as

soon as their attraction due to their color charge at some distance overcomes their

electric repulsion ­if the UP wouldn’t prevent this since an infinitesimal uncertainty in

their distance would correspond to an infinite energy they observe each other to have.

If according to the UP their energy increases as their distance decreases and that

energy must be supplied by the environment, then it is the environment (temperature,

pressure) which determines at what distance particles can be at equilibrium: which

determines the effective strength of their electric repulsion and color attraction, the

1 It remains to be seen whether the part in the energy of one kind of charge of a particle can decrease as

the part of other kinds of charge in its energy increases, whether, how its expression varies with its

velocity and direction of motion relative to the observing particle.

34

effective magnitude of their electric and color charge ­as opposed to the classical view

where it only is their expression as a force which depends on their distance.

Only if their properties are cause and effect of their interactions with all other particles

within their IH can they adjust their attraction and repulsion, the effective magnitude

of these, supposedly qualitatively different, independent, opposite kinds of charge in

such way that they can achieve and maintain a stable equilibrium, form stable matter.

So if according to the UP their energy increases if we decrease their distance, then we

increase both their attraction and repulsion, the effective magnitude of both their

color and electric charge, the energy of the particles these charges are the expression

of ­which obviously only works if their communication is instant since otherwise a force

can be unequal to the counterforce it meets.

AS THE GRAVITATIONAL time dilation / length contraction inside the gravitational field

of an object ­let’s, for example, take a black hole as any gravitational effects are much

more pronounced than in other, less compact and heavy objects1­ makes rods look

shorter and clocks run at a slower pace deeper inside the field as the field is stronger,

the field is an area of curved, ‘condensed’2 spacetime as seen from outside the field,

from a vantage point where the field is weak. As seen in one direction, from the mass

center of an observing particle at a position where the hole’s field is weak, its distance

to the mass center of the black hole therefore is much larger than it is as measured

outside the gravitational field of the hole, so field of the hole increases the distance to

its mass center, from which its mass acts upon the observing particle: in this direction

the field in effect dilutes the expression of its own mass, decreasing the gravitational

force it exerts on the observing particle, on neighboring masses as if to distantiate itself

­literally­ from them, as if to minimize its interactions with other masses ­which may be

why gravity seems to be so weak a force.

However, as seen from the opposite direction, from inside the field out, from the mass

center of the black hole, the same field ­the same GTD­ accelerates the pace at which

clocks outside the field are observed to run, the frequency particles are observed to

oscillate at, enhancing their energy, the mass of the objects in its environment ­as if to

make up for the force­diluting / distance­increasing effects the field has as seen from

the outside in. Such effects are more pronounced as the position of the mass center of

its source is less indefinite ­as more of its energy is localized within what as seen from

outside its gravitational field is a smaller volume­ as in the case of a black hole or at an

extremely short distance from an elementary particle.

While the classical idea that the rest mass of particles only is the cause of interactions

makes it impossible to understand the origin of mass even in principle and leads to

infinite forces and interaction energies and gravitational singularities, places where the

gravitational field becomes infinite, like at the center of black holes in a BBU; if the

uncertainty principle insists that the energy of particles increases as they contract, then

this opens the possibility of a creation of energy, of mass ex nihilo, without violating

any conservation law.

1 And keep in mind that a black hole in a SCU is different from what it is in a BBU, about which more later.2 Quote marks as it isn’t so that the source of the field causes an already existing volume of space to

contract within what as seen from outside the field is a smaller volume as it is its own energy which makes

positions at different distances physically different, which creates what as seen from inside the field is a

larger distance. As a particle in a SCU has no boundary surface separating its energy from (its effect on)

spacetime, not only its gravitational field, but its mass itself is an area of condensed spacetime.

35

Fig. 1 Gravitational singularity in a black hole 1

If we define the indefiniteness in the position of the mass center of an object as smaller

as more of its energy is localized within what as seen from outside its gravitational field

looks like a smaller space, then the position of the mass center of a black hole is much

less indefinite than that of a star of equal mass. If we draw a graph of how the strength

of the gravitational field, its gravitational potential varies with distance from the mass

center of the source as measured outside the field, then the gravity well of the black

hole looks much narrower and deeper than that of the star.

If we were to draw a series of concentric spheres about the center of the star and black

hole in such manner that the energy involved in the displacement of a massive test

particle is equal between any two successive spheres, then we would see the distances

between the surfaces of successive spheres decrease nearer to its mass center, be it

that these distances decrease much more rapidly near the hole’s mass center than they

do near the center of a star, that there are far more spheres collected within what as

seen from outside its gravitational field is a smaller volume near the center of the black

hole than there are near the center of the star.

As the difference in the pace at which clocks run at the surfaces of any two successive

spheres is equal, the spacetime distance between the observer and the mass center of

the black hole (from which we assume its energy gravitationally acts on objects in the

environment) is much greater than it is in the case of the star, so the field of the black

hole constitutes a much larger volume of spacetime within what as seen from outside

the field is a smaller space than the field of the star.

If we only can compare the mass of a star and black hole if we measure it from the

same distance ­if we measure it outside their gravitational field, if we infer it from the

position of the black hole or star and the observer relative to surrounding stars­ then

the star and black hole can have the same mass (exert an equal gravitational force at

the same distance), while as measured inside the gravitational field, the spacetime

distance from the observer to the mass center of the black hole is much greater than

his distance to the mass center of the star. So whereas the position of the mass center

of the black hole is much less indefinite than that of the star of equal mass relative to

the observer as measured outside their field, as calculated from the positions of the

hole or star and the observer relative to surrounding stars; if as measured inside the

field, the distance of the observer to the mass center of the black hole is much larger

than it is to the star, then the position of the mass center of the star and black hole of

equal mass is equally (in)definite. In this text the rest energy of an object is defined as

being higher as the position it acts from is less indefinite, as more of its energy can be

localized within what as seen from outside its gravitational field is a smaller volume.

As in the classical view the mass of a black hole only is the cause of the gravitational

force it exerts, in GR, in BBC it has a gravitational singularity at its center, a point where

1https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/photo.html?images/blackholes_singularity.jpg&A%20gravitation

al%20singularity%20is%20hidden%20within%20a%20black%20hole

36

its energy density, its gravitational field is infinite ­which it only can be if energy and

space are independent quantities. While the singularity is thought to contain all mass

of the hole1 and to act upon, to cause the surrounding space to curve ­warping a space

which already exists even in its absence, a space ‘which matter merely modifies and

does not create;’ in a universe where it is localized energy which makes points at

different distances physically different, which turns an imaginary, abstract2 space into a

real, physical spacetime, where a gravitational field is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime

as seen from outside the field, where energy, space and time are intrinsically related, a

black hole cannot have a gravitational singularity nor event horizon, for that matter.

In a selfcreating universe the energy of a particle or black hole is ‘stored’ in the extent

to which the length of rods and pace of clocks is observed to vary with their distance to

its mass center as seen from outside their gravitational field. If there’s no fundamental,

infinitely sharp boundary between the rest energy of an elementary particle or black

hole and (its effect upon) spacetime means that its gravitational field ‘contains’ energy,

if it is its energy which makes positions at different distances from its mass center

physically different, then it isn’t so that, as in the classical view, mass causes an already

existing space to curve, as if space and time exist even in a universe devoid of energy

and that the presence of mass only changes the observed length of rods and pace of

clocks in its vicinity. Though it does curve an already existing spacetime (as shaped by

masses at all distances); the hole, its field also it is itself an extension of spacetime.

The steeper, the higher the field gradient is (the rate of change of the gravitational

potential with distance to its source3) the more its energy density ­the observed length

of rods and pace clocks­ varies from one point, one distance to its source to the next

within what as seen from outside the field is a smaller distance to its mass center, the

more the field slows down the pace of events inside of it ­as if spacetime is more

viscous, more solid, so to say­ while at larger distances the field gradient decreases.

The farther from masses, the less points over a larger area differ physically, the

emptier spacetime is, the more time would be observed to pass at the same pace

everywhere in the global view ­ in a SCU we may not imagine looking at the universe

from the outside as it only exists as seen from within­ the more the area is part of the

common spacetime as shaped by masses at all distances.

Carlo Rovelli:4

In Newtonian physics, if we take away the dynamical entities,5 what remains is space and

time. In relativistic physics, if we take away the dynamical entities, nothing remains. The

space and time of Newton and Minkowski are reinterpreted as a configuration of … the

gravitational field. … As Whitehead put it, we cannot say that we can have spacetime

without dynamical entities, any more than saying that we can have the cat’s grin without

the cat. … The world is made by fields. Physically, these do not live on spacetime. They

live, so to say, on one another. Not anymore fields on spacetime, just fields on fields. …

In prerelativistic physics, spacetime is a fixed nondynamical entity over which physics

happens. It is a sort of structured container which is the home of the world. In relativistic

physics, there is nothing of the sort. There are only interacting fields and particles: the

only notion of localization which is present in the theory is relative: dynamical objects can

1 If its gravitational field contains energy, acts as a source of gravity, it can be said to contain mass: if the

energy of the field is part of the energy of the hole, then it contains part of the mass of the black hole.2 A mathematical space, where time would pass at the same pace everywhere if it would make sense to

speak about the passing of time in a space devoid of energy.3 As measured outside its field, with a rigid measurer the length of which isn’t affected by the field.4 Quantum Gravity (Dec. 30, 2003) Carlo Rovelli p. 53 ­ 55 http://www.cpt.univ­mrs.fr/~rovelli/book.pdf5 Particles and fields.

37

be localized only with respect to one another. … Einstein’s discovery is that Newtonian

space­time and the gravitational field, are the same entity. This can be expressed in two

equivalent manners. One is that there is no space­time: there only is the gravitational

field. The second is that there is no gravitational field: it is spacetime that has dynamical

properties.

Indeed, if a particle in a SCU has no boundary separating its energy from its effect upon

spacetime, if it is its own energy which makes positions at different distances physically

different and energy is a dynamic quantity ­something the magnitude of which only can

vary in a wavelike manner in space and time if its sign alternates­ then so is the

spacetime its energy shapes, or rather, represents, is a manifestation of.

So it isn’t that its presence just causes an already existing spacetime to curve in its

vicinity ­which it does; it also is itself a local extension of spacetime, an area where the

pace of clocks and length of rods varies in tandem with its energy, its rate of change,

within every cycle of its oscillation ­though there is no sharp boundary between where

the spacetime the particle, its energy represents ends and the common spacetime as

shaped by masses at all distances begins. If we were to say that empty space, far from

masses, in the global view, is about the same everywhere, then the extent to which

positions in empty space are defined, are physically distinguishable, is the product of

the presence of masses at all distances, so it is a more or less common spacetime ­

more or less as it varies locally, depending on the local mass distribution.

If empty space seems to be about the same everywhere, then that must mean that the

large scale distribution of masses is homogeneous, an observation BBC cannot, as will

be discussed in § 13, explain without resorting to magic, but which in a SCU follows

naturally from the fact that if the mass of particles, of the objects they form is cause

and effect of forces between them, they tend to be at rest at such places or move in

such manner that as seen from their own rest frame, forces are equal in all directions

(or at least in any two opposite directions), this automatically produces what in a BBU

would be a uniform mass distribution but what in a SCU implies that mass of objects

preferably increases, is created at rest relative to the particles to which they owe their

energy and to the energy of which they contribute. As a SCU cannot have particular

properties, be in any single, particular state as a whole, here the universe only looks

about the same in all directions­ but not the same at all distances even though it may

appear to be homogeneous up to a quite large scale.

WHEREAS IT IS almost impossible to resist the temptation to generalize, to extend local

observations to statements about the entire universe, to assume that if no point in

space is more special than any other, this means that it is about the same everywhere,

that it has particular properties and at any (cosmic) time it is in some single, particular

state as a whole; as doing so comes down to stating that the universe has been created

by some outside intervention, we should follow the philosopher’s advice that ‘what

one cannot observe, thereof one must be silent.1 If we find it so hard to refrain from

imagining to look over God’s shoulders at His2 creation, then that may be because it

allows us to imagine that there is Someone outside of it in Whose eyes we exist, that

because our own existence is so undeniably real to us, its transcends the universe, it

almost is impossible not to imagine looking at it from the outside.

The universe only can have properties, be in any singe particular state as a whole, have

an external if (for practical reasons like finding an exit and the absence of space and

1 Well, Wittgenstein actually said: Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.2 To attribute God a gender is to presume that He or She has Parents and, perhaps Kids..

38

time outside of it for an observer to find himself in) unobservable reality if it has been

created by some outside intervention ­violating the definition of what a universe is.

Like a particle cannot be electrically charged itself if there exists no other charge, the

universe cannot exist, have a beginning, a definite age, have any property, be in any

particular state if by definition there is nothing outside of it, nothing relative to which it

can begin, exist, exhibit, express any property. In speaking about its age, dimension and

energy content we state that space, time, energy and their units are defined even

outside the universe: that despite its claim to describe the universe from within, BBC

conceives of the universe as living in a space and time realm not of its own making.

The point is that we only can speak about its size, age and energy content if energy,

space and time are unrelated quantities ­if they, their units are defined even outside

the universe. As in a SCU the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime ­defined as

a space where two points only are observed to be separated in space, to be at different

distances from the observer if she observes clocks at both points to run at a different

pace, however slightly­ here energy, space and time are intrinsically related ­meaning

that their units aren’t defined outside the universe so concepts like cosmic time and

the energy density of the universe don’t make any sense. As the universe by definition

has no external reality so cannot live in a time realm not of its own making but

contains, produces all time within, we cannot think of time as passing at the same pace

everywhere and say that we see the universe as it was in a more distant past, in the

past, as we look at larger distances. In a selfcreating universe there is no universe­wide

now: here terms like past, present and future are relative, local notions since if particle

properties are cause and effect of their interactions, their communication must be

instant, it doesn’t make sense to ask what precedes what, where it is earlier and later

in an absolute sense ­that is, as ‘seen’ from outside the universe.

IF THE OBSERVED pace of clocks in empty space, far from masses at rest relative to the

observer decreases linearly with their distance and a gravitational field is an area of

‘condensed’ spacetime as seen from a position where the field is weak, then, as will be

discussed in § 5, the pace of clocks inside a gravitational field should be observed to

decrease even faster with their distance to the observer as measured outside the field ­

a phenomenon known as the gravitational time dilation / length contraction of GR.

As BBC hinges on the assumption that time passes at the same pace everywhere in

empty space, far from masses, that there is a universe­wide now, the observation of

the redshift of galaxies had to be interpreted as caused by their receding motion, as

proof that we live in an expanding universe ­which then must have had a beginning.

As BBC doesn’t offer any idea about how the different elementary particles created at

or shortly into the big bang knew what properties to be created with, as it assumes

that they appeared with a definite rest mass, that it is a space independent quantity,

only the cause of interactions, its origin ­why the different particles have the masses

they have­ and of the energy needed to make them move apart against gravity, to

drive the expansion of space cannot be understood even in principle.

While we can claim that space has an intrinsic energy density to drive its expansion to

save the big bang tale, that the newly created space comes with the same energy

density so we can say that it keeps expanding without having to explain the origin of

that energy ­reminding of Munchhausen saving himself from drowning in the swamp

by pulling his hair­ and the uncertainty principle, in stating that a field cannot be and

remain zero, indeed implies that empty space contains energy, that doesn’t, as argued

above, mean that we may accuse this vacuum energy of driving its expansion.

39

Clearly, if when the definition of what a universe is implies that the energy of particles

is cause and effect of their interactions, of forces between them, energy cannot drive a

force which is either attractive or repulsive, of itself, so there cannot be two opposite,

independent kinds of energy, then the rate of expansion of the universe cannot be

explained as the result of their relative amounts. While BBC by trying out different

amounts of radiation, of visible and invisible kinds of matter and energy, of attractive

and repulsive kinds of energy the universe contains at different times in its equations

can reproduce but not retrodict, predict, from first principle, the observed redshift of

galaxies at all distances, expansion rates at different times ­­s it anyhow cannot explain

why these amounts are what they supposedly are, why the universe is as it is, big bang

cosmology cannot explain even in principle how the universe can create itself ­which

was the purpose of the entire venture.

IT IS BECAUSE we’re used to examine the subject of our study from the outside, with

the naked eye, a micro­ or telescope why we assume that we can understand the

universe by imagining to look at it from the outside, why we came to think of the

universe as an ordinary object, an approach which only would be justified if particle

properties would be the cause but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their

interactions. However, in describing its properties and state from an imaginary vantage

point outside of it ­by speaking about its age, size and energy content­ we state that

energy, space and time are unrelated, absolute quantities: that energy, space and time

exist, that energies, distances and durations, the amount of work or heat in a joule, the

length of the meter and duration of the second are defined even in a space devoid of

energy ­even outside the universe, which fits the assumption that we are allowed to

imagine looking at it from the outside, as if looking over Gods Shoulders at Her

creation. Because of this, BBC couldn’t but conceive of space as if it is some rarefied,

gas­like stuff which is the same everywhere, as if it comes with a regular grid the size of

the cells of which is defined, which can be expressed in millimeters, which is the same

everywhere, always, so in this view the expansion of space isn’t the increase of the size

of the cells, but the increase in time of the number of cells separating any two objects.

As going back in time the energy density of the universe increases, to become infinite

at the big bang, going back in time space doesn’t shrink, fold into itself, but vanishes in

a manner which is as inexplicable as it appears in forward time direction. If when the

energy density of the universe in backward time direction increases, this means that

the energy and number of particles created at the big bang remains unchanged and it

only is the volume of space they find themselves in which shrinks, no matter whether

that is because the number of cells between them decreases or because they move

through space toward each other and collect within an ever­decreasing part of a fixed,

rigid patch of space ­like a waiter sweeping crumbs together in a smaller and smaller

part of the tablecloth before dropping them in the dustpan­ then how can we say that

space expands in forward time direction, that space keeps being created between the

particles created at the big bang or, at later times, between clusters of galaxies?

To say that the crumbs ­the particles­ move toward each other within a smaller and

smaller patch of space ­that it isn’t space which shrinks but the volume over which they

are distributed­ is to say that the universe contracts in a space continuum not of its

own making so in forward time direction it expands in a space which already exists

before the big bang, outside the universe, that it lives in a space realm not of its own

making, again contradicting the claim of BBC that it describes the universe from within.

40

It is our addiction to causality, the idea that the rest energy of the particles created by

God / at the Big Bang is an intrinsic, interaction ­space­ independent quantity, only the

cause of force, that the universe has been created by some outside intervention so

lives in a spacetime space and time continuum not of its own making­ why BBC came to

conceive of space as a kind of gas the density and pressure of which is the same

everywhere at the same cosmic time, which to keep expanding has to reproduce itself

at the same rate everywhere, as a rarefied three­dimensional fabric the size of the cells

of which is fixed, defined, which can be expressed in meters, but the number of which

increases, as something which isn’t related to (so shouldn’t be affected by) whatever it

may come to contain, a rigid fabric which to expand has to keep reproducing itself.

It also is unclear how the energy density of the universe can change from infinite at the

big bang to a finite value at later times ­not to mention that as its later value could

have been different, it cannot be understood even in principle why it has the value it

has, begging the question who or what determined the amount of energy to be created

­or how the energy density of space which is to drive its expansion can be different1 in

different epochs, how its value can change in time if it is an intrinsic property of space.

While we can declare the laws of physics out of order at the big bang, to not apply

whenever it suits us; the creation scenario proposed by big bang cosmology is artificial,

far­fetched, contrived to fit observations to the big bang tale, especially as it omits to

explain how if the universe can create itself, it always could, it can have a beginning.

It also is curious how cosmologists can rhyme the assumption that the energy density

of the universe was infinite at the big bang with Einstein’s statement that ‘energy

would disappear along with space and time’2 as space and time according to BBC cease

to exist going back in time at, before the big bang. Clearly, Einstein’s quote only applies

to a universe where the creation of energy is the creation, not of space in time, but of

spacetime ­spacetime meaning that the universe doesn’t live in a time realm not of its

on making, time cannot be observed to pass at the same pace everywhere.

As the universe by definition cannot have certain properties, be in any particular state

as a whole, it makes no sense to speak about its energy density nor is the universe the

spatially homogeneous object the Friedmann equations which relate its energy density

to its rate of expansion presuppose ­require­ it to be.

If empty space, far from masses, is defined in the sense that different positions are

physically different to an observing particle as the frequency it exchanges energy at

with objects at all distances varies linearly with their distance3 at sufficiently large

distances from masses, as if empty space comes with a regular grid where time passes

at the same pace everywhere, a grid relative to which we can quantify the position and

motion of objects, then that is because the mass distribution in a SCU is homogeneous

up to a quite large distance,4 so if we specify their position and motion relative to such

grid or background space, then we specify them relative to the masses producing,

1 The quantum vacuum and the cosmological constant problem (2000) SE Rugh, H Zinkernagel; Zinkernagel

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 33

(4): 663­705. https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep­th/0012253.pdf2 The original quote said that ‘space and time would disappear along with matter.’ However, as matter is a

form of energy and we may read his quote backwards, Einstein wouldn’t disagree with the change.3 That is, if the redshift which BBC interprets as a velocity redshift, in a SCU is a distance redshift.4 Unlike in a BBU where if the universe looks isotropic to observers everywhere, it also is homogeneous; in

a SCU it only looks about the same in all directions to observers everywhere, not the same at all distances

even though it looks about the same up to quite large distances. As a SCU cannot have any particular

property as a whole, we cannot speak about the energy density or the mass distribution of the universe.

41

maintaining that grid, a grid which can be thought of as composed of fields living upon

each other or shaping what we observe as spacetime.

The notion of energy, space and time in a SCU differs completely, fundamentally from

what they are in BBC: concepts like cosmic time, the energy density, age and rate of

expansion of the universe belong to the grammar of metaphysics, of cosmythology.

AS THE REST energy of particles in BBC is an intrinsic, fixed, essentially static quantity,1

only the cause of interactions, either positive or negative, the observation that there is

much more matter than antimatter in the universe violates the Nix law according to

which the universe cannot have a nonzero energy ­or electric charge, for that matter.

If the energy of particles is cause and effect of their interactions with all other particles

within their IH, of their behavior relative to each other, and every degree of freedom,

every independent way they can move relative to each other in some configuration

affects the energy they observe each other to have ­the frequency they exchange

energy at­ in a different, distinguishable manner, in different directions within that

configuration, then, as will be explored in § 7, the different kinds of charge, conserved

quantities all contribute to and are manifestations of a single quantity, of their energy ­

as opposed to the present view where, as their properties only are the cause of forces,

the different kinds of charge had to be conceived of as qualitatively different,

independent quantities ­which if true would mean that the different forces of nature

associated with these properties, kinds of charge cannot be unified even in principle.

As long as we assume that what seem to be different kinds of charge only are the cause

of forces, as if their magnitude BFPD can be measured from outside the universe, it

cannot be explained even in principle why particles have the charge they have, their

origin, why there is such a thing as gravity ­let alone unify gravity with the other forces.

IF A FORCE is weaker as the position it acts from is less definite, as its magnitude varies

less with distance ­as the energy powering it is distributed more uniformly over a larger

area, if the position it ­the particle2­ acts from and is acted upon is less definite, then it

can be seen why the UP defines the energy of a particle as being higher ­that energy is

a stronger source of gravity, that it acts as an object the mass of which is greater­ as its

position is less indefinite, as more of its energy is localized within what as seen from

outside its gravitational field is a smaller space. The less indefinite the position of its

mass center is, the point from which its energy acts, the less indefinite ­the shorter the

wavelength3 or higher the frequency is in/at which it exchanges energy with the

objects in its environment, to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it

contributes­ the greater the mass it is observed to have.

In this text the indefiniteness in the relative position, in the distance between the mass

centers of objects refers to their distance as measured outside their gravitational field,

as inferred from their positions relative to surrounding objects, as if space would be

flat everywhere, as if it comes with a regular grid which isn’t affected, curved by the

presence of energy, as if clocks would run at the same pace everywhere.

As it takes less energy to change the distance between particles as they are farther

apart and/or their rest energy is lower, as it matters less, energetically how large their

1 Ignoring, for the moment, quantum fluctuations.2 A particle which is in the process of evolving to an elementary particle, the properties of which, as will be

discussed, are less defined as its energy is lower, as its position and hence its behavior is less definite, as its

presence, its existence differs less from its absence, its nonexistence.3 This doesn’t mean that space contains more energy as we look at smaller scales: this it only can be in a

universe where energy and space are independent quantities.

42

distance exactly is, we can define the distance between particles as less definite as it is

larger and/or their rest energy is smaller.

If when particles express and at the same time preserve their, each other’s properties

by exchanging energy, as the energy they observe, cause each other to have depends

on their distance and its rate of change, if it is their energy which makes positions at

different distances physically different, distinguishable ­the observed pace of clocks

and length of rods­ which turns an imaginary space into a real, physical spacetime, then

it can be seen how energy can create itself and spacetime with it, that energy, space

and time are intrinsically related. As in CM the rest energy of a particle only is the

cause of interactions, there is a fundamental distinction between energy and space: as

it has a boundary separating its energy from (its effect on) space, here its energy only

curves an already existing space. As in a SCU its energy is cause and effect of its

interactions, there is no such infinitely sharp, fundamental boundary between where

the particle, its energy ends and space begins: as it is its energy which makes positions

at different distances physically different, it doesn’t just curve spacetime in its vicinity

but is itself a local extension of spacetime1 so we cannot think of it as if its properties

are localized in an infinitesimal point, as if there is a fundamental distinction between

its mass or electric charge and its gravitational or electric field.

If mass, a gravitational field is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime as seen from outside

the field, then its energy doesn’t just curve, distort an already existing volume of space

in its vicinity but, in affecting the observed pace of clocks and length of rods, manifests

itself as a local extension of spacetime ­so space cannot be devoid of energy, that we

cannot think of spacetime as if it exists, is defined in the absence of energy.

THE ASSUMPTION THAT particle properties only are the cause of interactions leads to

problems which, while they can be circumvented mathematically, cannot be solved,

such as the fact that interaction energies and forces between point­particles would

become infinite at infinitesimal distances, corresponding to an infinite bare mass and

charge of particles. The advantage of particle properties as being cause and effect of

their interaction is that forces and interaction energies never can become infinite as in

that case the energy of all particles to which they owe their energy, to the energy of

which they contribute then also would have to become infinite ­which would take an

infinite energy to achieve. As a force only can become as strong ­the energy powering

it as high­ as the counterforce it meets or is able to evoke, forces between them only

can become infinite if we spend an infinite amount of energy in decreasing (the

indefiniteness in) their distance, in (UP) increasing their energy ­and with it any kind of

charge which contributes to their energy.

If we encounter infinities, then that usually is because we omitted to specify relative to

what a particle has some property ­which only would be defensible if it would be an

intrinsic, fixed, interaction independent quantity, only the cause of interactions.

As in the classical view the electric charge of particles is a privately owned, fixed and

hence static quantity,2 either positive or negative, only the cause of forces, a finite­

sized electron would disintegrate due to the electric repulsion between its parts, it is

supposed to be a dimensionless point particle, implying an infinite bare mass and

charge, infinite forces and interaction energies at infinitesimal distances.

To explain why electrons nevertheless exhibit a finite electric charge in experiments,

the existence was proposed of virtual electron­positron pairs which, surrounding the

1 Be it that most of it is localized within what as seen from outside its gravitational field is an extremely

short distance from its mass center.2 Ignoring quantum fluctuations.

43

real electron, screen its infinite charge, thereby decreasing the magnitude of its charge.

Such problems obviously don’t occur in a universe where the energy of particles ­the

effective magnitude of any charge which contributes to and is an expression of their

energy­ is cause and effect of their interactions, where it is a dynamic, wavelike

quantity, something the sign and magnitude of which varies within every cycle of their

energy exchange, where forces between particles, the energy or charge they observe

each other to have ­the frequency they exchange energy at­ only increases as (the

indefiniteness in) their distance decreases ­which takes energy to achieve.

The electric charge of an electron therefore is observed to be higher when probed at

shorter distances as it takes a higher energy, a higher momentum to decrease the

(indefiniteness in the) distance between the electron and an electrically charged probe

particle as they collide ­a momentum which increases the effective magnitude of the

electric charge they exhibit in the collision. A similar problem exists in GR: as the rest

energy of particles is thought to be only the cause and not also, simultaneously, the

effect of their interactions ­as something which is unrelated to space­ it predicts black

holes to have a gravitational singularity at their center, a place where the energy

density is infinite ­which it only can be if energy and space are independent quantities

and which if true would mean that energy cannot curve space.

Clearly, as in a SCU the creation of energy is the creation, not of space in time but of

spacetime, here energy doesn’t, as in GR, cause space to curve as this presupposes that

space already exists, is defined even before there is any energy, as if there exists a fixed

amount of space which only is warped in the vicinity of masses ­in the sense that if we

were to imagine empty space as if it comes furnished with a regular three­dimensional

grid, the size of the cells of this grid would shrink in the vicinity of masses and expand

in between so the number of cells, the amount of space, so to say, remains unchanged,

as if before there is energy, there exists an a priori spacetime ‘which matter merely

modifies and does not create’ ­which, however, is at odds with the fact that energy

only can cause space to curve if has a property energy can act upon ­which, as energy

only can act upon energy must be energy. Only if, as in BBC where the concept energy

density of the universe defines energy and space as independent quantities ­so states

that space exists, is defined even in the absence of energy­ can we accuse energy of

causing space to curve even though this is impossible if energy only can act on energy.

It may be the fundamental difference between a universe where the creation of energy

is the creation not of space in time but of spacetime, where it is localized energy which

makes positions at different distances physically different ­where it is energy which

determines the extent to which the observed pace of clocks and length of rods varies

from one point, one distance to the next­ and a universe where, as time passes at the

same pace anywhere, energy and space are unrelated quantities why general relativity

in its present ­causal­ form cannot be unified with a quantum mechanics which only

can be understood rationally, not causally as the definition of what a universe is implies

particles, particle properties to be as much the cause as the effect of their interactions,

their communication to be instantaneous.

WHILE ONE CAN argue whether or not gravity is a force; if when the energy of particles

is cause and effect of their interactions, a force cannot be either attractive or repulsive,

of itself ­if the attraction between particles cannot be unequal to their inertia, to their

opposition to it, to their repulsion­ then there can be no two independent, opposite

kinds of energy to explain the expansion of a big bang universe ­as indeed, if when it

44

only can have a definite energy density if energy and space are unrelated quantities, if

space exists even when devoid of energy, energy cannot cause it to curve nor expand.

If we were to associate a positive energy with an attractive force, with ordinary matter,

with gravity and a negative energy with a repulsive force, with antimatter then matter

and antimatter wouldn’t attract gravitationally: if it does, then there cannot be two

opposite kinds of energy or energy be a static quantity, either positive or negative.

Though gravitational energy is supposed to be negative, this it only is if the mass of

particles only is the cause of forces, not in a universe where their mass is cause and

effect of their interactions, where it isn’t the mass of particles which causes them to

contract at places but where it is their contraction which (UP) increases their mass.1

if when particles express and preserve their properties by exchanging energy ­if their

energy in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next, if their attraction only

can become as strong as the repulsion, the counterforce it meets or is able to evoke, if

when their energy increases, both their attraction and repulsion increases­ then the

expansion of the universe (if any) cannot be explained as resulting from an excess of a

repulsive kind of energy above an attractive, gravitational energy.

Whereas going backward in time in a BBU everything ends up within an infinitesimal

volume so the energy density of the universe becomes infinite at the big bang; as going

back in time in a SCU the energy of objects decreases, all points of space become more

identical physically, here energy disappears together with spacetime, so in forward

time direction the selfcreation of the universe reminds of a photograph in a darkroom,

its contrasts and details becoming more defined as it develops ­be it that we cannot

speak about the properties and state of the entire universe, but have to specify the

observing particle as it depends on its own energy how it observes its universe to be.

WHILE WE CAN describe an equilibrium between elementary particles as a balance

between two opposite forces powered by qualitatively different, independent kinds of

charge; if it would be fixed quantities, only the cause of forces, then any equilibrium

would be unstable since as soon as their attraction due to one kind of charge at some

distance overcomes their repulsion due to another kind of charge, they would go sit

and stay on top of each other. However, if according to the UP their energy then would

become infinite ­an energy which has to be supplied by the environment­ then we

might as well say that it is the environment, the uncertainty principle which acts as the

counterforce to their attraction. Moreover, if the energy to be supplied comes from

the contraction of particles in their environment due to the same, attractive kind of

charge, then what classically seem to be qualitatively different, independent kinds of

charge cannot be unrelated quantities.

If, as will be discussed in § 7, any kind of charge contributes to the energy of particles,

is an expression of their energy, if the energy involved in one interaction, associated

with one kind of charge, powers and is powered by all other interactions a particle is

simultaneously involved in due other kinds of charge so what seem to be independent,

qualitatively different kinds of charge are different expressions of a single quantity, of

the energy of particles, then this throws a different light on the unification of forces.

Whereas the different particle species in a BBU were created ready made at the big

bang so their properties casually precede, predetermine those of the atoms they form;

as in a SCU particles evolve together with the atomic nuclei and atoms they form, their

properties must be the result of a trial and error evolution of random configurations

1 To avoid particles to have a negative energy as E = hv this seems to imply a negative frequency; to keep

believing that it is a privately owned, static quantity, only the cause of forces, either positive (particles) or

negative (antiparticles), one has agreed to call the energy of antiparticles positive and instead change the

sign of their electric charge (or time direction) ­which in a SCU comes down to the same thing.

45

which in the course of time increasingly resemble their actual configuration in atomic

nuclei and atoms ­which they only can if they can adjust their properties, the effective

magnitude of the different kinds of charge they observe, cause each other to have by

adjusting their configuration, their distance and relative motion so they can achieve

and maintain a stable equilibrium ­which requires their communication to be instant.

If any kind of charge contributes to and is a manifestation of the energy of particles, if

energy, whatever its pedigree, is a source of gravity ­so any kind of charge contributes

to their mass­ and their energy is cause and effect of their interactions, then gravity

cannot be accused of causing particles to contract: in a SCU it is their contraction, the

decrease of (the uncertainty in) their distance which increases their energy, both their

attraction and repulsion, the effective magnitude of any kind of charge, their mass.

It is because their communication is instant why particles can adjust their behavior

relative to each other in some configuration ­and with it the properties ‘causing’ that

specific behavior­ which enables a trial and error evolution of particle properties and

specie, of particles the behavior, the properties of which are less defined, less definite

as their position is less definite, as their energy is lower­ to elementary particles.

AS WILL BE discussed in the next section, gravity in a selfcreating universe turns out to

be the expression of the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself and

with it spacetime without violating any conservation law. While a SCU only exists as

seen from within, as it doesn’t live in a time realm not of its own making but contains,

produces all time inside of it, time cannot be observed to pass at the same pace at all

distances ­meaning that past, present and future are relative, local notions; it is the

assumption central to BBC that it is the same (cosmic) time ­that time passes at the

same pace everywhere in empty space why we came to think of light as something

which moves through space, in time, the universe growing older as it travels, why we

assume that we see a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant past, in the past.

As classically the emission of a photon by an atom causally precedes its absorption

elsewhere so the emitting atom autonomously determines the energy of the photon,1

Hubble’s discovery that the light of galaxies is shifted farther to red as they are more

distant only could be interpreted as caused by their receding motion, implying that the

universe expands, so going back in time, the universe must have had a beginning.

The discovery that the Earth, despite appearances, isn't the center of the universe was

generalized to the assumption that no point in space is more special than any other so

the universe at large scale should look about the same at all distances, in all directions

to observers everywhere at the same moment in cosmic time if they account for the

effect on their observation of their distance and motion relative to the observed.

While such homogeneity enables us to quantify its rate of expansion as a function of its

energy content; if the universe by definition cannot have particular properties, be in

any single particular state as a whole, if it has no external reality so doesn’t live in a

time realm not of its own making then it cannot be homogeneous, expand at the same

rate everywhere at the same moment in cosmic time.

To illustrate how any observer or observing particle can consider itself to be at the

center of his / its universe, how the universe can be spatially finite yet unbounded, its

particles, stars and galaxies are sometimes imagined to be distributed over the two­

dimensional surface of a sphere by suppressing one space dimension. In this picture all

matter, energy, space and time, all observers and objects together with all measurers ­

1That is, an atom cannot emit photons of arbitrary energies: their energy follows laws of nature.

46

meter sticks, clocks, thermometers etc.­ to describe it, only exist within this infinitely

thin spherical surface, the space inside and outside the sphere having no reality.

Though BBC (cl)aims to describe the universe from within ­that it doesn’t expand in an

already existing space, that there is no space nor time outside of it; the problem is that

it makes no sense to speak about its inside dimension, whether it is small or large, if ­as

BBC agrees­ it has no external reality, if there is nothing outside of it to compare its size

with. As we only can imagine the universe ­the sphere­ to expand, speak about its

properties and state if it lives in a space and time realm not of its own making, BBC,

despite its claim to describe the universe from within, nevertheless conceives of the

universe as an object which lives in a space and time continuum not of its own making:

that there is something outside of it relative to which it starts to exist, has particular

properties and at any time is in some particular state as a whole so has been created

by some outside intervention.

While one might object that we can perfectly well describe the universe from within,

using inside clocks, measuring rods and scales; as the concept energy density of the

universe central to BBC defines energy and space as independent quantities and this

they only can be if space and energy, the meter and joule are defined even outside the

universe, it is impossible to quantitatively describe the universe from within.

As according to BBC the universe at any time has certain properties and is in some

particular state as a whole, here we may imagine to look at it, describe it quantitatively

from the outside ­as opposed to a SCU which, as it has no external reality but only exist

as seen from within so cannot have particular properties, be in any particular state as a

whole, it makes no sense to speak about its energy density, its age or temperature.

However flawed the spherical shell picture of the universe is, it serves to illustrate how

a universe can be self­contained, how everything which is and happens only exists and

happens inside this infinitely thin spherical shell and, as it has no reality to an imaginary

observer in or outside the sphere, we only can describe it if we specify the observer or

observing particle ­not the universe but the universe as they observe it to be: how

particles in this universe only exist to each other if, to the extent and for as long as they

interact, express and at the same time preserve each other’s properties by exchanging

energy, information, but have no reality to an imaginary observer outside the sphere.

While we find it obvious that the universe is electrically neutral as by definition there is

no charge outside of it; our common sense seems to have deserted us as we speak

about its temperature, entropy, energy density, its surplus of matter above antimatter

as in doing so we state that there is something outside of it relative to which exists, has

those properties and is such state. As according to BBC the universe could have been

different so we cannot explain even in principle why it is as it is, we can as well give up

any pretention that we try to comprehend it and admit that we believe that it has been

created by some Creator and fit our interpretation of observations to this supposition.

A similar consideration may have been on Einstein’s mind when he wrote

In a sensible theory there are no [dimensionless] numbers whose values are determinable

only empirically. I can, of course, not prove that … dimensionless constants in the laws of

nature, which from a purely logical point of view can just as well have other values, should

not exist.1 Nature is constituted so that it is possible to lay down such strongly determined

laws that within these laws only rationally, completely determined constants occur (not

constants, therefore, that could be changed without completely destroying the theory).2

1 I. Rosenthal­Schneider, Reality and Scientific Truth, P 74. Wayne State University Press 1980

Reprinted in Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, p. 34. 2005 edition. 2 Einstein A. 1999. Autobiographical notes. La Salle, IL.: Open Court, p. 63. (as cited by Hossenfelder S.

(2018) Lost in math p 91.

47

Whereas BBC doesn’t ­cannot­ offer any idea why the laws and constants of nature are

what they are, how the particles of the different species created at the big bang knew

what properties to be created with and in what amounts because it assumes their

properties to be only the cause of interactions; only in a universe where particles,

particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions, of their behavior relative

to each other so their communication is instant can they adjust their behavior, the

properties they exhibit, evolve in a trial and error process to elementary particles ­so

only those particle properties and species survive which manage to survive together

with the associated laws and constants of nature. As these laws and constants evolve

together with the particles the behavior of which they describe, the properties

‘causing’ that behavior, they automatically assume those values which enable their

mutual selfcreation and continued existence, so unlike in a BBU, in a SCU there’s no

need for an improbable fine­tuning ­i.e., for any outside intervention.

THIS STUDY FOLLOWS only those roads reason allowed me to take. While this approach

doesn’t guarantee that I’ll find anything useful; it won’t hurt to see what vistas it may

open. In throwing a different light on things, it may offer clues to the solution of some

fundamental problems which as yet refused to be solved. The Nix law ­the mother of

all conservation laws, the most fundamental of all laws of nature­ will prove to be a

powerful tool to answer some fundamental questions right away, a shortcut to decide

at a glance whether or not some idea or theory might possibly make sense.

2

The why of gravity; gravity and timeIf energy in a selfcreating universe has the tendency to increase, to keep creating itself

and, as will be discussed in § 5, clocks are observed to run at a slower pace, particles to

oscillate at a lower frequency, to have a lower energy as they are more distant, then a

lower rest energy of particles can be associated with an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase.

If according to the uncertainty principle energy is a stronger source of forces as the

position it acts from is less indefinite, and a particle is observed to oscillate at a lower

frequency, exchange energy in a longer, less definite wavelength as it is more distant,

then its position and motion ­the properties its behavior is the expression of­ are less

defined, its interactions weaker as observed from a larger distance.

While in a BBU the different elementary particles popped up ready­made, with all their

properties at full strength from one moment to the next at the big bang, begging the

question how they knew with what properties to be created; as will be discussed in § 7,

in a SCU they evolve gradually in a trial and error process whereby only those particle

properties, species and associated laws of nature survive ... which manage to survive.

If when particles are cause and effect of their interactions, their properties cannot, as

in a BBU, causally precede, predetermine those of atomic nuclei, of atoms, then they

evolve together with the stars and galaxies they form. Whereas in a BBU we see a

distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant past, in the past; in a SCU we see it as it is,

to us, as we look at it, in what only to us is the present, so if particles are observed to

have a lower energy, less defined properties, to be in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase as

they are more distant, then the same goes for galaxies they form: the more distant

they are, the ‘earlier’ the phase we observe them to be in ­quote marks as terms like

48

earlier and later in a SCU don’t have the causal connotation they have in a BBU, where,

as it is the same time everywhere, we can delude ourselves that we can determine

what in an absolute sense precedes what, what is cause of what ­what only would be

possible if we actually could examine the universe from the outside.

As a SCU only exists as seen from within, as it doesn’t live in a time realm not of its own

making but contains, produces all time within so clocks cannot be observed to run at

the same pace at all distances, the universe of any observer or observing particle

always contains objects in all possible phases of their evolution, including particles with

an infinitesimal energy, particles they observe to be in the most ‘early’ phase of their

evolution ­be it that not all phases are accessible to observation by all observers /

observing particles. If any observer can consider herself to be (at) the center of her

universe and her IH, her universe begins / ends where she observes time to pass at an

infinitesimal pace, then the universe of every observer contains its own beginning ­be it

that it is not a beginning we can think of as having been completed in the past.

Though at macroscopic level, in CM there seems to be an objective reality at the origin

of our observations; as in a SCU particles, particle properties are cause and effect of

their interactions, at particle level there is no single, objective, universe­wide reality,

no universe­wide past, present and future which is the same to all objects and

observers, which causally precedes the observation thereof.

While we can define the beginning of the universe of a particle as the time it starts to

exist, to have, to exchange energy with the objects within its, at that time, limited

interaction horizon; it is not, as in a BBU, a beginning all particles have in common,

which happens to all particles at the same moment in cosmic time. If the transition, the

threshold between a zero and an infinitesimal, nonzero energy of a particle, between

its existence and nonexistence cannot be situated in time, we might say that it takes

and an infinite time for a particle to start to exist ­as indeed in a SCU there is no such

thing as cosmic time, no universe­wide now, no absolute clock relative to which we

might pinpoint the time of its creation, its evolution from a zero to a nonzero energy.

Its creation, the crossing of the threshold between nonexistence and existence cannot,

as in a BBU, be thought of as completed in the past since if it evolves to ever­higher

energies, then so does the rest energy it observes particles at the rim of its interaction

horizon, the evolutionary phase it observes them to be in: we might say that in the

course of time, as it evolves itself to higher energies, its observation horizon recedes

from it. Not in the sense that in the course of time more, already existing objects at

larger distances come into view, as in a BBU, but that it participates in the creation, in

the energy increase of particles, of the galaxies they are contracting to, at the rim of its

‘expanding’ universe as its communication with those particles is instant ­quote marks

on ‘expand’ as it isn’t the expansion of space in time but the creation of spacetime, a

process whereby points at different distances become more different, physically.

CLASSICAL MECHANICS IS based on the assumption that there is an objective reality at

the origin of our observations, causally preceding the observation thereof.

Einstein:1

We all, more or less in the same way, say that a rose is red, smells like perfume, and feels

like velvet. In other words, there is an objective reality which is conceived by the senses,

and behind this objective reality are natural laws which are the privilege of the scientist to

discover. Nature doesn’t know chance, it operates on mathematical principles. As I have

said so many times, God doesn’t play dice with the world.

1 Einstein and the Poet: In Search of the Cosmic Man (1983), William Hermanns, p. 58

49

While the belief that there is an objective reality at the origin of our observations may

hold at macroscopic level, for classical objects ­things we can see with the naked eye

like a rose; in a selfcreating universe, at quantum level, from the point of view of the

particles doing the creating there is no single, objective reality at the origin of their

observations they all share, have in common: as their properties are cause and effect

of interactions they don’t observe each other as they are, of themselves, but as they

cause each other to be. As they only exist to each other if, for as long and to the extent

they interact, and not, as in CM, in BBC, to an imaginary observer outside the universe,

they don’t have the autonomous existence, the objective, observer independent reality

of classical objects ­defined as objects the properties of which only are the cause of

interactions ­Einstein assumes they are: it is because we confuse causality with reason

why quantum mechanics some ninety years after its inception still isn’t understood.

Determinism, causality ­the assumption that elementary particles have been provided

with properties at their one­off creation by God / at the Big Bang, that it are privately

owned, fixed quantities, only the cause of interactions­ means that all events ever to

happen are predetermined to happen as and when they to the last of an infinite series

of decimals at the creation of the universe, that, if we know the exact location and

motion of all particles and their properties at one time, we can predict the entire

future of the universe to the last detail. In the words of Laplace 1

We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of

its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in

motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were

also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the

movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such

an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past would be present

before its eyes.

If in quantum mechanics we only can speak about the probabilities of the different

possible outcomes of an experiment in which particles collide, say, then that is because

if their properties, their behavior is cause and effect of their interactions with all other

particles within their IH and their communication is instant, they affect the behavior of

the particles in the experiment, participate in it, so the result of the experiment also

depends on the events they are involved in at the time of the collision. Though he was

one of its founding fathers, Einstein couldn’t accept quantum mechanics because of its

inherent indeterminism. However, determinism, causality belongs to a universe which

has been created by some outside intervention, in a universe where particles, particle

properties only are the cause and not also the effect of their interactions. If we always

measure an elementary particle to have the same properties, as if it only are the cause

of its interactions, then that isn't because it are privately owned quantities but because

a change would affect the energy of all particles within its interaction horizon: it is their

collective opposition to a change why its properties seem to be fixed, static, interaction

independent quantities, why we came to conceive of particles as classical objects.

The only reality we know, are familiar with, the objects and events we can see with the

naked eye ­the world classical mechanics describes­ constitutes a secondary reality

built out of, upon the primary reality of elementary particles in a way which reminds of

the difference between a piano and the melodies it hosts. While in this comparison the

piano has no external reality but only exists as seen from within, built of particles

which if they would stop exchanging energy would cease to exist and with it the piano,

where the piano constitutes a primary, noncausal reality which remains essentially

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laplace%27s_demon

50

unaffected by the melodies it hosts; the fleeting melodies stand for the classical events

we observe, the changes we experience as the passing of time ­including events like

the continued existence of the classical objects which seem so solid to us but which yet

take so little energy to (de)construct from (into) atoms compared to the energy as

contained (E = mc²) in their mass. As this energy is less than a billionth1 of the energy

contained in its mass, elementary particles don’t really notice what objects they are

temporally part of, what events they participate in, of the specific macroscopic reality

we find them to be part of ­a reality which is objective and obeys causality only at this,

macroscopic, secondary level. As a result, the relation between the piano and the

melodies ­between events at quantum level and events at macroscopic level­ is so

weak that it is impossible to infer the (quantum) mechanics of the piano ­why there is a

piano, a universe at all, how it works, why it is as it is­ from the melodies it hosts, from

events at macroscopic level, as described by classical aka causal mechanics.

While the concept of cosmic time in BBC ­the time put in the equations describing the

expansion of the universe­ defines time as something absolute, something which

always passes at the same pace everywhere (at least in empty space, far from masses);

in a SCU there is no absolute, universe­wide now, no unperturbable pace at which time

passes, of itself, no objective, observer­independent pace of time.

The fact that to quantify the pace of cosmic time, whether it passes fast or slow, would

require the existence of a clock outside the universe to compare its pace with, a clock

the pace of which to establish would require the existence of yet another clock the

pace of which to quantify… etc. should have alerted us to the possibility that there is

something fundamentally wrong with the concept of cosmic time, with the supposition

that time eternally passes at the same, particular, unperturbable pace everywhere.

While the discovery that the Earth isn't the center of the universe was generalized to

the assumption that no point in space is more special than any other, that there is no

unique center of space; if the universe by definition cannot be in any particular state, if

it only exits as seen from within so it cannot be the same time, time pass at the same

pace everywhere, then there also is no unique ‘center of time’, no universe­wide now.

As the definition of what a universe is implies the communication between particles ­

and hence the transmission of light­ to be instant, the speed of light doesn’t, as will be

discussed in § 9, refer to a velocity but to a property of spacetime: in a SCU a space

distance of 300,000 km corresponds to a time distance of 1 second, not because it

takes light one second to travel that distance but because, as will be argued in § 5, the

pace of clocks is lower as observed from a larger distance even when at rest. While it

remains to be seen whether if the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime, this

comes down to some kind of expansion ­whether a clock can remain at rest; it should

keep running at the same, lower pace as long its distance to the observer doesn’t

change without this meaning that it runs increasingly farther behind the clock of the

observer in the course of time.

THOUGH NEWTON WAS

‘deeply uncomfortable with the notion of action at a distance that his equations implied 2

­“That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the

mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed

1 The amount of energy as present in the mass of iron is about 7 billion times greater than the energy it

takes to melt and evaporate it. Likewise, the energy contained in the mass of natural gas is about 2 billion

times greater than the heat, the energy which is released as it is combusted.2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation#Newton's_reservations (10­4­

2020) Also see https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2008/entries/qm­action­distance/ (29­1­2020)

51

from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in

philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it. … I have not yet

been able to discover the cause of these properties of gravity from phenomena,”

‘… in the case of gravity, he was unable to experimentally identify the motion that

produces the force of gravity. … Moreover, he refused to even offer a hypothesis as to the

cause of this force on grounds that to do so was contrary to sound science. He lamented

that "philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of nature in vain" for the source of

the gravitational force, as he was convinced "by many reasons" that there were "causes

hitherto unknown" that were fundamental to all the "phenomena of nature". These

fundamental phenomena are still under investigation and, though hypotheses abound,

the definitive answer has yet to be found.’ … ‘These objections were explained by

Einstein's theory of general relativity, in which gravitation is an attribute of curved

spacetime instead of being due to a force propagated between bodies [and in] Einstein's

theory, energy and momentum distort spacetime in their vicinity [so] other particles move

in trajectories determined by the geometry of spacetime. … In [GR] the gravitational force

is a fictitious force due to the curvature of spacetime, because the gravitational

acceleration of a body in free fall is due to its world line being a geodesic of spacetime.’1

Though the statement of Ernst Mach (called ‘Mach’s principle’ by Einstein)

When … we say that a body preserves unchanged its direction and velocity in space, our

assertion is nothing more or less than an abbreviated reference to the entire universe.1

­i.e., that its inertia is something it has relative to all masses in the universe­ which

Einstein interpreted to say that ‘the inertia of a body originates in a kind of interaction

between bodies’ and inspired him to his theory of general relativity; the theory omits

to explain the origin of the mass, of the energy causing spacetime to curve because he

couldn’t let go of causality ­which is why GR in its present form cannot be unified with

a quantum mechanics which only can be understood rationally, not causally.

Wikipedia

Although inertial mass, passive gravitational mass and active gravitational mass are

conceptually distinct, no experiment has ever unambiguously demonstrated any

difference between them. … Newton's third law implies that active and passive

gravitational mass must always be identical (or at least proportional), but the classical

theory offers no compelling reason why the gravitational mass has to equal the inertial

mass. That it does is merely an empirical fact. Albert Einstein developed his general theory

of relativity starting with the assumption of the intentionality of correspondence between

inertial and passive gravitational mass, and that no experiment will ever detect a

difference between them, in essence the equivalence principle.2 … There is a fundamental

issue in relativity theory. If all motion is relative, how can we measure the inertia of a

body? We must measure the inertia with respect to something else. But what if we

imagine a particle completely on its own in the universe? We might hope to still have

some notion of its state of motion. Mach's principle is sometimes interpreted as the

statement that such a particle's state of motion has no meaning in that case. 3

Clearly, the supposition that a particle can exist, have inertia, mass in an otherwise

empty universe only might make sense if its rest energy would be a privately owned

quantity, only the cause of interactions, not in a universe the definition of which

implies that their inertia, their mass is cause and effect of their interactions.

1 The Science of Mechanics. p 233 Mach, Ernst (1960). LaSalle, IL: Open Court Pub. Co. LCCN 60010179.

This is a reprint of the English translation by Thomas H. MCormack (first published in 1906) See

https://archive.org/details/sciencemechanic00machgoog/page/n260/mode/2up (10­4­2020)2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Inertial_vs._gravitational_mass (10­4­2020)3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle#Einstein's_use_of_the_principle (10­4­2020)

52

If the energy of particles is cause and effect of their interactions so increases as forces

between them increase, as they contract to clusters, as (the uncertainty in) their

distance decreases, then instead of saying that particles contract because they in some

mysterious manner have been provided with mass at their creation by God / at the Big

Bang and masses for some unfathomable reason attract ­that their mass is the cause of

their gravitational attraction­ we can as well say that their mass only increases if and

when they contract, if they contract to clusters (and clusters of clusters) everywhere, in

concert ­which requires the communication to be instant.

This they are bound to do as the gravitational field they sit in increases as they contract

and with it the gravitational time dilation which, as it tends to freeze, to prolong, to

preserve in time a state in which they are nearer together above a state in which they

are farther apart ­a state of higher above a state of lower energy­ as (UP) a shorter, less

indefinite distance corresponds to a higher energy which, being a source of gravity,

increases their mass, the strength of the gravitational field they sit in and produce, and

with it the time dilation which tends to keep them at that ­shorter­ distance.

As mentioned above, the misleading thing about gravity is that in driving the changes

we experience as the passing of time ­the contraction of particles to stars and galaxies­

we have a sequence between events we misinterpret as proof that one ­their mass­ is

the cause of the other, of their contraction, as if mass can causally precede gravity, as if

time eternally passes at some unperturbable pace, no matter whether something

happens, changes or not, as if the universe lives in a time realm not of its own making.

The problem of the assumption that mass does causally precede gravity, that the rest

mass of particles only is the cause, but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their

interactions, is that the origin of mass, the nature of gravity then cannot be understood

even in principle ­never mind the Higgs mechanism which tries to explain the mass of

some particles classically ­causally­ instead of quantum mechanically ­i.e., rationally.

If in a universe where particle properties are cause and effect of forces between them,

their communication is instant, the mass of particles cannot causally precede gravity

between them: if when it only exist as seen from within so contains, produces all time

inside of it so clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant even

when at rest so there is no universe­wide now­ then this puts an end to the illusion

that the observed time sequence of events proves that the earlier observed state or

event is cause of the later one, that we can distinguish what in an absolute sense

precedes what. Only if it would be the same time, if time would pass at the same pace

everywhere whether or not something happens ­if the universe would live in a time

realm not of its own making­ would it be defensible to imagine looking at it from

without and would it be possible to distinguish what in absolute sense precedes what.

Whereas particles in a BBU contract, move through space in time toward each other at

places because they somehow were endowed with mass at their one­off creation by

God / at the Big Bang and masses for some mysterious reason attract; in a selfcreating

universe it is gravity which drives the changes we experience as the passing of time.

Gravity, then, is the expression of the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating

itself inherent to a selfcreating universe: without the gravitational time dilation which

comes with it as it is a source of gravity, the selfcreation of energy would be impossible

and there would exist no energy, no space nor time, no universe.1

1 The fact that in GR the gravitational field itself possesses energy means that the gravitational field energy

tends to produce more gravity ­which should result in an increase, a continuing creation of energy and

hence of the mass of the source of the field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_solution_(general_relativity)#Gravitational_energy (25­1­2020)

53

As it is localized energy which makes points at different distances physically different,

which makes that we can speak about distances in spacetime, as it powers, manifests

itself as gravitational field the strength of which determines the observed pace of

clocks and length of rods at different spacetime distances as seen from outside the

field­ the creation of energy is (accompanied by, impossible without, indistinguishable

from) the creation of spacetime ­as opposed to BBC where the concept energy density

of the universe defines energy, space and time as independent quantities, thereby

stating that space and time exist, are defined even outside the universe.

If the energy of particles, its rate of change varies within every cycle of their oscillation

and with it the indefiniteness in their position and they keep creating and uncreating

each other over and over again in every cycle of their energy exchange and we were to

say that they keep popping up in and vanishing from space, then they can reappear at a

different places in the next cycle. The father apart they reappear, the longer, the less

definite their distance is, the longer, the less definite the wavelength they exchange

energy in, the lower the frequency is at which they pop up, vanish and reappear again,

the lower the energy they observe each other to have; whereas the shorter, the less

indefinite their distance is, the higher (UP) the energy they observe each other to have,

the shorter the wavelength or the higher the frequency they exchange energy at.

If when they reappear at a shorter distance, where the gravitational field of the other

particle is stronger, where as seen from outside their field, time passes at a slower

pace, the particles are observed to stay for a longer time nearer to each other than if

they pop up farther apart, then particles will tend to (be observed to) contract to mass

concentrations in the course of time rather than disperse, move apart. That is, if the

frequency at which they disappear and reappear is lower, we ought to observe them

for a longer time before they disappear again; if when their energy is lower as they

reappear at a larger distance, then their position, their distance is less definite, as if

they are in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution to higher energies. It is the gravitational

time dilation, the fact that if a gravitational field is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime as

seen from outside ­that clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more

distant­ why energy tends to increase, to keep creating itself, why nature favors a state

of higher above a state of lower energy: why there is a universe, why it can(not but)

create itself, why there is gravity, why there is time.

The nearer to each other they reappear, the higher the energy they observe, cause

each other to have, the stronger the field is they pop up in and power, the longer they

are observed to stay near each other due to the gravitational time dilation, the more

they seem to be frozen in time, as if they attract more strongly at what as seen from

outside their field is a shorter distance, the longer they act from those positions, the

greater the probability is that similar processes occur in neighboring particle clusters,

the greater the probability is that the stronger force they feel from the center of their

own cluster meets an equally strong force from opposite directions, from surrounding,

similarly contracting particle clusters, the greater the probability is that they contract,

that the energy ­the mass­ of the particles and cluster they contract to increases.

If the UP implies that the energy, the mass of the cluster increases as it contracts and

the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime (not the creation of space in time)

and most of it is concentrated within a short distance near its mass center as seen from

outside the gravitational field it is the manifestation of and we don’t acknowledge its

distance increasing effect, then its mass can seem to decrease as the cluster contracts,

as if the mass of its particles only is the cause of gravity, preceding it ­in which case the

origin of mass, the nature of gravity cannot be understood even in principle.

54

We cannot have it both ways: that the UP implies that energy of particles increases as

(the uncertainty in) their distance decreases as they contract so, as energy is a source

of gravity, their mass increases and at the same time say that the mass of the cluster

they contract to decreases as it contracts. Only in a universe where the (rest) mass of

particles is a privately owned property, only the cause of interactions, where energy

and space are unrelated quantities can we think of a spacetime which already exists

before there is energy, a spacetime ‘which matter merely modifies and does not

create’ would the mass of particles decrease as they contract to galaxies.

Whereas particles only can contract to clusters (and clusters of clusters) if they do so

everywhere, in concert, if their communication is instant; it isn’t so that the particles

move through space, in time as they contract to clusters, as if space and time already

exist, are defined even in the absence of energy: it is the increase of their energy, of

the cluster they contract to which creates spacetime, which increases the extent to

which positions at different distances differ physically.

While particles do contract in spacetime; if their energy increases as (the indefiniteness

in) their distance decreases and a particle has no fundamental boundary separating its

energy from (its effect on) spacetime, if a particle is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime

as seen from outside the gravitational field it is the source, the manifestation of, then

the particle is a local extension of spacetime even though putting a particle somewhere

in spacetime does curve the spacetime which already exists, as shaped by the presence

of masses at all distances, when it is put inside of: in a SCU there is no sharp boundary

where the spacetime the particle, its energy represents ends and the spacetime of the

objects begins to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes.

In prolonging in time a state in which their distance is smaller above a state in which

they are farther apart, in favoring an energy increase of particles and the clusters they

form above a decrease ­a contraction of particles above a dispersion­ nature defines

energy as something which has the tendency to increase, to keep creating itself

without violating any conservation law as it in one phase is as positive as it is negative

in the next so the total energy of the universe is zero, because energy is something

which only exists within their interactions, not to an imaginary observer outside the

universe as in BBC.

While gravity, in driving the changes we experience as the passing of time, in imposing

a direction on events produces a time sequence between events we mistake as proof

that the earlier observed event is the cause of the later one ­that particles contract

because they were created with mass and masses for some reason attract and time

passes anyhow, that mass causally precedes gravity; if the energy of particles is cause

and effect of forces between them so increases as forces between them increase, as

they contract, as (the uncertainty in) their distance decreases, here there is energy ­

mass­ created as they contract and, as it is localized energy which makes positions at

different distances physically different, with it spacetime.

Though in a SCU any kind charge contributes to and is an expression of the energy of

particles so contributes to their mass so is represented in, participates in the exertion

of gravity; that doesn’t mean that particles owe their charge to gravity. We must

distinguish between the energy exchange between particles by means of which they

express and preserve their existence, which preserves the status quo ­the world we

see­ and gravity, the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself driving the

change of that status quo, which makes that we experience the passing of time.

55

As the gravitational field of a particle (which only is appreciably strong at an extremely

short distance from its mass center) is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime, of distance to

its mass center, its field slows down the frequency it oscillates at as seen from outside

the field, decreasing its observed energy, so if the same holds for a particle cluster then

its mass may seem to decrease as it contracts if we don’t account for the fact that its

field is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime, that the distance between its mass center

(from which we assume its energy acts as a source of gravity) and the observer as

measured inside the field is larger than it is as measured outside of it, i.e., as calculated

from its position relative to surrounding clusters. It is because as seen from the outside

in, its field increases the distance from its mass center, from which its energy acts as a

source of gravity, which dilutes (and, if a larger spacetime distance means that clocks

are observed to run at a slower pace at its center, delays in time the expression of its

mass?) why gravity seems to be so weak a force.

However, if as seen from the opposite direction, from its mass center, from inside the

field out, its field by accelerating the frequency particles oscillate at enhances their

energy, the mass of the objects to which it owes its energy ­and with it its own energy­

as if to compensate for the force­diluting effect the gravitational field has in the other

direction, then it may be a bit premature to say that gravity is a weak force.

This paradoxical effect may be more pronounced as the object is more massive and

compact because if it owes its mass to and contributes to the mass of more objects at

larger distances as it is heavier, its gravitational field must be stronger, its gradient

steeper nearer to its mass center if it is to enhance the mass of objects at larger

distances to preserve its own mass. If so, if the gradient of the field of an object is

steeper nearer to its center as it is more massive and compact ­if the position of its

mass center is less indefinite, if more of its energy can be localized within a smaller

space­ if, as in the case of a black hole, the gradient changes more abruptly from steep

to flat within what as seen from outside its field, is a smaller distance to its mass center

as it is more massive, then the distinction between mass, a solid object and what looks

like empty space becomes more pronounced ­if with empty spacetime we mean the

flat­gradient part of its field, where the observed pace of clocks varies much less with

distance than it does nearer to its center. If spacetime seems to be flat at large scale ­

flat meaning that in a SCU the observed pace of clock at rest in empty space, far from

masses, varies linearly with distance to the observer (as opposed to a BBU where time

passes at the same pace everywhere in empty space)­ this is because of the space

‘flattening’ effects of supermassive black holes at the center of galaxies combined with

the fact that in a universe where the energy of objects is cause and effect of their

interactions the distribution of mass tends to be isotropic to observers everywhere.

In other words, the distinction between energy ­between matter, solid objects­ and

space which seems so abrupt, absolute that we came to think of energy and space as

unrelated quantities conceals the fact that it actually are the two sides of a single coin.

THE ORIGIN OF mass, why there is gravity, why it is as it is only can be explained in a

universe where particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions, where

their communication is instant, where mass cannot causally precede gravity. As the

universe only exists as seen from within, we are not, as in BBC, allowed to imagine

looking at it from the outside and infer from the ‘observed’ time sequence of events

what precedes what in an absolute sense, what is cause of what: as no observer or

observing particle is more special than any other, any observer or observing particle

can consider him / itself to be (at) the center of their universe, all observers are equally

right about the time of an event they observe, participate in.

56

Though counts of radio galaxies showing that quasars and radio galaxies only are found

at large distances so could only have existed in the distant past discredited the steady

state theory of Hoyle c.s. according to which the universe always looks about the same;

this only holds for a universe where it is the same time, where time passes at the same

pace everywhere so lives in a time realm not of its own making, which grows older and,

like a big bang universe has an external, if, for practical reasons, unobservable, reality.

Though Hoyle c.s. had to postulate a creation of matter out of nothing (and, like BBC,

omitting to explain the mechanics of such creation and violating conservation laws)) to

keep their universe always looking the same despite expanding and growing older; the

continuous creation of matter nevertheless suggests that there was a time when there

was no matter, when its creation began: when there was no (steady state) universe.

As the transmission of light is instant in a SCU, as it only exists as seen from within so

contains, produces all time within means that time must be observed to pass at a

slower pace at larger distances, we don’t, as in a big bang and steady state universe,

see a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant past, in the past, but as it is, to us, in

what only to us is the present, in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase instead of at an earlier

moment in cosmic time, so here the observation that quasars and radio sources only

are found at large distances doesn’t discredit a selfcreating universe.

The farther apart two particles are, the less their universes coincide, overlap, the less

they contribute to each other’s energy, the weaker they interact, the lower the energy

they observe each other to have, the less definite according to one particle the position

and hence the motion, the behavior of the other particle is, the less defined, evolved

they observe each other’s properties to be ­as if they observe each other to be in an

‘earlier’ phase of their evolution as they are farther apart­ the greater their freedom of

behavior is relative to each other, the less their behavior is related, the less they have

in common, the less it makes sense to say that they live in the same time realm, that

time passes at the same pace at both particles.

This isn't to say that particle properties are different elsewhere: as a property isn’t

something a particle can privately own, as the universe cannot have certain properties,

be in any particular state as a whole, it only has to look different at different distances ­

which it does as the ‘same’ particle is observed to have a different energy by identical

particles at different distances so observe each other to be different, to have a lower

energy, a less definite behavior, corresponding to less definite, less evolved properties

as they are farther apart. If when the energy of a particle is the superposition of all

wavelengths it simultaneously exchanges energy in with particles at all distances, it

depends on the distance it is observed from what energy it is observed to have, what

evolutionary phase it is observed to be in, so if it has different energies simultaneously,

then it can be said to be in different evolutionary phases simultaneously, its actual

observed energy and evolutional phase depending on the observing particle, on its

own rest energy, its distance and motion relative to the observed.

If the same goes for a galaxy they form, a galaxy similarly can be said to be in different

evolutionary phases ‘simultaneously’ (quote marks as there is no universe­wide now in

a SCU) the phase it is observed to be in similarly depending on the observer.

The point is that while an observer in a distant galaxy may observe the Milky Way to be

in a similarly ‘early’ phase of its evolution as we see her galaxy; this doesn’t mean that

we may conclude that the entire universe grows older, that all galaxies are in about the

same evolutionary phase and evolve at the same pace everywhere: that it has a

beginning as that would mean that it has been created by some outside interference.

57

It must be said that, as far as I can see, to this day, Mach's principle has not brought physics

decisively farther. It must also be said that the origin of inertia is and remains the most obscure

subject in the theory of particles and fields. Mach's principle may therefore have a future ­ but

not without the quantum theory. —Abraham Pais1

3

The equality of gravitational and inertial massIF THE UNIVERSE would contain only a single particle, then all points in space would be

physically identical, indistinguishable to the particle ­which is the same as there being

no space at all. As there’s nothing relative to which its location can be specified, its

position is completely indefinite, corresponding, according to the UP, to a zero energy:

if there is nothing to interact with to express its existence, its properties, then it cannot

have properties, mass, inertia, exist itself.

Yet concepts like cosmic time and energy density of the universe central to BBC define

energy, space and time as independent, absolute quantities, presupposing that space

exist and time passes even when nothing happens, changes, like in a completely empty

or a one­particle universe: that energy, space and time exist, are defined even outside

of it. While Newton thought of the rotation of a body as a motion relative to absolute

space, as unrelated to the presence of other objects ­that space comes with a regular

grid where time passes at the same pace everywhere, relative to which distances and

motions of objects can be quantified; Mach’s insight that the inertia of a body is some­

thing it has relative to all other masses in the universe implies that particle properties

are cause and effect of their interactions: if he didn’t express it explicitly, then that may

be because it implies the communication between particles to be instant.

The difference between the points of view of Newton and Mach, between absolutism

and relationalism ­between the idea that the distance and motion of objects can be

specified relative to absolute space and time and the insight that we only can speak

about the distance and motion of an object relative to other objects­ comes down to

the difference in the belief that particle properties only are the cause of interactions ­

that the universe has been created by some outside interference­ and the idea implied

in Mach’s principle ­that we live in a selfcreating universe.

It is the classical ­essentially religious­ belief that there is an objective reality at the

origin of our observations, that the universe is an object which has certain properties

and is in some particular state as a whole which made it impossible for Mach and

Einstein to conclude that particles, particle properties must be as much the cause as

the effect of their interactions: that their communication is instant and energy, space

and time aren’t the unrelated quantities they are in BBC.

Despite stating that his theory proves that space and time would disappear along with

matter; Einstein couldn’t avoid describing space and energy as independent quantities 2

… the general theory of relativity … offers two possibilities:

1. The universe is spatially infinite. This is possible only if in the universe the average

spatial density of matter, concentrated in the stars, vanishes, i.e., if the ratio of the total

mass of the stars to the volume of the space through which they are scattered indefinitely

approaches zero as greater and greater volumes are considered.

2. The universe is spatially finite. This must be so, if there exists an average density of the

ponderable matter in the universe that is different from zero. The smaller that average

density, the greater is the volume of the universe. I must not fail to mention that a

theoretical argument can be adduced in favor of the hypothesis of a finite universe.

1 Subtle is the Lord: the Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (2005) Abraham Pais, pp. 287­288.2 A. Einstein, Geometry and Experience. Lecture before the Prussian Academy of Sciences, January 27, 1921

58

The general theory of relativity teaches that the inertia of a given body is greater as there

are more ponderable masses in proximity to it; thus it seems very natural to reduce the

total inertia of a body to interaction between it and the other bodies in the universe, as

indeed, ever since Newton's time, gravity has been completely reduced to interaction

between bodies. From the equations of the general theory of relativity it can be deduced

that this total reduction of inertia to interaction between masses ­as demanded by E.

Mach, for example­ is possible only if the universe is spatially finite. [my italics]

The problem is that as long as we conceive of energy, space and time as independent

quantities we cannot speak about its size as seen from within without at the same time

stating how large it is as ‘seen’ from the outside, that space and time exist, are defined

even in a universe devoid of energy and even outside of it. Though Einstein agreed with

Mach’s statement that the inertia of an objects is something it has relative to all other

masses in the universe,

…the general theory of relativity does not fully entail Mach’s principle as conceived by

Einstein in the sense that the energy tensor unequivocally and completely determines the

metric of spacetime. It could be shown that a particle in an otherwise empty universe can

possess inertia … Einstein's confidence in the principle gradually waned, so much so that

eventually, a year before his death, he declared that “one should no longer speak at all of

Mach’s principle.” 1

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2

Imagine we are far out in space, in a rocket ship accelerating at a constant rate g = 9.98

m/s². Things will feel just like they do on the surface of the Earth; we will feel a clear up­

down direction, bodies will fall to the floor when released, etc. … There is one key element

left out of this success story, however, and it is crucial to understanding why most

physicists reject Einstein's claim to have eliminated absolute states of motion in GRT.

Going back to our accelerating rocket, we accepted Einstein's claim that we could regard

the ship as hovering at rest in a universe­filling gravitational field. But one can see why the

Machian interpretation Einstein hoped he could give to the curved spacetimes of his

theory fails to be plausible, by considering a few simple ‘worlds’ permitted by GRT.

In the first place, for our hovering rocket ship, if we are to attribute the gravity field it feels

to matter, there has got to be all this other matter in the universe. But if we regard the

rocket as a mere ‘test body’ (not itself substantially affecting the gravity present or absent

in the universe), then we can note that according to GRT, if we remove all the stars,

galaxies, planets etc. from the world, the gravitational field does not disappear. On the

contrary, it stays basically the same locally, and globally it takes the form of empty

Minkowski spacetime, precisely the quasi­absolute structure Einstein was hoping to

eliminate. … physicists do not doubt that something like our accelerating rocket ­in

otherwise empty space­ is possible according to the theory. We see clearly, then, that GRT

fails to satisfy Einstein's own understanding of Mach's Principle, according to which, in the

absence of matter, space itself should not be able to exist.

A second example: GRT allows us to model a single rotating object in an otherwise empty

universe (e.g., a neutron star). Relationalism of the Machian variety says that such

rotation is impossible, since it can only be understood as rotation relative to some sort of

absolute space. In the case of GRT, this is basically right: the rotation is best understood as

rotation relative to a ‘background’ spacetime that is identical to the Minkowski spacetime

of SRT, only ‘curved’ by the presence of matter in the region of the star.

1 Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (2002) Max Jammer P 1502 Absolute and Relational Theories of Space and Motion (2018) Nick Huggett, Carl Hoefer § 9.3 ­ 9.4

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime­theories/ GTR and STR: general and special relativity theory.

Though many physicists consider space and time as relative quantities; in assuming that the rest energy of

particles only is the cause of interactions, they conceive of the rest energy of objects as an absolute

quantity, as something which BFPD can be quantified from outside the universe.

59

The problem that ‘if we remove all the stars, galaxies, planets etc. from the world, the

gravitational field does not disappear’ or that the rotation of a body in an otherwise

empty universe only can ‘be understood as rotation relative to some sort of absolute

space’ obviously doesn’t exist in a universe where particles would vanish without trace

if we could cut off their communication and with it spacetime, any gravitational field,

the universe itself ­ not to mention that in a SCU there is no Minkowski ‘background’

spacetime where time passes at the same pace everywhere.

Though the UP seems to imply that there is ‘an underlying background energy that

exists in space throughout the entire Universe;’1 we only can say that energy exists in

space if energy and space would be independent quantities, if space would exist, be

defined even before there is energy ­and energy wouldn’t be able to curve space as

energy only can act upon energy. As in a SCU it is localized energy which makes points

at different distances physically different, distinguishable ­the observed pace of time

and length of rods­ energy and space aren’t the independent quantities they are in BBC

so here we cannot speak about the vacuum energy density of the universe.

As the universe cannot have some particular property as a whole, space cannot have

an energy density which is the same everywhere so the energy of the virtual particles

of empty space doesn’t just, like the price of real estate, only depend on its location ­

higher near masses­ but also on the observer or observing particle, on the distance

they are observed from. If clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more

distant, then so is the frequency the particles of the vacuum energy are observed to

oscillate at: the more distant, the lower their observed energy is so if we associate a

lower energy with less defined properties, then at a larger distance we see the particles

of empty space in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution to the elementary particles of

ordinary matter, of the gravitational field of massive objects they are the interference

products, the offspring and progenitors of.

IF IN A SCU two points only are observed to be spatially separated if time is observed to

pass at a slightly slower pace at the more remote point, if clocks are observed to run at

a slower pace as they are more distant even when at rest, and the gravitational field of

a black hole, say, is an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime, of spacetime distance from the

observer to the mass center of the hole ­a distance which as measured within its field is

larger than as ‘measured’ outside of it, i.e., as calculated from its position relative to

surrounding stars­ then the pace at which he observes a clock to run at different

distances from the hole follows the field gradient, to be slower nearer to the hole’s

mass center, while in empty space, where its field is negligible, the observed pace of a

clock decreases linearly with its distance to the observer. While in a BBU clocks at rest

are observed to run at the same pace at all distances in empty space, to only run at a

slower pace near masses, as the gravitational field at the clock is stronger than it is at

the observer; if in a universe which contains, produces all time inside of it, clocks must

be observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant and the gravitational field

of the hole constitutes a larger spacetime distance between the observer and its mass

center than as seen from outside the field, then a clock at its center must observed to

run at a slower pace than it would at the same distance as ‘measured’ outside its field,

as calculated from its position relative to surrounding stars, there is a gradual transition

between the pace of time inside a gravitational field and in empty space.

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy (12­4­2020)

60

We might perhaps say that as seen from afar the gravitational field nearer the hole’s

center constitutes a more private spacetime, whereas farther from the hole it turns

increasingly into the common spacetime as shaped by masses at all distances.

The observed pace of a clock in this common, empty spacetime only varies linearly with

the distance it is observed from if the large scale distribution of mass is more or less

homogenous ­a homogeneity which is unavoidable in a universe where, as the energy

of objects is cause and effect of their interactions, the energy of an object increases ­is

created­ preferably at rest relative to the objects to which it owes its energy.

That is, whereas a SCU for obvious reasons is isotropic to observers everywhere; that

doesn’t mean that it is homogeneous: as it cannot have certain properties, be in any

particular state as a whole, the assumption of homogeneity big bang cosmology is

based upon is invalid so the Friedmann equations which relate the energy density of

the universe to its rate of expansion don’t apply.

While in a BBU time always passes at the same, objective pace everywhere, where it

only is its observed pace which depends on things like the distance and motion of the

observer relative to the observed, not the pace at which it passes, of itself, so to say; in

a SCU there is no such overarching, universe­wide ­cosmic­ pace of time: here its pace

is relative, different to different observers all of which are equally right about its pace.

WHILE IT SEEMS ‘natural to reduce the total inertia of a body to interaction between it

and the other bodies in the universe;’ if its mass equals its inertia then it owes its mass

to all other bodies in the universe. If the rest mass of a particle nevertheless seems to

be a fixed quantity, then that isn’t because it is a privately owned quantity, only the

cause of interactions but because a change would change the rest energy of all other

particles within its IH ­which would take very much energy to (temporarily) effectuate.

As long as we conceive of particle properties as intrinsic, interaction independent

quantities, only the cause of forces will it remain a mystery what the origin is of their

mass, what gravity is, why it is as it is, why the inertial mass of a body ­its opposition to

a change of its state of motion­ equals its gravitational mass as inferred from the

gravitational force it exerts and feels. Wolfgang Rindler: 1

Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity starting from the assumption

that this correspondence between inertial and (passive) gravitational mass is not

accidental: that no experiment will ever detect a difference between them. However, in

the resulting theory, gravitation is not a force and thus not subject to Newton’s third law,

so the equality of inertial and active gravitational mass ... remains as puzzling as ever. In

general relativity two of Einstein’s concerns merged: gravity as an aspect of inertia, and

the elimination of the absolute (that is, uninfluenceable) set of extended inertial frames.

The new inertial standard is spacetime, and this is directly influenced by active

gravitational mass via the field equations. Yet in the total absence of mass and other

disturbances like gravitational waves, spacetime would straighten itself out into the old

family of extended inertial frames. This would seem to contradict Mach’s idea that all

inertia is caused by cosmic masses. Einstein was eventually equally quite willing to drop

that idea, and so shall we. The equality of inertial and active gravitational mass then

remains as puzzling as ever. It would be nice if the inertial mass of an accelerating particle

were simply a back­reaction to its own gravitational field, but that is not the case.

Clearly, if the mass of particles powers and is powered by their energy exchange, then

their attraction due to their gravitational mass obviously cannot be unequal to their

inertia, to the force with which they oppose their attraction, forces with which they

anchor each other to the positions from which they exchange energy to express and

1 Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2001),Wolfgang Rindler 2nd edition p 22

61

preserve their, each other’s mass, from which they attract and simultaneously oppose

that attraction, so there’s nothing mysterious about the equality of gravitational and

inertial mass ­which of course only works if their communication is instant.

Though gravitation in GR isn’t supposed to be ‘a force and thus not subject to Newton’s

third law;’ it doesn’t really matter whether we interpret the acceleration of two masses

floating in empty space toward each other as caused by a force or by the curvature of

spacetime. To say that energy causes spacetime to curve ­a curvature which affects the

motion of objects­ is the same as saying that energy causes, forces them to follow a

certain trajectory: as their inertia opposes such coercion, we can as well say that the

energy curving spacetime acts as a counter force to it, as a source of gravity.

As a force cannot be unequal to the counterforce it meets, particles only can accelerate

if both forces change equally: it is gravity, the tendency of energy to increase, to keep

creating itself inherent to a SCU which makes that they can accelerate relative to each

other or contract at places even though both opposite forces remain equally strong,

which drives the events, the changes we experience as the passing of time.

LET’S ASSUME THAT a particle cannot distinguish between the rest mass, distance and

motion of another particle and loosely define the mass they observe each other to

have as equal or proportional to the force between them ­or to the frequency they

exchange energy at. According to Newton’s law of gravitation, the attraction between

particles A and B is proportional to the mass of A and B and inversely proportional to

the square of their distance. As the force A feels from B ­the mass A observes B to

have­ is proportional to A’s own mass, it depends on A’s own mass and its distance to B

what mass it observes B to have. If the force A exerts on B equals the force B exerts

upon A and we could increase A’s mass without changing their distance ­if we increase

the force A exerts on B­ then we also would increase the force B exerts on A and with it

the mass A observes B to have, so Newton’s 3rd law implies, all by itself, that the mass

of particles is cause and effect of their interactions, of forces between them and hence

that their communication is instant ­as indeed, a force between them only can remain

equal to the counterforce it meets or is able to evoke if their communication is instant.

Clearly, if when particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions with all

particles within their IH, of forces between them, a force cannot be either attractive or

repulsive, of itself, if their attraction due to one kind of charge only can increase as

much as their opposition to it, as their repulsion due to another kind of charge, then, as

will be explored in § 7, this has far­reaching consequences for the unification of forces.

The greater their mass is, the stronger their gravitational attraction and hence their

repulsion, their opposition to it, their inertia, the more energy it takes to change their

distance or relative motion, the greater their inertia, their mass is.1

It is because of the equality of mass and inertia why the acceleration of a body in free

fall in a gravitational field is independent from its own mass: the greater its mass, the

stronger the gravitational force it feels but the greater its inertia, its opposition to it is.

The greater their mass is and/or the smaller their distance when at rest relative to each

other, the stronger their attraction and opposition to it is, the more energy it takes to

change their distance as it takes more energy per unit distance to change their distance

as they are nearer to each other, the more it matters, energetically, how large or small

their distance exactly is, the less uncertain or indefinite their distance is.2

1 As discussed above, circular reasonings are appropriate in a selfcreating ­selfcontained­ universe.2 This is contrary to the customary definition according to which the uncertainty in the position of a

particle is smaller as there is less energy involved in a change of its position.

62

If at equilibrium, at a shorter distance both their attraction and repulsion is stronger

and a shorter, less indefinite distance according to the UP corresponds to a higher

energy ­which must be supplied by the environment so it is the environment which

powers their opposition to a further decrease of their distance, then the UP can be

thought of as acting like a repulsive force. If when their energy is cause and effect of

forces between them, a force only can be as strong as the counter force it meets, then

gravity and the uncertainty principle are the two sides of a single coin.

If a force cannot exceed the counterforce it meets, then we cannot accuse gravity of

causing massive particles to contract as time passes, say that mass causally precedes

gravity: it is their contraction, the creation, the increase of their energy which increases

both their attraction and their opposition to it, their mass and inertia, which drives the

events, the changes we experience as the passing of time.

4

The energy of empty spacetimeThe belief that it is the same time, that time passes at the same pace everywhere no

matter whether or not something happens, changes, together with a concept like the

energy density of the universe show that BBC conceives of energy, space and time as

unrelated quantities: that space and time exist, that the length of the meter and

duration of the second are defined even in a universe devoid of energy and even

outside of it, that it lives in a space and time realm not of its own making, as if it is an

ordinary object we only for practical difficulties cannot observe from the outside.

As a result, the expansion of the universe had to be thought of as the increase of the

distance in space between objects as time passes with the same factor anywhere, so in

BBC space is produced at the same rate everywhere at the same moment in cosmic

time, a rate which observations indicate is different in different epochs.

Besides omitting to explain how the universe can have a beginning if when it can create

itself, it always could; as its creation violates conservation laws, it isn’t surprising that

big bang cosmology also fails to offer even the beginning of an idea about the origin of

the energy created at the big bang ­of the rest energy of the particles created and of

the kinetic energy of their motion away from each other, energies the relative amounts

of which cannot be explained even in principle as they could have had any value at all.

As it cannot explain the observed flatness and isotropy of the universe, BBC had to

resort to further magic ­cosmic inflation­ to cause it, to save the big bang tale.

As observations seem to indicate that its expansion, after having slowed down the first

nine billion years due to gravity, suddenly started to accelerate some four billion years

ago, one had to propose the appearance of a repulsive, antigravitational kind of energy

to drive this acceleration, an energy which retrospectively also was tasked to drive the

inflation of the universe shortly into the big bang, be it that its density was very much

higher in the inflationary epoch.

While it is a complete mystery how this energy could know when it ought to assume a

nonzero value to start accelerating the expansion of space, how its value could be quite

different in different epochs ­high during inflation, zero the first nine billion years and

incomprehensibly small at present­ cosmologists nevertheless managed to convince

each other that this energy is an intrinsic property of space ­not bothering about the

question how, as the newly created space comes with the same energy density so

ought to keep expanding forever, it at the end of inflation knew to start to convert

63

itself into the particles of the standard model instead of keep inflating space, how it

knew what properties they should pop up with. To explain these improbabilities, BBC

invents more unlikely mechanisms instead of explaining things from first principle.

However this may be; the point is that space in BBC is thought of as some rarefied kind

of stuff which is the same everywhere, always, something which can be bought per

cubic meter, so to say, as if it comes imprinted with millimeter marks, a grid where

clocks run at the same pace everywhere and relative to which we can specify locations

and velocities of objects, as if space and time, the length of the meter and duration of

the second are defined even in a space devoid of energy, even outside the universe.

The idea that space comes with a certain energy density doesn’t come out of the blue.

As according to the UP the strength of a field at any point in space and its rate of

change cannot both have exact values simultaneously ­be and remain zero­ empty

space is supposed to contain energy in the form of fields the quanta of which ­virtual

particle antiparticle pairs­ continually pop up in space to annihilate after a time which

is shorter as their energy is higher, implying ‘that over sufficiently small distances and

sufficiently brief intervals of time, the “very geometry of spacetime fluctuates.”1

Since a higher energy (E = hv = hc/ λ) corresponds to a higher frequency v or smaller

wavelength λ ­to a shorter time, a smaller volume of space­ this vacuum energy is

supposed to give rise to a huge energy density of empty space:

The density of this energy depends critically on where the frequency of the zero­point

fluctuations cease. Since space itself is thought to break up into a kind of quantum foam at

a tiny distance scale called the Planck length (10−35 m), it is argued that the zero­point

fluctuations must cease at the corresponding Planck frequency. If that is the case, then the

zero­point energy density would be 108 orders of magnitude greater than the radiant

energy at the center of the Sun. … This energy is so enormous that most physicists believe

that even though zero­point energy seems to be an inescapable consequence of quantum

field theory, it cannot be physically real, and so is subtracted away in calculations by ad

hoc means.2

Because the gravitational effects this vacuum energy should have aren't actually

observed, some physicists started to doubt quantum mechanics itself.3

Gerard ‘t Hooft, about his fellow Nobel laureate, Martinus Veltman

Veltman was not to be convinced that what we call empty space perhaps is filled to the

brim with invisible particles. He would persist for a long time that he thought this

incredible. … For shouldn’t all these particles in empty space betray their presence by

their gravitational field? You can establish a theory in such a manner that this

gravitational field exactly is compensated by other invisible particles or by a mysterious

contribution of empty space itself. How nature manages to mask the gravitational effects

of invisible vacuum particles so completely that we don’t notice any effect, is a mystery 4

The most radical view ... is that space and time only exist as a separate set of points; [that]

particles can only be at those points but not in between. … this would be the most logical

interpretation, for ‘quantum fluctuations’ would ensure that all points where particles can

be automatically stay at least one Planck length apart. But it isn’t that easy, for how do we

then explain how these points are related to form the known space and time? 5

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam#Background (12­8­2019)2 E. W. Davis c. s., http://www.calphysics.org/articles/Davis_STAIF06.pdf P 1, 2, 53 Lee Smolin (in The Trouble with Physics (2006) p. 319): “Like ‘t Hooft, much of his [Roger Penrose’s] work

in the last two decades is motivated by his conviction that quantum mechanics is wrong.” 4 De bouwstenen van de schepping (1st ed. 1992) Gerard ’t Hooft, p 197. This quote does not appear in the

6th ed. 2002) (In search of the ultimate building blocks)5 De bouwstenen van de schepping ( 6th ed. 2002) Gerard ‘t Hooft, p. 106

64

It is clear that as long as we think of the rest energy of particle as privately owned,

interaction ­space­ independent quantities, only the cause of forces, and hence of

space as something the nature of which then shouldn’t be affected, be curved by

whatever it may come to contain, it will remain a mystery how, different ‘points are

related to form the known space and time,’ what the origin is of the mass of particles,

what gravity is, why it is as it is.

The need for a kind of energy to drive the inflation and accelerating expansion of space

to save the big bang tale apparently outweighed the consideration that as gravitons ­

the hypothetical quanta of gravity, elementary particles which mediate the force of

gravity1 ­ couple to everything which has energy, including the virtual particles the UP

implies space to contain, it ought to make the universe contract instead of expand.

If energy only can drive a force if it can be localized, if it comes in quanta which have a

position to act from and be acted upon, then it is hard to see how the same particles

can gravitationally attract and at the same time power a repulsion exceeding their

attraction to increase their distance, drive the inflation and accelerating expansion of

space, especially as the increase of their distance should increase their mass since we

have agreed that if they contract at places, their mass decreases as they emit energy.

The idea that the same particles can be the source of two opposite, independent kinds

of energy only might make sense if we were to ignore Newton’s 3rd law, if their energy

only would be the cause, but not also, simultaneously, the effect of their interactions: if

they, the universe would have been created by some outside Creator ­Who then either

has preordained when the expansion of the universe should start to accelerate at its

creation or Who keeps adjusting its rate as we speak, whenever it suits Her.

While the UP in a BBU does imply spacetime space to contain energy; the problem is

that even if it would drive the expansion of space, it doesn’t say where that energy is to

come from if it is to obey the energy conservation law nor what its density ought to be.

As a particle in a SCU has no infinitely sharp, fundamental boundary separating its

energy from (its effect on) spacetime and the magnitude and sign of its energy varies in

a wavelike manner within every cycle of its oscillation, then so does the indefiniteness

in the position from which it(s energy) acts and is acted upon. As it is localized energy

which makes positions at different distances physically different and the extent to

which it is localized ­the definiteness in the position it acts from­ varies within every

cycle of its oscillation, what we call ‘particle’ is a wave phenomenon, a modulation in

and of spacetime, an area where the extent to which spacetime is defined, to which

the observed pace of clocks and length of rods differs from one point, one distance to

its mass center to the next varies in a wavelike manner in space and time.

If the energy of the virtual particles the UP insists empty spacetime to ‘contain’ is cause

and effect of their interactions with everything within their IH, then this suggests that

these particles/waves are the volatile interference products of the real particles/waves

of the galaxies in the vicinity of which they pop up: that it are the quanta of their

gravitational field ­quote marks on contain as this suggests that space exists even in the

absence of energy, as in a SCU the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime.

The farther from masses, the longer the wavelengths of the interfering waves is, the

lower the energy of the resulting virtual particles of empty space is, the less definite

their position is, the less defined, the emptier spacetime is, the less the pace of clocks

and length of rods differs from one point to the next in the area where they can be

localized, the less a particle can have a predilection for one location above the other,

1 A supposition which is at odds with the idea in general relativity theory that gravity isn’t a force.

65

the less definite its position and hence the behavior is from which its properties can be

inferred, the less definite, the less evolved its properties are observed to be.

THE FARTHER FROM masses, the emptier spacetime is, the less a massive particle can

have a predilection for one position above another, the less it can have a well­defined

position, the less it can be at rest in such region and from there express its mass, exert

force, obstruct the contraction of particles to galaxies, the more it tends to migrate to

massive object surrounding the region, as if it is repulsed by empty space or attracted

by masses surrounding it, the emptier spacetime tends to stay.

If the virtual particles of empty spacetime indeed are the quanta of the gravitational

field of galaxies, then it is conceivable that they may eventually evolve to elementary

particles, be absorbed by the galaxies, and, given the tendency of energy to increase,

to keep creating itself, to eventually end up in the black hole at the center of their

galaxy, the increased mass of the galaxy increasing the energy of the virtual particles of

its gravitational field … particles which in turn evolve to elementary particles.

If particles only can contract to clusters, their energy only increase at places where

they can remain at rest relative to the objects, the galaxies to which they owe their

energy and to the energy of which they contribute, where forces are equal from all

directions, in areas at the center of such large, empty regions, then this may result in

what in a BBU would be a homogeneous, but in a SCU is an isotropic mass distribution.

AS SPACE ISN’T defined in the absence of energy, we cannot (as in quantum loop

gravity which tries to unify GR with QM, where space and time are granular, discrete)

think of space as if it comes in minimum (Planck­length) sized cubes, building blocks of

space, nor can we think of time as passing jerkily in discrete amounts.

Like there can be no universe­wide minimum distance as to quantify it presupposes the

existence of a measurer the marks of which are separated by even shorter distances ­in

which case space would be defined at infinitesimal scale, that space, the length of the

meter then would be defined even outside the universe; a minimum duration implies a

the existence of a clock the marks of which are separated by even shorter time

intervals, not to mention that if space would come in minimum building blocks, the

universe would be an object which has some particular graininess as a whole.

The idea that time passes in discrete, minimum time intervals originates in the naïve

belief that there is a universe­wide now, that the universe lives in a time realm not of

its own making, that time eternally passes at the same, particular, unperturbable pace,

of itself, whether or not something happens, changes, even though this is impossible as

to quantify its pace ­whether it passes slow or fast­ would require the existence of a

clock outside the universe to compare its pace with, a clock the pace of which to

establish in turn would require the existence of yet another clock … etcetera.

If when the energy of particles is a wavelike quantity, they only can be at equilibrium as

they exchange energy in counter phase ­which they are at distances equal to (2n +1)/2

times the wavelength they exchange energy in (with n = 1, 2c …)­ then it isn’t space

which is quantified, which it comes in discrete cubes the size of which is the same

everywhere, but the distances between particles.

Though it takes a discrete amount of energy to jump from one equilibrium distance to

the next ­whereby n, the number of waves which fit in their distance changes with 1

and the wavelength they exchange energy in shrinks or stretches at the jump; if the

amount of energy which is emitted or absorbed at the jump depends on their distance

and on the wavelength they exchange energy in, then so does the length of the jump.

66

The farther apart they are and the lower their rest energy is, the longer, the less

definite the wavelength they exchange energy in, the less definite their distance is and

hence the less definite the length of the jump between two successive equilibrium

distances is, the less it matters energetically how large it exactly is, as if it is less

precisely measured off, so to say ­as opposed to ‘t Hoofts view where particles are

separated by distances equal to an integer number of minimum building blocks of

space ­Planck lengths­ everywhere, independent from their rest energy and distance,

as if space and time exist independent from what it may come to contain. If we were to

say that space is granular, then the size of the building blocks of space would be less

definite, their dimensions fuzzier as observed from a larger distance ­which is another

way of saying that spacetime is less defined as observed from a larger distance.

AS IN THE classical view time passes at the same pace everywhere and the rest energy

of a particle is an intrinsic, static quantity (ignoring quantum fluctuations), it at all times

exists somewhere with all its properties at full strength, with 100% of its energy, it at

all times ought to have both an exact location and momentum, the UP for a time was

thought to say that we only for practical reasons ­the fact that the measurement of

one affects the magnitude of the other to a minimal, unpredictable extent­ cannot

determine both its exact position and momentum at the same time. On closer

examination it became clear that nature itself to some extent is indeterminate, that

there is an indefiniteness in both its position and momentum or in its energy and the

time it has that energy.

As in a selfcreating universe the magnitude and sign of the energy of a particle varies

within every cycle of its oscillation and we define the indefiniteness in its position as

being inversely proportional to its energy ­to its rate of change in space and time­ then

the indefiniteness in the position of its mass center varies in tandem with its

momentum in space and time. Whereas at the times in its cycle when its energy, its

rate of change in space ΔE/Δx and time ΔE/Δt is maximal, the indefiniteness in its

position is minimal, its mass is maximal ­as energy is a stronger source of gravity, acts

more like mass as the area it acts from is minimal­ and its velocity minimal;1 at the

times when its rate of change is minimal, the indefiniteness in the position its energy

acts from is maximal, the indefiniteness in its momentum minimal.

If the indefiniteness in the position of a particle varies with its energy, with its rate of

change in space and time and it is its energy which makes points at different distances

physically different ­the observed pace of clocks and length of rods­ then a particle is a

modulation in and of spacetime.

We might say that it alternates a phase in which it, its energy acts more like a particle,

from a well­defined position with a phase in which its energy acts more like a wave

phenomenon, more equally, more simultaneously and weaker from all points over a

larger area of space, so if energy is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, then so is spacetime,

as if it alternately expands and contracts or rather, that the extent to which different

positions differ physically varies in space and time.

In the picture where space and time are discrete, granular, where particles only can be

at points separated by Planck lengths and not in between, we only can ask ‘how these

points are related to form the known space and time’ if the rest energy of particles

would be an intrinsic, interaction ­space and time­ independent quantity, if energy,

space and time would be unrelated quantities, in a universe which lives in a space and

time continuum not of its own making, if energy, space and time would be defined

even outside the universe, if it would be an ordinary object.

1 If at the speed of light the position of a particle is completely indefinite, then that suggests that its

position is less definite as its velocity is higher.

67

5

The distance redshift inherent to a selfcreating universeIF WHEN TWO hydrogen atoms in the same excited state at different distances from an

observer emit a photon as they de­excite to the ground state, then the photons must

be observed to have a different wavelength, a different energy: if a different distance

between the light source and observer constitutes a physically different situation, then

the photons cannot be observed to have the exact same energy. If the observed color

of the light of a galaxy depends on the rate of change of its distance as a different rate

of change of its distance is a physically different situation, its color also should vary

with its distance when at rest if the information about its distance is to be conveyed.

The objection that the time the photon transmission takes contains information about

the distance of its source only might hold if light would move at a finite speed through

space, in time, in a universe which lives in a time realm not of its own making.

If the universe by definition has no external reality so doesn’t live in a time realm not of

its own making but contains, produces all time within, then clocks cannot be observed

to run at the same pace, the same spectral lines of galaxies be observed to have the

same wavelength at all distances even when they are at rest relative to us ­though it

remains to be seen whether or not a distance redshift implies some kind of expansion if

in a SCU the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime. If when the properties of

particles, of the atoms they form are cause and effect of their interactions with all

other particles, their communication is instant so an atom cannot emit a photon

without the cooperation of the atom which is to absorb that photon, then, as will be

discussed in § 9, this must mean that that both atoms together determine the time of

its emission and its energy ­an energy which then ought to depend on their distance

and its rate of change. If in a SCU two points only are observed to be separated in

space, at different distances if clocks at both points are observed to run at a slightly

different pace, then the observed color of a light source shouldn’t only depend on the

rate of change of its distance relative to the observer but also on their distance.

If the pitch of the siren of an ambulance only depends on it velocity relative to us, not

on its distance, then that is because the siren is the unambiguous cause of the sound

and sound propagates at a finite velocity through space ­the air­ in time. By contrast, if

to the photon its transmission is instant, if from the point of view of the photon there

is no distance in space nor time between the atoms it is transmitted so it only can be

emitted with the cooperation of the atom which is to absorb it, then the atom emitting

it is not the unambiguous, autonomous cause of its transmission so its emission cannot

causally precede its absorption elsewhere: as a different distance between the atoms is

a physically, energetically different situation, the energy of the photon should depend

on their distance and hence on its rate of change ­and only is possible if atoms can be

in different states simultaneously.

IF THE SIGN of the energy or charge of particle A alternates at a constant frequency (so

it is a source of electromagnetic radiation) then from the point of view of particle B at

rest relative to A, able to detect that radiation, the position from which A emits

radiation is less definite as their distance is greater. The farther apart they are, the less

definite according to B the distance is from which A emits electromagnetic waves, the

less definite the distance is between the tops of two successive wave crests, the less

definite, the longer the wavelength of the wave is, the less definite the time is at which

B observes A’s charge sign to flip, the lower the frequency is of the radiation, at which

B observes A to oscillate at ­or, equivalently, the slower B observes time to pass at A.

68

Now if B doesn’t just detect that radiation but its frequency is the frequency at which A

and B exchange energy at ­if any kind of charge contributes to, is an expression of the

energy of particles­ then that frequency depends on the rest energy of A and B, their

distance and its rate of change. If when a particle to express and preserve its properties

exchanges energy with particles at all distances, it does so in many frequencies at once,

then its energy can be thought of as the superposition of energies, of all wavelengths it

exchanges energy in with particles at all distances: the greater (shorter) their distance,

the longer (shorter) the wavelength or the lower (higher) the frequency they exchange

energy in, at, the less (more) they contribute to each other’s energy, the less (more)

their interaction horizons, their universes coincide, overlap, the less (more) related

their behavior, their properties are.

IT TAKES MUCH more energy to increase the distance between a magnet and a nail

from 1 to 2 millimeter than to increase it from 1 to 2 meter, so if we were to define

their distance in terms of the energy involved in a change of their distance ­define the

unit length as the displacement which takes one joule of energy, say­ then we would

conclude that there is increasingly more space ‘contracted’ within what to us looks like

a smaller volume nearer to the magnet, as measured with a measurer the length of

which isn’t affected by the magnetic field.

Similarly, if it takes more energy to increase the distance between two masses when

they are nearer to each other than the same displacement when farther apart and /or

their mass is greater and we were to define the unit length as the displacement of a

massive test particle in the gravitational field of an object ­a black hole, say­ which

takes one joule of energy and use this to construct a measuring rod the distance

between any two successive marks of which adjusts to the local strength of the field in

such manner that they always show an energy difference of one joule it takes to

change the distance between the particle and the hole, then such ruler would shrink

nearer to the hole, as seen from outside its gravitational field. The nearer to the hole

and the more massive it is ­i.e., the less indefinite as seen from outside its gravitational

field the position of its mass center is, the point from which its energy acts as a source

of gravity­ the stronger the gravitational field at the measurer is compared to the field

at the observer, the smaller she observes the distance between the markings of the

measurer to be, as if she looks at it from a larger distance ­like we see the white stripes

on the middle of the road shrink at larger distances ­which she does indeed.

Since as measured locally the speed of light is the same everywhere, a flashing light

moving at a constant velocity toward the hole as measured locally, the distant observer

will observe the flasher decelerate, the frequency of the flashes decrease and its light

shift to red nearer to the hole because as seen from outside of it, the gravitational field

of the hole constitutes an area of ‘condensed’ spacetime and, in a SCU, clocks at rest

must be observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant ­which is to say, as

their spacetime distance is larger. Quote marks on condensed as it wrongly suggests

that the mass of the hole only distorts, warps, contracts an already existing amount of

space, a volume which would be undistorted in the absence of the hole: while the hole

does curve spacetime in its vicinity, it is itself a local extension of spacetime ­which

unfolds to the test particle penetrating its gravitational field, that spacetime.

It is because as measured inside its field, the spacetime distance between the observer

and the hole’s center is much larger than as ‘measured’ outside of it, i.e., as calculated

from their locations relative to surrounding stars why he observes a clock nearer to the

hole run at a slower pace than a clock at the ‘same’ location when there would be no

black hole: because in a SCU clocks at rest must be observed to run at a slower pace in

empty space, far from masses, as their spacetime distance to the observer is larger.

69

So unlike in a BBU where time passes at the same pace everywhere in empty space, far

from masses (in Minkowski space), where clocks at rest only are observed to run at a

slower pace in a gravitational field or when they recede faster from; in a SCU they also

are observed to run at a slower pace when at rest in empty spacetime ­be it that the

pace difference is so small that it only is observable at large distances.

The velocity and gravitational length contraction and time dilation of relativity theory

would have been discovered much earlier had one realized that as by definition there

is nothing outside the universe, that it only exists as seen from within so doesn’t live in

a time realm not of its own making but contains, produces all time within, time cannot

be observed to pass at the same pace everywhere. As energy, space and time in a SCU

are intrinsically related, space cannot, as in BBC, be thought of as some homogeneous,

rarefied 3­dimensional kind of stuff which is the same everywhere, always, as if it

comes with millimeter marks, of time as passing at the same pace everywhere. We

only can speak about the properties, size, age and state of the universe if we imagine

looking at it from the outside, if it would live in a space and time realm not if its own

making, if it has been created by some outside intervention.

The gravitational time dilation aka gravitational redshift of general relativity in fact can

be identified as the (spacetime) distance redshift inherent to a selfcreating universe.

6

The selfcreation of energy: particles and antiparticlesIF, AS IN the classical view, the rest energy of particles would be a privately owned,

static quantity, only the cause of interactions, then the sign of their electric charge

would either be positive or negative, always. As in that case the electric repulsion

between the parts of a finite­sized electron would be strong enough to tear it apart, it

is thought to be a dimensionless point­particle. The problem that interaction energies

and forces between charged point particles then would become infinite at infinitesimal

distances ­implying them to have an infinite electric charge is solved by positing that

they are shrouded in a cloud of short­lived virtual electron­positron pairs which are

temporally created out of the force fields of the real particles, of electric dipoles which

by orienting themselves in the electric field of a real charged particle screen its

supposedly infinite bare self­energy and electric charge, resulting in the finite values

observed in experiments, a phenomenon called vacuum polarization.

If in a universe where particles exchange energy to express and preserve their, each

other’s properties, their energy is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, in one phase as

positive as it is negative in the next and any kind of charge contributes to, is an

expression of their energy so sign and magnitude of their electric charge alternates

within every cycle of their oscillation, their energy exchange, there obviously is no such

infinity problem, nor would there be a repulsive force between the parts of a finite­

sized electron to tear it apart if it could have a definite size at all, an infinitely sharp

boundary where the electron, its mass and charge end and their effect on space, their

gravitational and electric field begins ­which in a SCU it doesn’t.

As the attraction between particles only can become as strong as their repulsion, their

opposition to it, to an inertia they owe to the same particles to which they owe their

energy, their charge, interaction energies and forces between particles only becomes

infinite if we spend an infinite amount of energy to push them infinitely close together

70

so the uncertainty in their distance becomes infinitesimal, corresponding to an infinite

energy, an infinite mass and electric charge. As the energy to decrease (the uncertainty

in) their distance has to be supplied by the environment, it is the environment which

determines the distance at which they are at equilibrium, and with it the strength of

forces between them, the effective mass and charge they exhibit at that distance.

While the infinities which result from the assumption that their charge is an intrinsic,

static quantity, only the cause of forces, can be removed mathematically; if when the

energy powering a force between them is cause and effect of their interactions, a force

cannot be either attractive or repulsive, of itself, if when their energy is proportional to

the frequency its sign alternates at, the same goes for the sign and magnitude of their

charge, then their mass and charge obviously cannot become infinite, so in a SCU there

is no need for virtual electron­positron pairs to shield an infinite bare charge.

If we collide charged particles at higher momentum, they exhibit a greater charge, then

that isn’t because at a shorter distances the cloud of virtual electron­positron pairs is

thinner, less effective in screening their supposedly infinite electric charge, but because

by decreasing (the indefiniteness in) their distance, we increase (UP) their energy and

hence the magnitude of the electric charge.

If the energy of a particle is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, in one phase as positive as it

is negative in the next, then the same goes for the sign (or color) of any kind of charge

which contributes to, which is an expression of their energy.1

If we imagine an electron as a spherical wave and assign the color red to the phase in

which its energy sign is positive and green to the phase in which its sign is negative,

then a cross section would show circular bands the charge sign or color of which

alternates from one band to the next from red to green to red to … etc. whereby the

magnitude of the electric field ­the intensity of the color­ is maximal at the middle of

each band, places where its energy, its rate of change in space and time is maximal,

while its energy, the strength of its electric field decreases toward the edges of the

bands, where their color pales, where its energy sign ­the color of the band­ changes

and its energy / charge for a short time is zero.2

If when the energy of the electron, its rate of change in space and time varies within

every cycle of its oscillation, then so does the indefiniteness in its position, so if its

position twice in every cycle becomes completely indefinite as its energy for a short

time becomes zero, then we might say that in this phase it returns or picks up itself the

energy it alternately borrows from and lends to the particles within its IH.

It would then in every cycle of its oscillation alternately act like what classically would

be a fermion, boson, antifermion and antiboson ­reminding of supersymmetry, a

theory which tries to figure out how gravity might be related to the other forces of

nature by investigating the relation between fermions, particles which have properties,

and bosons, particles to communicate those properties, a theory which posits that

every elementary fermion has a (supersymmetric) bosonic partner and vice versa.

Fermions are extreme individuals. No matter how hard you try, you will not get two of

them to do the same thing in the same place ­there must always be a difference between

them. Bosons, on the other hand, have no such constraint and are happy to join each

other in a common dance. This is why electrons, which are fermions, sit on separate shells

around atomic nuclei. If they were bosons, they would instead sit together on the same

shell … Supersymmetry postulates that the laws of nature remain the same when bosons

1in the sense that the three ‘colors’ of the quarks of baryons add to ‘white’ ­i.e., to a zero color charge.

2 That is, if there would be a universe­wide present. As particles at different distances observe it to be in a

different phase, we cannot really say that it vanishes for a short time every time its energy sign flips.

71

are exchanged with fermions. This means that every known boson must have a fermionic

partner and every fermion a bosonic partner. But besides differing in their fermionic or

bosonic affiliation, partner particles must be identical. … Unfortunately, the equations of

supersymmetry do not tell us what the masses of the SUSY partners are. … Besides

revealing that bosons and fermions are the two sides of the same coin, SUSY also aids in

the unification of fundamental forces …1

If when their properties are cause and effect of their interactions, particles only can be

identical if their interaction horizons are identical, if they are at the same place at the

same time; as the uncertainty in their position would be infinitesimal, corresponding to

an infinite energy, it isn’t surprising that identical fermions cannot be at the same place

at the same time, be in the same state and move in the exact same fashion. Though the

the distinction between fermions and bosons has been very helpful to quantify particle

interactions; there is something artificial in the distinction between particles which

have properties and particles to express them, to mediate forces since if when, as in

the current view, photons and gravitons move at a finite light velocity, this implies that

fermion properties then only are the cause and not also the effect of their interactions,

meaning that the origin of their energy ­of any kind of charge which contributes to,

which is a manifestation of their energy­ cannot be understood even in principle.

If when the universe, if quantum mechanics ultimately cannot be understood causally,

only rationally ­if particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions­ their

communication is instant so massless bosons cannot be ascribed a position, then we

cannot think of it as real, physical particles which move through space, in time, even

though the energy they are thought to transmit comes in discrete, particle­like packets.

Whereas in a SCU every particle is its own antiparticle, its energy proportional to the

frequency its energy / charge sign alternates at; an electron which always is in counter

phase with a regular electron would, if they could simultaneously be at the same place

without noticing, affecting (annihilating) each other, act like what classically would be

an antielectron, accelerate in opposite directions in an electric or magnetic field.

This isn’t to say that there are no positrons; only that an ‘antiparticle’ in a SCU is a

temporary energy repository which for the time it exists always is at such place and

moves in such manner that it is in counterphase with an electron at the same place and

time. If it is deflected in an opposite direction in an electric or magnetic field than an

electron, then that isn't because electrons and positrons are separate particle species

the charge sign of which is fixed and opposite, but because the positron is an electron

which is in counterphase with the environment it is created in, existing as long as

nature hasn’t decided when to annihilate it with its regular counterpart(icle).

Though the strength of a static electric or magnetic field is on average constant in time;

if it is generated by electrons the energy / charge sign of which alternates, then so does

the sign of the field at every point of space, so the positron, oscillating in counterphase

with the electron, feels a force from a direction opposite to that what the electron

feels at the same place and time so is deflected by the field in the opposite direction.

IF ELECTRICALLY CHARGED particles would autonomously, spontaneously emit and

absorb virtual photons and gravitons to communicate their charge and mass and their

emission (absorption) decreases (increases) their energy, then their energy, their

charge and mass would randomly vary in time, so an electron, say, might lose all its

energy and cease to exist ­if not for the uncertainty principle.

1 Hossenfelder S. (2018) Lost in math p. 11 ­ 12.

72

While according to the UP the variation ΔE in the energy of the electron may last for a

shorter time Δt as it is higher; it is unclear how the particles in its environment can

know when to replete a deficit in its energy, when they are to send virtual photons and

gravitons of the right energy in the right direction, especially if when they move at a

finite (light) velocity, the emitting particles would have to be clairvoyant to predict the

position, velocity and energy of the electron at any future time to ensure the timely

arrival of photons and gravitons they send toward the electron to replete its energy.

How can the electron and the particles in its environment know what properties they

ought to have and ensure that any variation in their rest energy obeys the UP?

This only can be understood if particles express and at the same time preserve their,

each other’s properties by exchanging energy, if the exchange, their communication is

instant, so if the energy they observe, cause each other to have is proportional to the

frequency they exchange energy at ­or inversely proportional to the period Δt of the

loan­ then the UP is just another formulation of the Planck­Einstein relation E = hv.

An instant communication means that a particle cannot autonomously emit photons

and gravitons, that the fluctuation in its energy isn’t random but is the expression of

the wave character of particles, of their energy, something the sign and magnitude of

which varies within every cycle of their energy exchange: of the fact that we live in a

universe where particles, their properties are cause and effect of their interactions.

If according to the UP the energy of a particle cannot both have an exact value and its

rate of change be zero implies its energy to be a dynamic quantity, something which, as

its magnitude cannot increase indefinitely, eventually has to stop increasing and start

to decrease ­to increase negatively­ then this implies its sign to alternate, meaning that

a particle oscillates between what classically would be a particle and antiparticle state:

that any elementary particle is its own antiparticle.

The higher the rate of change of its energy is, the frequency it exchanges energy at, at

which the sign of its energy, of its electric charge, of the ‘color’ of the charge powering

the strong force alternates, the higher its energy is, the higher the effective magnitude

of any kind of charge is in interactions. If when its energy varies within every cycle of its

oscillation and with it the indefiniteness in its position and momentum, then we cannot

predict the exact momentum and position of two particles colliding in a collider at the

time of the collision. As we cannot keep track of the exact location and motion of all

particles to which they owe their energy, which affect their position and momentum,

the state they are in as they collide­ it is impossible to predict the outcome of the

experiment: we only can calculate the probability of each of the possible results of the

collision, values we find if we repeat the experiment many times.

If when particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions, a particle has no

infinitely sharp, fundamental boundary where it, its properties end and space begins,

the environment to which it owes its properties, and we would take the indefiniteness

in the position as a measure of its size, then its size would vary within every cycle of its

oscillation so in a SCU there are no dimensionless point particles, no infinite charge

which needs to be screened to keep the illusion intact that the electric charge of a

particle is an intrinsic and hence static quantity, only the cause of forces.

If we encounter an infinite or infinitesimal value for some quantity or particle property,

then that usually is because we omitted to specify relative to what it has that value, an

omission which only would be justified if the quantity or property in question would be

an objective quantity, only the cause of interactions, or, as in the case of a gravitational

singularity, if we conceive of energy and space as independent quantities, if energy and

space would be defined even outside the universe.

73

IN A UNIVERSE which contains two particles A and B the wavelength they exchange

energy in might vary continuously with their distance ­if not that to be able to exert

force upon each other requires the existence of particles in opposite directions to act

upon A and B, to oppose the force they exert upon each other, particles which to be

able to offer such assistance, in turn would require the existence of other particles at

larger distances … etcetera and their communication to be instant.

If when the rest energy of particles is kept constant by their energy exchange with all

other particles within their IH, two particles only can be at equilibrium when in counter

phase, at distances equal to (2n + 1)/2 times the wavelength they exchange energy in

(with n an integer), then the distances at which they can be at equilibrium changes in

discrete steps. If their distance is quantified, then so is the energy they emit or absorb

as they jump from one equilibrium distance to the other, a jump whereby both their

distance and exchange wavelength changes with a discrete amount.

If the energy of a particle in one phase as positive as it is negative in the next, then we

can think of their creation as the event whereby particle A pops up with a positive

energy it borrows from B, which then pops up with an equal, negative energy if the

energy conservation law is to be obeyed. However, if when A borrows all its energy

from B, then A and B would only exist to each other, not to the particles in the midst of

which they pop up ­in which case A and B wouldn’t even exist to each other: only if

they borrow and lend part of their energy from and to the particles in the midst of

which they pop up ­particles which similarly are in statu nascendi­ do they all start to

exist to each other ­which only works if their communication is instant.

As according to the UP their lifetime ­the period of the loan­ is inversely proportional to

their energy, they would vanish as their time is up unless they set up a continuous

energy exchange by means of which they force each other to reappear again and again

after every disappearance at about the same place, moving in about the same manner

as they did in the previous cycle, their energy sign alternating at the frequency they

exchange energy at, at which they alternately pop up, vanish to reappear with an

opposite energy sign, oscillating between opposite states, between what classically

would be a particle and antiparticle state.

If a larger distance between particles is a less definite distance, corresponding (UP) to a

lower energy they observe each other to have, to a longer, less definite wavelength

they exchange energy in, to a lower frequency they observe each other to oscillate at,

then that is the same as saying that according to one particle time passes at a slower

pace at the other as their spacetime distance is larger, implying a distance redshift.

That is, it isn’t so that space and time already exist even in the absence of energy, that

the energy of particles increases as the uncertainty in their position decreases as they

contract to clusters, as they move through space, in time toward each other; it rather is

the increase of their energy, the appearance of localized energy, which makes positions

at different distances physically different, which turns an abstract, mathematical space

where it is the same time everywhere into a real physical spacetime ­where clocks are

observed to run at a slower pace and measuring rods look shorter as they are more

distant even when at rest­ a spacetime which continues to exist, to be alternately

created and uncreated ­where the extent to which adjoining positions differ physically

varies in space and time­ as the particles keep creating and uncreating each other, as

they force each other to reappear time and time again after every disappearance.

We cannot think of energy, space and time as independent quantities: if the energy of

a particle ­which makes positions in the area where it can be localized physically

different­ is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, then so is spacetime at microscopic scale.

74

If when the energy of a particle, its sign and magnitude varies within every cycle of its

oscillation and with it the observed pace of clocks and length of rods in the area where

it can be localized, then a particle can be said to alternately move in forward and

backward time direction about some zero­time point, that the hands of clocks in the

area where we can localize it alternately move in opposite directions, the velocity at

which they rotate varying in space and time. Only at macro­scopic scale can we

unambiguously speak about the direction of time ­which in a SCU is driven by gravity,

the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself.

So it isn’t that, as in BBC, space and time already exist, that time eternally passes at the

same, particular, unperturbable pace everywhere even before there are particles, as if

waiting for them to magically pop up out of nothing, from one moment in cosmic time

to the next, particles which appear ready­made with all properties measured off at

random locations as it are thought of as intrinsic, fixed, interaction ­space and time­

independent quantity ­if we can say that they pop up at different places if at the big

bang the energy density of the universe was infinite,1 its size infinitesimal.

If in a SCU time is observed to pass at a slower pace at a larger distance, to be infinitely

slow at the rim of the IH of any observer or observing particle, then the universe of any

observer or observing particle always contains its own beginning without this meaning

that the universe has a beginning as a whole ­a beginning which shouldn’t, as in BBC,

be thought of as having been completed in the past as there is no such thing in a SCU.

Since unlike in CM, GR and BBC, in a SCU there is no single, unique reality at the origin

of our observations, it makes no sense to speak about the past, the present and the

future: of the universe: in a SCU we must specify the observer or observing particle

when speaking ­not about the universe­ but of the universe they observe ­which is

different to different observers / observing particles, all of whom / which are equally

right about what they observe.

If the universes of two observers coincide, overlap less as their distance is greater, less

definite so what is and happens at one place is less related to what is and happens at

the other, then they observe events at the other to proceed at a slower pace as they

are farther apart, time pass at a slower pace as the part of one observer or observing

particle in the energy involved in an event or process at the other is smaller.

It is the fact that the energy particles observe, cause each other to have depends on

their distance and its rate of change combined with the fact that their communication

is instant which interrelates energy, space and time, which turns what in the absence

of energy would be an abstract space where it is the same time everywhere, where all

points are physically identical ­so it cannot be understood even in principle why

particles are where they are­ into a spacetime where two points only can be said to be

spatially separated if the observed pace of clocks and length of measuring rods varies

from one point, one distance to the next, which instant­connects all points where

particles can be at equilibrium ­which answers t’ Hooft’s question ‘how these points

are related to form the known space and time.’

AS TO THE question whether if the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime and

clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant, this nevertheless

implies some kind of expansion. If the universe only can be said to expand if it expands

in time so going back in time it would have a beginning it by definition cannot have,

then it cannot expand, as a whole, in time, especially if there is no universe­wide now.

1 If its energy density was infinite, its size infinitesimal at the big bang, then it remains infinite(simal) no

matter how much space expands, whereas if it had a (de)finite value, this begs the question who or what

determined its value ­the value of which then cannot be understood even in principle.

75

If according to the same definition the universe only exists as seen from within so

cannot have particular properties, be in any single state as a whole, then we cannot

even speak about the universe let alone ask whether it expands. We only can describe

the universe if we specify the observing particle and follow its evolution from a zero to

a nonzero energy, to ever­higher energies. If going back in time its own energy, of the

objects to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes decreases

so all spacetime positions become more identical, less defined, and in forward time

direction its energy ­of the objects to which it owes its energy and to the energy of

which it contributes­ increases, then spacetime becomes more defined to the particle

as time passes ­which is not the same as saying that space expands in time.

If it observes time to pass at a slower pace at larger distances, to pass an infinitesimal

pace at the rim of its interaction horizon, then galaxies cannot accelerate away from it

and disappear beyond its observation horizon.

If two identical particles at rest relative to each other would have identical clocks, then

in a SCU they would see the clock of the other particle run at a slower pace than their

own clock as they are farther apart. The question, then, is whether see the clock of the

other particle run farther behind as they look longer at each other’s clock while staying

at rest relative to each other. If so, then they would see the pace of clock of the other

particle slow down in time so they would move apart, space expand in time. If this is

impossible, if we cannot, as in BBC, think of space and time as unrelated quantities ­if

time cannot pass at the same pace at all distances­ then they cannot observe the pace

of the clock of the other particle slow down as time passes.

If they would, then there would be no loss of information: if we would film a distant,

redshifted star and play the film back at such accelerated pace that it looks no longer

redshifted, then it would seem that we can recover, reconstruct all information the

light of the star contained as it was emitted. ‘Seem,’ since if when particles exchange

energy, information in a longer wavelength as they are farther apart and a longer

wavelength is a less definite wavelength, then the information they exchange is less

definite, less informative, of a poorer quality, such reconstruction of information by

accelerating the pace at which a film is played is impossible.

In other words, while we can artificially undo the redshift of the light of a galaxy; that

doesn’t mean that we can recover the information its light supposedly had at its

emission as we can in BBC because in a universe where the communication between

particles is instant that information just wasn’t, isn’t present in the light at its emission.

The farther apart two particles are, the less their universes coincide, overlap, the less

they have in common, the less the information one particle contains in its properties,

position and motion is accessible to observation or the less relevant that information is

to the other particle, the less its exact position and motion matters, energetically to the

observing particle, the less related their properties and behavior are, the less it makes

sense to say that time passes at the same pace at both particles.

If they observe events at the other particle proceed at a slower pace as they are farther

apart ­which they are as the part of one particle in the energy involved in an event or

process at the other is smaller­ they observe each other to be in an ‘earlier’ phase of

their evolution; that doesn’t, as in BBC, mean that one particle observes the other as it

was, of itself, at an earlier moment in cosmic time, in a more distant past, in the past.

The question, then, is whether, if the energy of a particle is the sum, the superposition

of all wavelengths it exchanges energy in with particles at all distances, we can say that

it has different energies, that it is in different evolutionary phases simultaneously and

is observed to have a lower energy, to be in an ‘earlier’ phase as seen from a larger

76

distance, the same goes for the galaxy they form: if the galaxy similarly can be said to

be in many evolutionary phases simultaneously, that the phase it actually is observed

to be in depends on things like the distance it is observed from.

This doesn’t mean that it at all times is in all possible phases simultaneously, of itself,

so to say, that it are objective states which exist independent of their observation: as

the observing particle contributes to and owes part of its energy to the galaxy, it is part

of what makes the galaxy what it is and takes part in its evolution so the phase it is

observed to be in doesn’t causally precede how it is observed to be: whereas in a BBU

we can imagine inspecting it from outside the universe; in a SCU the galaxy only exists

to the particles to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes.

The point is that ‘simultaneous’ in a SCU doesn’t refer to the same moment in cosmic

time but to the fact that all observers everywhere are equally right about the time of

an event or state of an object they observe, in the evolution of which they participate,

the properties and state of which they affect and are affected by.

However this may be, unlike in a BBU where, going back in time the energy density of

the universe become infinite, where its energy content doesn’t vanish with the space it

is contained in; in a in a SCU spacetime becomes less defined, all positions become

more identical physically as the energy of particles, of the objects they form decreases,

so here energy vanishes together with spacetime, with space and time.

This means that while clocks in a SCU are observed to run at a slower pace as they are

more distant, their pace ought to remain constant as long as they stay at rest relative

to the observer.

IF IN A SCU a particle has no infinitely sharp, fundamental boundary which separates its

rest energy from its gravitational field and as seen from outside its field, time passes at

a slower pace and rods look shorter nearer to its center, then space seems to be more

viscous ­frozen in time­ nearer to its center, a length ‘contraction’ aka time dilation

which has the effect of opposing, of slowing down in time the penetration of a test

particle in its field, giving it the tangibility which, together with its inertia, its opposition

to a change of its state of motion, we associate with a solid object ­an opposition we

can as well explain as a consequence of the uncertainty principle according to which it

takes energy to decrease the (indefiniteness in the) distance between the observed

and observing particle and increase their energy ­as a result of which they can near

each other only as far as the environment is willing to supply that energy.

Richard Feynman: 1

So we now understand why we do not fall through the floor. As we walk, our shoes with

their masses of atoms push against the floor with its mass of atoms. In order to squash the

atoms closer together, the electrons would be confined to a smaller space and, by the

uncertainty principle, their momenta would have to be higher on the average, and that

means high energy; the resistance to atomic compression is a quantum­mechanical effect

and not a classical effect. Classically, we would expect that if we were to draw all the

electrons and protons closer together, the energy would be reduced still further, and the

best arrangement of positive and negative charges in classical physics is all on top of each

other.

While we can say that it is the increasing uncertainty in the electron momenta of the

floor, corresponding to a higher (kinetic) energy which keeps the electrons away from

the atomic nuclei; if that energy has to be supplied by the environment then we can as

well say that is the environment ­among which our weight­ which determines how

1 Richard Feynman Lectures on physics Vol III C 2­4: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_02.html

77

close and how long electrons can stay near the atomic nuclei, which determines the

effective magnitude of their electric charge which prevents us to fall through the floor.

It is not insignificant that the above quote tacitly assumes that the electron and proton

attract even if there wouldn’t be an equally strong counterforce to oppose it, as if they

have an autonomous existence, as if their charge only is the cause of forces between

them and it is some incomprehensible quirk of nature itself ­the uncertainty principle­

why they keep apart despite their electric attraction.

A physical entity does not do what it does because it is what it is, but is what it is because it does

what it does. Max Jammer 1

7

The origin of particle species / the unification of forcesAS TRADITIONALLY particle properties are assumed to be intrinsic quantities, only the

cause of forces, the different kinds of charge associated with the different interactions,

forces of nature came to be thought of as qualitatively different, mutually independent

quantities. As a result, the quest for how the different forces might be unified focuses

on their relative strength, on the energy at which they become equally strong as the

different forces have a different distance dependence ­which, however, only means

that they then are equally strong, not that they then are unified, i.e., are shown to be

different expressions of a single quantity. If the different kinds of charge would only be

the cause of forces, then it would be impossible even in principle to comprehend their

origin: they only can be unified in a universe where particle properties are cause and

effect of interactions, where any kind of charge contributes to and is a manifestation of

their energy. If the energy of particles in a SCU is a dynamic, wavelike quantity, then so

is any kind charge, meaning that its sign (or color) and magnitude varies within every

cycle of their oscillation, their energy exchange: the higher the frequency their energy

sign alternates at, the greater the effective magnitude is of any kind of charge.

Unlike in a BBU where the properties of the elementary particles created at the big

bang predetermine the properties of the elements, they eventually form, of the stars

and galaxies they contract to; if the properties of subatomic particles in a SCU cannot

causally precede those of the atomic nuclei and atoms, then they must evolve together

with the atomic nuclei and atoms, with the stars and galaxies they form.

If when the particles which are in the process of evolving to higher energies as they

contract at places temporarily form all possible spatial configurations, depending on

their density, on the temperature and pressure of the particle clusters they contract to,

then it is conceivable that some of those resemble the actual spatial distribution and

behavior of elementary particles in atomic nuclei, in atoms. It would then be gravity,

the tendency of energy to increase which, as discussed in § 2, in favoring higher above

lower energy configurations selects which particle configurations survive, which selects

the different properties and species of subatomic particles which enable them to form

stable atoms, what properties atoms, stars and galaxies are going to have.

If the different forces, kinds of charge of elementary particles are associated with the

different, independent, orthogonal ways they can move relative to each other in some

1 The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (1974) Max Jammer P 54

78

configuration but the energy involved in one interaction, associated with one kind of

charge, powers and is powered by all other interactions a particle is simultaneously

involved in, then what in the classical, causal view seem to be qualitatively different,

unrelated kinds of charge are the different expressions of a single quantity, of the

energy of a particle. As the extent to which its energy is expressed in interactions in

different directions ­the frequency it exchanges energy at with the other particles of

the configuration it is part of­ depends on its distance and motion relative to these

particles, it can adjust the properties they observe it to have, the relative magnitude of

what seem to be qualitatively different kinds of charge by adjusting its distance and

motion1 (including angular momentum) relative to the other particles.

As any of the particles of the configuration simultaneously exchanges energy with all of

the other particles (and, to a lesser extent, with particles of neighboring configurations)

but its observed frequency also depends on the rest energy, distance and motion of

the observing particle, they only can evolve to different particle species by

simultaneously adjusting any of the independent factors affecting the frequencies they

exchange energy at with the other particles, the effective magnitudes of the different

kinds of charge they observe, cause each other to have if they always move in such

manner that as seen from their own rest frame forces are equal from all directions. +

Such simultaneous balancing act of all involved particles, their evolution to different

particle species of course only is possible if their communication is instant as otherwise

there would be no feedback, no adjustment to ensure that Newton’s 3rd law is obeyed

and the energy of the configuration, of atoms, atomic nuclei changes in discrete steps,

if the energy of its particles is quantified, if its magnitude and sign varies in a wavelike

manner within every cycle of their energy exchange as otherwise no stable equilibrium

between particles, no evolution, no stable matter would be possible.

If the definition of what a universe is means that any kind of charge of particles is cause

and effect of their interactions, then this not only opens an unexplored path to the

unification of the different forces; if the energy involved in one interaction, due to one

charge, one force, powers and is powered by all other interactions due to other kinds

of charge a particle simultaneously participates in and any kind charge contributes to,

is an expression of the energy of particles and energy is a source of gravity, acts like

mass, then any kind of charge contributes to the mass of particles.

As the mass of particles in a selfcreating universe cannot causally precede gravity, then

this suggests that their rest mass isn’t a property they have independent of, in addition

to other kinds of charge ­that an electron, say, has two separate, unrelated batteries,

one filled with electric and the other with gravitational charge.

If the known particle species indeed evolve together, then the rest energy and electric

charge electrons would contain contributions of the color charge, of the binding energy

between quarks in and between baryons in atomic nuclei and vice versa.

If the particles which are in the process of evolving to elementary particles as they are

contracting at places to what eventually will become stars and galaxies temporarily

form configurations and it is gravity which, in prolonging in time more compact, higher­

energy above less compact, lower­ energy configurations, selects those configurations

particles can perpetuate and the properties associated with that particular behavior,

then they may evolve more or less gradually to elementary particles ­as opposed to

1 Though in QM one only can speak about the probability of finding a particle somewhere, not of its

trajectory; if the evolution of its wavefunction in time determines the most probable positions it can be

found at some particular time, then we might call the collection of those position its ‘trajectory’ even

though it doesn’t actually visit those positions in a sequence we can associate with a definite trajectory.

79

BBC where the properties of stars and galaxies are preordained in the properties of the

particles which pop up ready­made from one moment to the next at the big bang.

If the behavior of what eventually are to become the particles of the different species

in the course of time increasingly resembles that of quarks in baryons, in atomic nuclei,

of electrons in atoms, then this would agree with the proposition that the vacuum

energy of empty space consists of the virtual particles of the gravitational field of stars

and galaxies, of particles the properties of which are less defined as their energy is

lower, as their position is less definite, farter from the source of the gravitational field ­

in which case it is conceivable that the virtual particles of the field may become real

particles as they become part of stars, a process the pace or duration of which may

depend on the evolutionary phase the galaxy is in.

If according to the UP the energy of particles which are in the process of evolving to

elementary particles increases as they are contracting to stars, as the uncertainty in

their position, in their distance decreases, then they increasingly limit each other’s

freedom of behavior, confining each other to less indefinite distances and ‘trajectories’

it takes more energy to deviate from. The properties they observe, cause each other to

have then become less indefinite in the course of time in the sense that they force

each other more strongly to keep certain, less indefinite distances and follow more

precisely defined ‘trajectories’ or momenta in sharper defined directions: that as their

rest energy increases, it takes more energy to deviate from their behavior in atomic

nuclei, that the indefiniteness in the magnitude of any kind of charge decreases, that

their magnitude increases, that it becomes less subject to changes, as if it are fixed,

interaction independent quantities, only the cause of forces.

So instead of, as in BBC, saying that the properties of atoms are preordained in the

DNA, the properties its particles were created with at the big bang; in a SCU it is their

behavior in atoms, in stars and galaxies which perpetuates, preserves their properties.

If it matters energetically to a particle, if it can distinguish whether another particle

nears or recedes from it, moves up or down or from the left to the right or the other

way around through its ‘sky’ ­relative to the background of all particles within its IH­

moving and spinning in this or that direction and all these different, independent ways

they can move relative to each other affect the frequency they in some configuration

exchange energy at in a specific manner, then it can be seen that the different,

associated forces of nature have a different distance (and motion) dependence, as if

they are powered by qualitatively different, mutually unrelated kinds of charge.

If a particle moves in different ways with respect to the each of the different particles

of the configuration it is part of (and to particles of neighboring configurations), if what

to one particle looks like a vertical or receding motion or up spin to another particle

looks like a nearing or horizontal motion or down spin, then one interaction, one force

may transform into another by some symmetry operation, by a rotation, say, especially

if the energy involved in one interaction, associated with one kind of charge powers

and is powered by all other interactions it simultaneously participates in.

The greater the distance and / or the lower the rest energy is of the particles in some

configuration, the less definite they observe each other’s location and motion to be,

the behavior from which we infer their properties, the less definite they observe each

other’s properties to be, the less defined the configuration is, the vaguer its form and

size is, the less definite, the greater and fuzzier the diameter is of the tube one might

imagine their ‘trajectories’ to envelop ­or the fuzzier the areas is where the probability

to find a particle is great or the more equal the probability is to find it anywhere in a

larger the area­ the more the particles may seem to be part of different configurations

80

simultaneously or the more these configurations coincide, overlap, resemble each

other, the less they differ energetically, the less defined their properties are in such

configuration(s), the weaker they interact, the less forcefully they impose each other

some precise, specific behavior. The shorter their distance and / or the smaller their

distance, the more they limit each other’s freedom of behavior, the shorter, the less

indefinite the wavelength is in which they exchange energy, the less indefinite their

relative position and motion is, the higher their energy is, the more energy it takes to

deviate from those positions and ‘trajectories,’ the greater their inertia is.

If the different forces, kinds of charge indeed arise from the different, independent

ways they can move relative to each other, each of which affects their exchange

frequency in a different manner and all interactions each of the particles of the

configuration participates in contributes to their energy within that configuration, then

what seem to be different forces, powered by qualitatively different, independent

kinds of charge are balanced ­unified?­ in their behavior within that configuration.

AS IN BBC all elementary particles popped up ready­made from one moment to the

next at or shortly into the big bang, their properties, any kind of charge measured off,

fine­tuned to the last of an infinite series of decimals, all objects they ever will form

and all events ever to happen were preordained at the big bang, meaning that the

universe has been created by some creator outside of it: that it is a windup toy which

once assembled and wound up only can unwind in a completely predictable fashion,

that all information the universe is ever to contain, it already contains at the big bang.

By contrast, as in a SCU particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions so

don’t causally precede, predetermine the properties of the objects they from, here

elementary particles ­the building bricks of the edifices they form­ only acquire

properties and are baked in the building process, their properties selected in a trial and

error process as the buildings ­atomic nuclei, atoms, stars and galaxies­ arise, following

the rule that what survives … survives, for as long as it manages to survive.

If in a SCU clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant and we

were to associate a larger distance, a slower pace of time with an earlier time, then the

universe of any observer or observing particle would contain its own beginning ­which

then can be localized at the rim of its interaction horizon. However, as there is no

universe­wide now in a SCU, we don’t, as in a BBU, see a distant galaxy as it was, of

itself, in a distant past, in the past, but as it is to us as we look at it, in what only to us is

the present, it is not a beginning which can be thought of as an event which has been

completed in the past. As the universe of an observing particle changes as it evolves

itself to higher energies ­from an infinitesimal energy to an elementary particle which

eventually ends up in the black hole at the center of its galaxy­ the world it observes

changes as it evolves itself and with it the ‘beginning’ of its universe. The more distant

a galaxy is, the slower the particle observes processes to proceed in the galaxy, the

lower the energy it observes the galaxy to have, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary phase it

observes the galaxy to be in; the lower its own energy is, the lower it observes the

energy of objects within its IH to be, the less it contributes to their energy, the ‘earlier’

the phase it observes its universe to be in and ‘earlier’ the phase it is in itself ­quote

marks as terms like earlier and later in a SCU are relative, local notions. This isn’t to say

that the galaxy always is in all possible evolutionary phases simultaneously and that it

is the energy of the observing particle and its distance to the galaxy which determines

the phase it observes the galaxy to be in: the point is that the observing particle itself

contributes to the energy of the galaxy and vice versa, that the galaxy only exists to all

81

objects to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it contributes and not, as

in a BBU, to an imaginary observer outside the universe.

If particles keep creating and uncreating each other in every cycle of their oscillation of

their ­instant­ energy exchange with particles at all distances they observe to be in all

possible phases of their evolution, including particles of stars, then this constitutes a

kind of feedback from stars and galaxies to instruct, in retrospect, as it were, particles

how to evolve, what properties to adopt to be able to form stars and galaxies.

If the virtual particles of the vacuum are the volatile interference products of the real

particles of stars, then they may evolve more or less gradually to elementary particles,

a process facilitated, guided by the information they, as interference products of real

particles, carry about what properties to adopt to become part of stars ­if they indeed

are the quanta of the gravitational field of stars and galaxies.

If when the energy of particles varies within every cycle of their oscillation, and with it

the indefiniteness in their behavior, if when they keep creating and uncreating each

other in every cycle of their energy exchange, they in a general sense keep repeating

their evolution to elementary particles, then this enables them to adjust their behavior,

(from which we infer) their properties the next time they reappear to changing

circumstances, circumstances they cause and are the product of: to evolve and survive.

As the energy of a particle or galaxy is the superposition of all wavelengths it exchanges

energy in with objects at all distances so contains low­energy, long wavelength

contributions from distant objects it observes to be in an ‘early’ phase evolution while

it is itself observed to have a low energy, to be in an ‘early’ phase of its evolution by a

distant observer, its state can be thought of as a superposition of phases, all of which

keep contributing to the relatively high energy it is observed to have by a nearby

observer, who observes it to be in a much ‘later’ phase of its evolution.

If we always measure elementary particles to have the same properties then that is

because a measurement is a standardized interaction ­if we always prod them in the

same way, they are bound to react in the same way­ rather than that it are privately

owned, interaction independent, fixed quantities as they wouldn’t then be able to gain

anything by acting in some particular manner, by contracting instead of dispersing, say,

so it wouldn’t even be properties. To exist as stable particles, to have a well­defined

identity, they must acquire a backbone which enables them to oppose a change in their

properties yet allow them to interact, to adjust their behavior to circumstances, to

process a change in their environment in a change of the configuration they are part of,

like in the jump of an atom between different excited states.

While from the point of view of its particles it doesn’t matter whether an adjustment of

their distance and motion in the atom only affects the expression of any kind of charge

as a force or whether it also affects the magnitude of the charge powering it; if, as in

the classical, causal view, it only is the expression of a charge which varies with their

distance and relative motion, not of the amount of charge they have, of themselves, so

to say, then particles would go sit and stay on top of each other once their attraction

due to one kind of charge at some distance overcomes their repulsion due to another

kind of charge ­and no stable equilibrium would be possible, no stable matter.

That is, if a force can said to be either attractive or repulsive, of itself, since a force

cannot be unequal to the counterforce it meets or is able to evoke, not to mention that

they anyhow cannot stay on top of each other as the uncertainty in their position then

would be zero, corresponding to an infinite energy. If a shorter, less indefinite distance

implies a higher energy and this energy has to be supplied by the environment, then it

is the environment ­all particles to which they owe their energy and to the energy of

which they contribute­ which determines at what distance they can be at equilibrium,

82

which determines the effective magnitudes of the charges powering (and powered by)

both ‘opposite’ forces at that distance.

Though the fact that the color force between quarks in baryons remains constant

within a certain range of distances seems to contradict the UP according to which the

energy of particles increases as (the uncertainty in) their distance decreases; the above

sketched evolution of elementary particles is far too simplistic to do justice to what

actually happens according to quantum chromodynamics; if the definition of what a

universe is forces us to conclude that particle properties are cause and effect of their

interactions, then this also should hold for quarks ­though one can ask whether they

can be considered to be particles as they don’t have an autonomous existence but only

appear in triplets (baryons) and duplets (mesons).

It is because any kind of charge of particles is cause and effect of forces between them

why the effective magnitude of what classically are thought of as fixed, qualitatively

different, unrelated kinds of charge powering (and powered by) opposite forces can

vary with their distance and motion in atoms in such manner that both forces change

equally and simultaneously as the energy of the particles changes and can they remain

at equilibrium at different, discrete distances, corresponding to discrete energies and

form stable matter. If when the atom jumps to a higher energy, the energy of its

particles changes, the expression of any kind of charge, their behavior, then we can say

that they adjust their properties to circumstances to ensure their own continued

existence: it only are properties if they change back again as the atom deexcites.

Only if the communication between particles is instant can they adjust and coordinate

their distance and motion in some configuration, an instant feedback which enables

them to maintain any equilibrium they achieve, to preserve the properties associated

with that behavior, that equilibrium ­properties they may preserve even outside the

configurations they evolved in, as ‘free’ electrons and baryons ­quote marks on ‘free’

as they must keep exchanging energy with the particles they evolved with to preserve

their, each other’s properties. This only works if their energy is a dynamic quantity, if

its magnitude and sign of their energy varies in a wavelike manner in space and time

and with it the indefiniteness in the position from which they act upon each other,

exchange energy, in the extent to which any charge is expressed, in its effective

magnitude, in the strength of the force it is the source and product of.

THE BEAUTY OF such trial and error evolution is that no calculation, no fine­tuning is

needed ­no interference from outside the universe­ as to what particle species and

properties and associated laws and constants of nature may result in a viable universe.

It is gravity which by prolonging in time more compact, higher above less compact,

lower­energy configurations, selects which from all possible, temporary configurations

survives, which, depending on circumstances, determines what particle properties and

species survive, circumstances the particles create and are the product of ­as opposed

to a big bang universe where a beginning implies an intent to create it, a preconceived

plan, a creator to decide when to start calculating what particles, constants and laws of

nature may produce a self­sustaining universe1 prior to its actual creation, a universe

the properties and evolution development of which could as well have been different:

where time passes even before there is a universe even though nothing much may

happen, last, until its actual creation, where anything which is ever to happen as and

when it does is preordained at its creation.

1 Well, if the expansion of the big bang universe indeed started to accelerate some 4 billion years ago,

then this suggests an intervention from the outside at that time.

83

A selfcreating universe is itself a kind of calculator the components of which take form,

materialize as the trial and error calculation aka evolution proceeds simultaneously

everywhere, a calculation where all particles in all possible phases of their evolution

participate in and are the product of, an evolution which cannot but obey the Nix law

which defines the universe as a perpetuum mobile ­which costs as much as it yields:

nothing ­which is to say, a universe which has no external reality but only exists as seen

from within, where, as particles are cause and effect of their interactions, they only

exist to each other and not to an imaginary observer outside the universe.

It is gravity which, in imposing a direction on events, acts like the ratchet which in a

clock prevents its hands to turn counterclockwise, which prevents processes to reverse

which enables particles to acquire properties and evolve, gradually or in fits and starts,

to ever­higher energies, an evolution, a change we experience as the passing of time.

That is, as the universe only exists as seen from within and, as according to the UP the

energy of a particle cannot be and remain zero, particles keep crossing the threshold

between nonexistence and existence, between a zero and a nonzero energy, there

‘always’ will be particles which observe the objects within their interaction horizon,

within their universe to have a lower energy, to be in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase as

their own energy is lower, as they are in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase themselves, we

cannot even say that a selfcreating universe evolves, that it has a beginning as a whole.

We might say that universe starts to exist to every particle as and when it manages to

cross the threshold between nonexistence and existence, between a zero and nonzero

energy ­which the uncertainty principle says it eventually will, an existence which is

preserved by gravity, by the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself.

However simplistic and speculative the above sketched mechanics of selfcreation is

whereby particles acquire properties, evolve to elementary particles and however

many questions it leaves unanswered and however overwhelming the observational

evidence for a big bang seems to be; it beats a cosmology which not only doesn’t offer

any idea about the origin of the energy created at the big bang, how the elementary

particles knew what properties to pop up with or why, if it can create itself so always

could, it can have a beginning, but also omits to explain how the universe knew at what

values to set the constants of nature to enable it to keep existing.

Clearly, if when particles only can evolve to elementary particles if their properties are

cause and effect of their interactions, if their communication is instant, only those

properties and species survive which manage to survive, then the associated constants

of nature automatically find the values which enable them ­their universe­ to keep

existing, there is no need for the artificial fine­tuning of constants of nature a big bang

universe requires, a fine­tuning which implies an intent to create it, that it has been

created by some outside intervention.

While one might say that we accidentally live in a universe which allows the evolution,

the existence of observers who are able to be amazed about their own existence, of

the world they find themselves in and that different initial conditions result in different

universes ­with different particle properties, species, laws and constants of nature; if

the universe by definition cannot have particular properties nor be in any particular

state as a whole, as it has no external reality, then it makes no sense to say that there

exist different universes. Only a universe which has been created by some outside

intervention has a beginning, an external reality, have certain properties and be in

some particular state as a whole: live in a space and time realm not of its own making.

84

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself.

The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity.

At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. Stephen Hawking

8

The second law of thermodynamicsTHE OBSERVATION THAT the pigment particles in a drop of ink disperse in water, that

local temperature or density differences in a gas in a container decrease in the course

of time ­that an inequilibrium in a closed system tends to turn into an equilibrium state

(or that a state of inequilibrium can be defined as a state which tends to change in

time)­ led to the formulation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics according to which the

entropy of a perfectly isolated, closed system only can increase in time ­implying that

the entropy of a universe which has a beginning is minimal at the start. Entropy is a

measure of the information needed to specify the state of a system, of the disorder,

indefiniteness or randomness of the system, its lack of information: the more uniform

the distribution of the ink particles in a glass of water is, of gas molecules in a container

or the smaller differences in temperature or pressure are, the higher its entropy is.

… entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a

macroscopic state. Because thermodynamic equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater

number of microscopic configurations than any non­equilibrium state, it has the maximum

entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees

that the system will evolve towards such thermodynamic equilibrium.1

Entropy can be thought of as a measure of microscopic disorder; thus the Second Law

implies that time is asymmetrical with respect to the amount of order in an isolated

system: as a system advances through time, it becomes more statistically disordered.

This asymmetry can be used empirically to distinguish between future and past.2

Let’s first note that only a selfcreating universe is a perfectly closed, isolated system as

it has no external reality since by definition there is nothing outside of it so nothing can

leave or enter it. However, if according to the same definition it cannot have particular

properties nor be in some particular state, then it obviously cannot have a definite

temperature or entropy the second law of thermodynamics doesn’t apply to a SCU.

As the universe only can have some particular property and be in some particular state

as a whole if there is something outside of it relative to which it can be said to exist, to

have those properties and be in such state, if its properties and state can be quantified

from the outside ­if energy, space, time, temperature and entropy and their units are

defined even outside of it­ a big bang universe cannot be considered to be perfectly

closed, isolated so the second law also doesn’t apply to this universe.

As particles in a BBU have an autonomous existence so would keep existing even if we

could prevent them to interact, we can put gas molecules in a container and can isolate

them from world outside of it and ask what entropy the system has and how it changes

in time ­if not for the problem that if they are completely isolated so no interaction, no

communication is possible between the gas molecules in the container and the world

outside of it, they wouldn’t exist, have no physical reality to an observer outside of it.

As they wouldn’t then be part of the universe of the observer, it wouldn’t make any

sense to ask from the outside the system what the entropy inside of it is, whether and

how it changes in time ­or even say that time passes inside of it. While the gas in the

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy (22­3­2019)2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time (22­3­2019)

85

container can be isolated pretty good thermally; as they cannot be prevented to

interacting gravitationally with objects outside of it, no container is a perfectly isolated,

system so the second law cannot be tested in practice ­which is not to say that ink will

not disperse over water or temperature or pressure differences in gas not disappear.

As particles in a SCU have to keep exchanging energy to keep existing, to express and

preserve their, each other’s properties, they would cease to exist if we could cut off

their communication with it the world outside the container. If we only can ask what

the entropy inside of it is if they keep interacting with, existing to the outside world so

a different entropy inside of would make the world outside of it slightly different and

vice versa, then the entropy of a system only can change if it is not perfectly isolated ­

and an entropy increase at one place may be accompanied by a decrease elsewhere.

IF THE SECOND law is interpreted to say that the entropy of the big bang universe ­of

its initial conditions­ was minimal at the start, the big bang itself is thought of as a state

of inequilibrium ­if we define the entropy of a system to be lower as it is farther out of

equilibrium­ but a state only can be unstable, out of equilibrium, be a state of low

entropy if there are physical laws operational by means of which the initial state can,

must convert into a state which is less far out of equilibrium, then this begs the

question where the information these initial conditions, laws and constants of nature

represent comes from, who or what determined, created its initial conditions and

installed the laws prescribing how one state is to transform into the next, who or what

determined the amount of energy to be created, how it could know when to decay into

the particles of the standard model, how they knew what properties to pop up with.

If an initial state is specified by the physical laws which prescribe how it is to change, to

transform into another state which is less far out of equilibrium, if an initial state only

becomes defined, unstable as soon as the laws become operational which force it to

transform into a state which is less far out of equilibrium ­if these laws determine the

nature of all consecutive states, each next state closer to the final (?) equilibrium state

of maximal entropy­ but a state only can convert into the next if the information as

contained in the later state already is present in the previous state (like the chicken is

present, preordained in the egg) so all later consecutive states already are present,

predetermined in its initial state ­which then contains, in potentia, all information the

universe ever is going to contain­ then how can a transition from one state to the next

change the entropy, the information content of the universe if it already is present in

potentia in its initial state? Moreover, if a state only can be out of equilibrium when

such laws are operational, then shouldn’t they prevent the creation of any initial state

of inequilibrium ­of a big bang universe­ in the first place?

While this doesn’t mean that pigment particles in a glass of water collect just as easily

to a drop of ink as they dispersed or an egg becomes as easily unbroken as it breaks;

the evolution of the chicken does constitute an entropy decrease as it unbroke the egg.

In a universe where particles, particle properties evolve together with the objects they

form, where its building bricks are shaped and baked in the building process, there are

no initial conditions, no initial, minimum entropy which only can increase: if there is no

universe­wide now, then there obviously cannot be a universe­wide entropy.

While going back in time a BBU ends/begins in a state of infinite energy density; as in a

SCU particles evolve to higher energies as they contract to stars and galaxies and

create spacetime as they do; going back in time their energy would decrease as they

separate so spacetime would become increasingly less defined, all positions become

more identical physically until all energy vanishes and with it the universe, space and

86

time ­would, as it cannot be in any single, particular state as a whole, as it doesn’t live

in a time realm not of its own making but contains, produces all time inside of it.

If we only can describe the universe from within and were to speak about its local

entropy, then it would be higher ­contain less information­ at larger distances, where

we observe objects to be in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase, where, as their observed

energy is lower, the position and motion of particles, their properties are less defined,

an entropy which, like the energy an object is observed to have also depends on the

observer or observing particle, on its own energy, on the evolutionary phase it is in

itself, meaning that it is a relative, observer­dependent quantity.

Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it

finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it. ­Terry Pratchett1

9

The speed of lightTHE FACT THAT light always and everywhere travels at 299,792,458 meter per second

is quite remarkable for how can it know at what speed it must move and maintain that

exact velocity? Does it have some kind of GPS or cruise control on board?

If the UP may be interpreted to say that energy is a stronger source of forces (including

gravity) as the position it acts from is less indefinite, as the area in which more of its

energy can be localized is smaller (as measured outside the gravitational field it is the

source of), and the position of a particle on its path is less definite as it moves faster, as

it acts shorter, weaker from each point of its path and at the speed of light its position

is completely indefinite, then a particle moving at the speed of light is massless.

If a particle would carry a clock with it and it is observed to run at a slower pace by an

observer along its path as it moves faster, then that has the same effect as the particle

shrinking in its direction of motion as it increases the gradient of its gravitational field,

a field which, as seen from its mass center, accelerates the frequency it exchanges

energy at with objects in both directions of its path, so according to its own, slowed

down clock, it preserves its rest energy. If so, if by moving at a higher velocity all points

of its path become more identical to the particle as its interactions with the objects in

the environment it travels through are weaker as it moves faster, as its position on its

path becomes less definite, then general relativity can be summarized by saying that it

has to move faster in some direction as it observes the pace of clocks in that direction

to be slower and more equal at all distances. If we define the mass of a particle as

greater as its energy is a stronger source of gravity ­which it is as the position it acts

from is less indefinite (or we define its position to be less indefinite as it takes more

energy to change its state of motion), and it is massless as its position is completely

indefinite, if it moves at the speed of light ­if its mass is greater as the position of its

mass center is less indefinite and the observed (in)definiteness in its position also

depends on the mass of the observing particle, it distance and motion relative to the

observed so is a relative so it is not something a particle can privately own, then it is

not a kind of charge it has in addition to, independent from other kinds of charge.

General relativity only can be unified with quantum mechanics if we abandon the idea

of the rest energy of particles as an absolute, objective ­privately owned­ quantity, as

being only the cause of forces, as something which, but for practical difficulties, can be

measured even from outside the universe.

1 Reaper Man (1991) Terry Pratchett p. 321 (ISBN 0­575­04979­0)

87

If, as in the present, classical view, we conceive of the speed of light as the velocity at

which light moves through space, in time, the universe growing older as it travels, then

it would be that velocity at which a particle cannot express its properties or cargo in

interactions with the objects in the environment it travels through, why a massless

particle moves at the speed of light, why a particle only can have, exhibit mass if it can

be localized, if it has a position from which its energy ­any charge which contributes to,

which is an expression of its energy­ can act as a source of forces, including gravity.

As the environment doesn’t exist to a particle ‘moving’ at the speed of light, it can be

seen why according to relativity theory, from the point of view of the particle there is

no distance in space nor time between the points it has that speed, why according to a

photon its transmission between two particles is instant ­which it ought to be if their

properties, their energy is cause and effect of their interactions. As discussed above,

this only is at odds with the fact that we measure its transmission to take a time

proportional to the distance it covers in a universe where it is the same time, where

time passes at the same pace everywhere, not in a universe which, as it only exists as

seen from within so contains, produces all time inside of it, time is observed to pass at

a slower pace at larger distances.

While we can predict where and when we can intercept a photon if we know where

and when it was emitted in what direction; that doesn’t allow us to conclude that it

moves as a classical object at a finite velocity through space, in time.

If a particle only can be said to exist if it has energy, if it has a position from which its

energy can act as a source of forces, if it interacts with the objects in the environment,

then there are no massless particles, however useful they are in models to quantify

interactions between particles, as in quantum electrodynamics (QED) where photons

interact with electrically charged particles on their path or quantum chromodynamics

(QCD) where massless gluons interact with quarks as well as with other gluons.

The interpretation of what happens in a universe where particle properties are cause

and effect of their interactions ­where their communication is instant, where there is

no universe­wide now­ differs fundamentally from a universe which lives in a time

realm not of its own making, where, as particle properties only are the cause of forces,

the speed of light had to be conceived of as a finite velocity, of light as something

which moves through space, in time, the universe growing older as it travels.

While in Minkowski space ­where all points are physically identical, where time passes

at the same pace everywhere­ the motion of particles can be specified relative to an

arbitrarily chosen coordinate system1 without having to attribute them properties and

require them to interact; in a real, physical spacetime we only can speak about their

relative velocity if they interact, if their energy is cause and effect of their interactions

so it matters, energetically to one particle where the other is and how it moves.

IF IN A misty field at night a laser is switched on and we observe from a large distance

the motion of the front of the light beam as it is reflected by the mist droplets in our

direction, then we see the beam front travel at a constant velocity away from the laser

­though we may have to film it with a fast camera and play the film back at a reduced

speed to be able to see the beam front move as the speed of light is so high.

While this observation can be explained by assuming that time passes at the same pace

everywhere and that light moves at a finite speed through space, in time, the universe

growing older as it travels; we see the same if the light is instantly everywhere on its

1 A space where the length of the meter is defined by saying that it takes light 1/299,792,458 second to

travel.

88

path and, via the droplets, at us as soon as the laser is switched on in a universe where

clocks are observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant as the distance

from the light source to us as measured via the detour of the mist droplets increases as

time passes so we see the beam front move.

It is the concept of cosmic time, the belief that the universe lives in a time realm not of

its own making, that it has been created by some creator so has a beginning and grows

older at the same pace everywhere, that time passes at the same pace everywhere

why we assume that we can determine what is cause of what, what precedes what in

an absolute sense why we assume that light moves through space, in time.

While the transmission of a photon between two atoms A and B in a SCU is instant;

that doesn’t mean that it happens at the same moment in cosmic time, that its

emission by A coincides in time with its absorption by B, that we may imagine to look

from outside the universe in and watch the photon jump instantly from A to B at some

particular moment in cosmic time as there is no such thing in a SCU.

As the universe by definition has no external reality so doesn’t live in a time realm not

of its own making so there is no universe­wide now but contains, produces al time

inside of it, the transmission of the photon isn’t instant over any space distance but

over any spacetime distance as two points only are observed to be spatially separated

if time is observed to pass at a (slightly) slower pace at the more remote point.

In a SCU there is no infinitely narrow time interval, no universe­wide now all objects

and observers live in, have in common: as time cannot be observed to pass at the same

pace at all distances, it doesn’t make sense to ask what in an absolute sense precedes

what, the emission of the photon by A or its absorption by B. Observers at atoms A and

B are equally right about the time of the transmission: an instant transmission only

means that we cannot think about the photon as traveling through space, in time.

Let’s imagine, in a universe where it is the same time, where time passes at the same

pace anywhere, a plane in which there are two observers A and B and a light source S.

If S is at rest and A and B move toward S at a different velocity, one would expect A and

B to measure the light S emits to move at a different speed. If they nevertheless find

the light to move at the same velocity, then that is because to a moving observer his

path shrinks and clocks along his path run at a slower pace as he moves faster.

He only can observe the speed of light to be independent from his own motion if the

ratio between the length he observes his path to have when moving and when at rest

varies in the same manner with his velocity as does the ratio between the pace of the

clocks he observes when moving and when at rest: if space and time are intrinsically

related. This they only are in a universe where, as space and time only exist as seen

from within, the pace of a clock depends on the distance it is observed from and hence

on its rate of change relative to the observer, not in a universe where time passes at

the same pace everywhere, where space and time only are superficially related.

While the speed of light obviously is a limit to the velocity an object can move at since

nothing goes faster than instantly; it shouldn’t be thought of as a velocity as a velocity

refers to something relative to which it moves ­so ought to be different to observers

moving at different velocities­ but to a property of spacetime: it is because space and

time are intrinsically related why the value of the constant of nature c has nothing to

do with the motion of the observers, why they all measure the same value no matter

their own velocity.

As the transmission of a photon between atoms A and B changes the state, the energy

of both atoms, A observes B‘s state to change at the time it emits the photon since as

89

soon as A’s energy changes, its world ­including B­ has changed, looks different to A

after the emission, while B observes A’s state change at the time it absorbs the photon,

as its own state changes due to the absorption of the photon and hence its observation

of, its interactions with the objects in its world, including A.

That is, unless we believe that B, after absorbing A’s photon sends back a message to A

to confirm the receipt of the photon, a thank­you note informing A that it can, as of

this moment ­the receipt of the note­ start to see B in its new state, with a slightly

increased energy, start to interact differently with B.

As classically the properties of (the particles of) an atom are intrinsic quantities, only

the cause of interactions, it can randomly, spontaneously emit a photon, independent

from what happens in its environment so it autonomously determines the direction of

the photon and time of emission. If the photon on detection is observed to have a

different energy, to be shifted to red or blue, then that must have been caused by the

motion of the atom relative to the observer or by a difference in the gravitational field

they sit in, the problem being that if its emission indeed is spontaneous ­uncaused­ it

cannot be explained why it was emitted when and in what direction.

If according to the photon its transmission is instant, then so is the communication

between A and B, meaning that B is as much the cause of the transmission as A so A

cannot autonomously emit a photon, independent from what is and happens in the

environment, that it isn’t a spontaneous emission after all. As a photon is its own

antiparticle, we might as well say that B emits an anti­photon which is absorbed by A.

That is, as due to the transmission of the photon the energy and momentum of A and B

changes with respect to the particles in their environment ­particles which, as they are

affected by the change of the state of A and B, are part of its cause and effect so take

part in its transmission, in the decision when to emit the photon in what direction­ we

cannot single out the culprit responsible for the photon transmission: if all these

particles contribute to or absorb some of the energy and momentum the photon

carries and their communication is instant, then the photon transmission is an event

which simultaneously happens everywhere within the interaction horizons of A and B.

It is because time in a selfcreating universe is observed to pass at a slower pace at

larger distances which creates the illusion that such change propagates through space,

in time why we came to understand the transmission of light in terms of cause and

effect and conceive of the photon as a classical object which moves at a finite velocity

through space, in cosmic time, the entire universe growing older as it travels: because

we believe that the universe has a beginning, often without realizing that this implies

that it has been created by some creator ­defying the definition of what a universe is.

So what in the classical view are three separate, unrelated events which happen one

after the other in cosmic time ­the autonomous, random emission of a photon by A, its

voyage in some random direction and its accidental absorption by B­ unrelated in the

sense that once emitted, there is no communication between the traveling photon and

A nor with any particle or atom it eventually is to be deflected or absorbed by; in a SCU

it is a single event which happens at once everywhere within the entire interaction

horizons of A and B ­not over all of space at some particular moment in cosmic time­

but over all of spacetime.

While the fact that we can switch on a lamp seems to prove that light emerges from

the lamp, that its emission causally precedes its arrival elsewhere at a later time; the

lamp is just a device designed in such manner that, once supplied with energy, the

probability of a photon transmission becomes extremely close to 1. Though we can

create favorable conditions for a photon transmission to occur, build a device in which

90

this is the case when fed with energy; the lamp cannot emit a single photon without

the cooperation of the environment which is to absorb it. It is because there usually

are plenty other atoms or particles prepared to absorb the light why its emission

doesn’t seem to depend on what is and happens in the environment, as if the source is

the autonomous cause of the emission.

Like in the laser experiment, it is the distance redshift / time dilation inherent to a SCU

why we observe a time sequence between events we misinterpret as proof that the

earlier observed event is the cause of the later one, why we came to think of light as

something which moves through space, in time. However, since at the speed of light a

particle cannot express its properties in interactions so doesn’t exist, has no physical

reality to the environment it is supposed to travel through, it doesn’t even make sense

to speak about its velocity relative to the environment. If, as in the absolutistic view,

we don’t require the photon to interact with the objects relative to which it moves,

then we can only speak about its velocity if empty space comes with a regular grid

relative to which its velocity can be specified, a grid where time passes at the same

pace everywhere, if space and time exist, are defined even in the absence of energy: if

there is an ether, a medium in which it propagates. Einstein: 1

… the mechanical behavior of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends

not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of

rotation … In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as

something real, Newton objectivizes space. Since he classes his absolute space together

with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real.

Newton might no less well have called his absolute space "Ether" … It is true that Mach

tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavoring

to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the

masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space.

But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes

action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe [in] action at a distance,

he comes back … to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia.

But this conception of the ether … differs essentially from the ether as conceived by

Newton … Mach's ether not only conditions the behavior of inert masses, but is also

conditioned in its state by them. … Recapitulating, we may say that according to [GR]

space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.

According to [GR] space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only

would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of

space and time (measuring­rods and clocks), nor therefore any space­time intervals in the

physical sense.

While action at a ­space­ distance is impossible in a universe where it is the same time

everywhere; in a universe which only exists as seen from within we have action at a

spacetime distance: here we don’t see a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in a distant

past, in the past, but as it is to us as we look at it in what only to us is the present.

Wolfgang Rindler 2

On balance, it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that GR has realized only part of Mach’s

program. Instead of abolishing space altogether, Einstein merely made it nonabsolute;

and, ironically, instead of explaining inertial forces as gravitational, i.e., as matter pulling

on inertial “charge” in the spirit of Mach, Einstein explained gravitational forces as inertial,

i.e., as “space­guided.” It must be said, in fairness, that today’s quantum theoreticians (as

well as many others) have little sympathy with Mach’s principle. They point out that not

1 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ether_and_the_Theory_of_Relativity (23­9­2019)2 Relativity: Special, General and Cosmological (2001),Wolfgang Rindler 2nd edition p 244

91

only matter is the stuff of physics, but also fields, and that the whole of spacetime is

occupied by the fields of the elementary particles. Even in the absence of matter, the

fields of the virtual particles constitutes an all­pervasive background which can in no way

be eliminated. In fact, matter is only a small perturbation of it. This background, which

possesses Lorenz invariance locally, can be looked upon as a modern ether. Since it

possesses no net energy it makes no contribution to curvature, and hence it has no direct

effect in general relativity. But it does suggest the a priori existence of spacetime, which

matter merely modifies and does not create.

If according to the UP a field at any point in spacetime cannot be and remain zero, this

implies spacetime to ‘contain’ energy1 and energy is a dynamic, wavelike quantity and

its quanta are source and product of their interactions, then that suggests that the

virtual particles of empty space are the temporary interference products of the real

particles / waves of stars and galaxies, the quanta of their gravitational field: that what

we call virtual particles are local variations in the strength of the field, that the fabric of

spacetime at microscopic scale alternately stretches and contracts in the sense that the

observed pace of clocks and length of rods ­the extent to which adjoining positions are

distinguishable, defined­ varies in a wavelike manner in space and time. If so, then we

cannot think of this vacuum energy as having the same density everywhere, say that

this ‘ether’ has no net energy so makes no contribution to the curvature of space, that

spacetime exists even in the absence of matter, a ‘spacetime which matter merely

modifies and does not create’ ­not to mention that the universe by definition cannot

have some particular property ­energy density­ as a whole, be uniformly filled with the

virtual particles ­if it even would make sense to speak about its density if it is energy

which turns an imaginary space into a real spacetime in the first place.

If when the energy of the particles of an atom is the sum, the superposition of many

exchange frequencies and varies within every cycle of their oscillation, the atom is in a

superposition of states with different energies, then the question is whether the atom

can emit a photon in an intermediate state, that the photon it emits has a lower energy

as the distance between the emitting and absorbing atom is greater, less definite. Or,

put differently, if when we see the atom, its particles in an ‘earlier’ evolutionary phase

as it is more distant, as the properties of its particles are less defined, less precisely

measured off, the atom in that state interacts, the photon it in that ‘early,’ provisional,

intermediate state emits as it deexcites, has a correspondingly lower energy.

1 Quote marks as energy and space aren’t unrelated quantities, that it is localized (and hence quantized)

energy which, in makes adjoining points physically different turns an abstract space into a real spacetime.

92

10

Feynman’s path integralJohn Wheeler 1

Back in 1940 or 1941, Feynman had come up with a new way to look at quantum

phenomena that I called ‘sum­over­histories.’ The idea, in brief, is this: In quantum

mechanics, if you to want to find out how something at point A influences something at

point B, you can get the answer by pretending that all of the ways that A might send a

signal to B happen at once; the actual effect is then a sum of all the ‘virtual’ effects from

all of the different paths. It is as if a baseball pitcher, instead of throwing a single ball

toward the batter, could launch simultaneously a thousand balls that travel a thousand

different paths through space and time on their way to the batter. Each of these

thousand balls has a ‘history’ as it flies from pitcher’s mound plate. What the batter sees

and swings at is the result of all these histories combined. A mind­bending idea, to be

sure, but it’s just what happens in the quantum world.

If the pitcher and batter represent atoms A and B between which a photon ­the

baseball­ is transmitted and A would autonomously emit the photon, then the photon

should follow a single path in some random direction, not split into thousand photons

which follow simultaneously thousand different paths, including detours via Sirius.

While they may all depart at the same time at A; as paths of different lengths take a

different time to travel, they cannot simultaneously arrive at B in a universe where

light moves at a finite velocity through space, in time ­in which case Feynman’s path

integral method couldn’t possibly work.

That Feynman’s ‘sum­over­histories’ method works proves that the communication

between particles is instant as only then the effects from all thousand paths can be

summed and processed simultaneously into the trajectory of the actual photon, into

behavior of all particles involved in the photon transmission, that there is a continuous,

instant exchange of information between them by means of which they express and

preserve their, each other’s properties: that we live in a selfcreating universe.

As the transmission of the photon changes the energy and momentum A and B have

according to all particles within their IH, it affects their own energy and/or momentum

so they all participate in its transmission, contribute to or absorb part of the photon’s

energy and momentum in a change of their position or state of motion so as seen from

their own rest frame, the forces they feel remain equally strong in all directions.

What Wheeler’s thousand balls ­virtual photons­ are supposed to do is collect and

(re)distribute some of the energy and momentum involved in the photon transmission

from and to all particles involved in the transmission: to communicate all physically

relevant information between all particles participating in it, to transform, process

what classically would be cause into effect.

As their communication is instant, all particles at all times are informed in real time

about each other’s properties, location and motion as far as they affect the frequency

they exchange energy at ­though it remains to be seen whether a particle can

distinguish between the different factors affecting their exchange frequency.

As the term ‘in real time’ was coined assuming that it is the same time everywhere,

that we may imagine to look at the universe from the outside at some particular

moment in cosmic time, being informed in real time in a BBU would mean an infinite

light velocity. In contrast, as a SCU doesn’t live in a time realm not of its own making, as

there is no universe­wide now, ‘in real time’ just means that all observers are equally

1 Geons, Black Holes, and Quantum Foam (1998) J.A. Wheeler p 167­168

93

right about the time an event happens ­as they participate in it, observe it to happen:

here it doesn’t make any sense to ask what precedes what in an absolute sense.

If when no point in spacetime, no observer or observing particle is more special than

any other, any particle can consider itself to be (at) the center of its own interaction

horizon, its own universe, then it contains in its own properties, location, state and

motion relative to all objects to which it owes its energy and to the energy of which it

contributes all relevant information about its environment ­not of the universe as there

is no such thing, but of its own universe, the universe it observes.

As the information about its environment is refreshed, updated in every cycle of its

energy exchange and the exchange is instant, we cannot think of that information as

carried by ‘a thousand balls,’ by virtual photons which move at a finite velocity through

space, in time, to collect and distribute information ­energy, momentum­ from and to

all particles involved in the photon transmission.

While classically the information these balls collect from and deliver to all particles

involved in the photon transmission is outdated by a time equal to the distance they

cover divided by the speed of light; in a SCU A and B are informed in real time about

their environment in the sense that B doesn’t passively receive that information but

participates in the events it observes, including the production and emission of the

photon it absorbs, so its emission by A doesn’t causally precede its absorption by B.

Like a hologram fragment contains all information of the entire hologram, in a universe

where particle properties are cause and effect of their interactions, a particle contains,

in its own properties, state, location and motion all physically relevant information

about all other particles within its interaction horizon, about its entire universe.

Like the hologram fragment gives a vaguer, fuzzier picture of the entire hologram as it

is smaller; the information a particle represents, contains about its universe is vaguer,

less defined, detailed as its rest energy is lower, as its own position and motion is less

definite and hence the world it observes from that ­fuzzier, less definite­ location.

The lower its rest energy is, the less defined, evolved its own properties are observed

to be, the lower it observes the energy to be of the objects in its environment, the less

defined it observes their behavior, their properties to be, the ‘earlier’ the evolutionary

phase it observes its universe to be in. If the universe of a particle is like a hologram

and the observer is part of its universe she examines so he is himself depicted in the

hologram fragment ­in the particle­ he inspects, then he cannot but affect what he

observes by examining it, by subjecting it to a measurement interaction.

94

11

Why quantum mechanics works

The double-slit experimentIN THE BASIC version of the experiment1

… a coherent light source, such as a laser beam, illuminates a plate pierced by two parallel

slits, and the light passing through the slits is observed on a screen behind the plate.

The wave nature of light causes the light waves passing through the two slits to interfere,

producing bright and dark bands on the screen ­a result that would not be expected if light

consisted of classical particles. However, the light is always found to be absorbed at the

screen at discrete points, as individual particles (not waves), the interference pattern

appearing via the varying density of these particle hits on the screen. … The particles do

not arrive at the screen in a predictable order, so knowing where all the previous particles

appeared on the screen and in what order tells nothing about where a future particle will

be detected. If there is a cancellation of waves at some point, that does not mean that a

particle disappears; it will appear somewhere else. Ever since the origination of quantum

mechanics, some theorists have searched for ways to incorporate additional determinants

or “hidden variables” that, were they to become known, would account for the location of

each individual impact with the target.

… electrons are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired towards a double slit.

As a photon is its own antiparticle, its energy in one phase as positive as it is negative in

the next, there would be no energy liberated if two identical photons would annihilate.

However, as the atoms of the light source did lose energy as they emitted the photons

and energy is conserved, they cannot annihilate, so if the atoms only can emit photons

which don’t annihilate, then they must know at the time of the emission when to emit

the photons and in which directions to prevent them to arrive in counterphase at the

same time at the same point on the screen and annihilate. In the particle picture of the

photon, the interference pattern on the screen therefore only can be explained if the

communication between all particles involved in the photon transmission, including

the particles of the light source, the plate with the slits and the screen­ is instant.

In the wave picture of the photon, however, no instant communication is needed to

explain the interference pattern ­unless we interpret the fact that the strength and

phase of the electromagnetic field associated with the waves at different points in

space only can vary in a coordinated, wavelike fashion, that these points only can know

what field values to adopt when if there is an instant communication between them.

Now if we shoot electrons at the slits instead of photons and a screen composed of tiny

electron detectors, then we find a similar interference pattern. While this result can be

explained as an interference between different electrons; we get the same result if we

shoot the electrons one at a time, meaning that each electron goes through both slits

and interferes with itself ­which would be impossible if electrons would be classical,

autonomous particles, particles the existence of which doesn’t depend on anything,

the properties of which only are the cause of interactions so the double­slit experiment

shows that a massive particle ­its energy­ is a wave phenomenon, i.e., cause and effect

of its interactions, that its magnitude varies within every cycle of its oscillation, that its

sign in one phase is as positive as it is negative in the next.2

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double­slit_experiment (2­10­2019)2 If when the energy aka charge sign of a particle alternates, then it can be seen that an electric current in

a circuit can go in both directions simultaneously, like in a flux qubit.

95

As an electron in a SCU has to keep exchanging energy with all particles within its

interaction horizon to keep existing, an instant communication which provides it with

all relevant information about the experimental setup and the environment at large,

from the point of view of the electron the environment to which it owes its existence

splits into two slightly different worlds as it nears the slits, worlds which from both

splits and both sides of the plate exchange energy with the electron, such interference

is unavoidable. If the electron is a wave phenomenon so has no infinitesimal sharp,

fundamental boundary where it, its properties end and its environment begins, and we

were to take the indefiniteness in its position as a measure of its dimension1 and the

indefiniteness in the position it acts from varies in tandem with its energy so its size

twice in every cycle exceeds the distance between the slits, then it interferes with itself

from both slits and both sides of the plate.

While it acts more as a point particle at the times in its cycle when its energy, its rate of

change is maximal, as the indefiniteness in its position is minimal, as the area its energy

acts from is minimal; as in its low energy phase it acts more simultaneously and equally

and hence weaker from all points within a larger area, an area which comprises both

slits and both sides of the plate, it behaves more like a wave phenomenon. As in the

classical ­particle­ picture its rest energy (and hence its electric charge) is an intrinsic,

fixed, static quantity, only the cause of forces, it always is somewhere for 100% of the

time and with 100% of its energy, it only is the probability to find it somewhere in its

entirety, as a particle, which evolves in time; if in a SCU the sign and magnitude of its

energy and with it the indefiniteness in its position varies within every cycle of its

oscillation, we cannot predict by which detector, where on the screen the electron will

be detected unless we know the properties, position and motion of all particles within

its IH: as this is impossible, we only can calculate the probability to find it somewhere.

It was Werner Heisenberg who first realized the need to free ourselves from the belief that, say,

an electron has a well determined position at every time. When it is not interacting with an

external system that can detect its position, the electron can be “spread out” over different

positions. … [he] first recognized that the electron does not have a well­defined position when it

is not interacting.2

Schrödinger’s catTHE SUPPOSITION THAT the electron doesn’t have a well­defined position when it isn’t

interacting only might hold if it would have an autonomous existence, if it would keep

existing even if isolated from interactions, not in a universe where it has to exchange

energy to preserve and express its existence, its properties, where ‘to be’ is a verb.

If when the rest energy of a particle is the sum, the superposition of all wavelengths it

simultaneously exchanges energy in with particles at all distances ­which observe it to

have a different energy and are equally right about the energy it has­ then it can be

said to be in different states simultaneously ­or, if when its energy varies within every

cycle of its oscillation, it repeats3 all those different energies subsequently in every

cycle ­an observed energy which also depends on the rest energy of the observing

particle, its distance and motion relative to the observed.

1 The size of the area where the probability to find it is 99%, say.2 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm­relational/ (7­10­2019)3 The higher the rest energy it has according by a nearby observer, the higher the frequency it repeats all

those states ­meaning that it is observable from, interacts with particles at larger distance as clocks are

observed to run at a slower pace as they are more distant.

96

If when it owes its energy to and contributes to the energy of all particles within its IH,

it participates in all events they are involved in, however weakly, then its own energy

will fluctuate as does the location where forces on it are equal from all directions, the

indefiniteness of its position, the probability to find it at some particular place in some

particular state. As we cannot keep track of the behavior of all particles which affect

the particle we examine, we cannot predict where it will be found, its momentum, in

what state when we subject it to a measurement (even if the measurement interaction

wouldn’t affect where and in what state it will be found), then in this sense we cannot,

before the measurement say where and in what state it is ­which, however, is not the

same as saying that it doesn’t have a well­defined position, of itself, when we don’t

interfere with it by measuring it: as it has to keep interacting with the particles to

which it owes is energy and to the energy of which it contributes, we cannot say that

‘the electron does not have a well­defined position when it is not interacting.’

The confusion originates in the classical assumption that its rest energy is a static

quantity, only the cause of forces so it always ought to be somewhere with 100% of its

properties, that even though we know that it is a wave phenomenon, we refuse to

accept that this means that the indefiniteness in its position varies with its energy, that

it twice in every cycle of its oscillation has a well­defined position, at the times its

energy, its rate of change is maximal, that the position of a particle at those times is

less indefinite as its energy, its rate of change is higher, the frequency it oscillates at.

If the electron could be at two places simultaneously, then so would be its mass:

According to the standard model, the electron … can be in two places at once because it is

described by a wave function. And according to general relativity, the mass of the electron

curves space­time around it. But around which location? General relativity cannot answer

this question, since a curvature doesn’t have quantum properties and can’t be in two

places at once. … after a measurement of its position, the wave function must be updated

so that the measured state now has a probability of 1. This update ­sometimes referred to

as “collapse” or “reduction”­ is instantaneous; it happens at the same moment for the

entire wave function, regardless of how far the wave function was spread out. 1

If it could be at two places at once, then this also would violate the law of conservation

of energy: if this is impossible, then it cannot actually be at two places at the same time

­which anyhow is impossible if there is no universe­wide now. If the (wavefunction

which describes the) probability to find it somewhere at some particular time is equal

at two places, then that doesn’t mean that it actually is at both places.

If we take the indefiniteness in its position as a measure of its size, of the area it acts

from, then it acts more simultaneously, more equally and hence weaker from all points

in a larger area in the phase of its cycle in which its energy is lower ­so no conservation

law is violated. Clearly, as in a SCU the communication between particle is instant, the

update of the wave function proceeds instantly everywhere, be it that the observation

when it happens where depends on the distance of the observer to the observed as

time in this universe is observed to pass at a slower pace at a larger distance.

The idea that an atom can be in multiple states or at different places simultaneously ­

that its state or location is indeterminate until it in some measurement interaction is

forced to choose between either one of its possible states or positions­ inspired Erwin

Schrödinger to his famous thought experiment.

A cat sits in a closed box along with a radioactive atom and a device which releases

poison gas when it detects the radiation the atom emits as it decays ­and the cat dies.

1 Lost in math (2018) Sabine Hossenfelder, p 179 and p 120

97

The supposition is that as long as we don’t look in the box, the atom and cat are in a

mixed state ­that the atom is neither decayed nor undecayed, the cat dead and alive,

and that it is the act of looking into the box which nudges the atom into a single state,

either decayed or undecayed and causes the cat to die or leave it be alive.

If the energy of the particles of an atom varies within every cycle of their oscillation,

then so does the extent to which their position and motion is defined. The lower their

energy is in some phase of their oscillation, the less definite their position and motion

is and with it the configuration they are part of, the more the different configurations

they may simultaneously be part of overlap or the less they can be distinguished from

each other, then the atom can appear to be in different states, configurations at the

same time, in its ground state and any excited state, its particles be part of temporary

configurations which correspond to decayed and undecayed states. If we are surprised

that the atom can be in different states simultaneously, then that is because it is at

odds with the classical idea that the properties of its particles, of the atom itself, are

intrinsic, static, interaction independent quantities ­which if true would mean that no

stable equilibrium between particles would be possible, no atoms, no universe.

Schrödinger’s thought experiment anyhow is flawed as it assumes that there can exist

a box which completely isolates its contents ­atom, device, cat­ from interactions with

the objects outside the box as the atom and cat wouldn’t then exist, have no physical

reality to, belong to the universe of the observer outside the box ­so it wouldn’t even

make sense to ask after the health of the cat or say that time passes inside of it.

Quantum entanglement: the EPR paradox AS EINSTEIN BELIEVED that there is an objective reality at the origin of our observations

which causally precedes its observation, he couldn’t accept the indeterminacy implied

in the uncertainty principle according to which a particle cannot have both an exact

position and momentum simultaneously, so to show the absurdity of this he proposed,

together with Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen a thought experiment showing that

such indeterminacy would imply action at a distance ­which relativity theory forbids.

In the EPR paper Einstein, Podolski and Rosen suppose that 1

… we have two systems, I and II, which we permit to interact from the time t = 0 to t = T,

after which time we suppose that there is no longer interaction between the two parts.

We suppose further that the states of the two systems before t = 0 were known.

Systems I and II can be two identical particles A and B, the interaction a collision by

means of which their states become entangled and after which they move in opposite

directions. As we can measure A’s position after the collision, we can infer from this B’s

exact position at the same time. As the authors assume that the measurement of A‘s

position hasn’t affected B’s motion, we can measure B’s momentum exactly so can

know both B’s position and momentum at the same time to an arbitrary accuracy ­

which is impossible according to the uncertainty principle. Wikipedia: 2

It is one thing to say that [the] measurement of the first particle's momentum affects [the]

uncertainty in its own position, but to say that measuring the first particle's momentum

affects the uncertainty in the position of the other is another thing altogether. Einstein,

Podolsky and Rosen asked how can the second particle "know" to have precisely defined

momentum but uncertain position? Since this implies that one particle is communicating

with the other instantaneously across space, i.e., faster than light, this is the "paradox.”

1 http://www.drchinese.com/David/EPR.pdf p 7792 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox (10­10­2019)

98

Well, to say that A and B are entangled is at odds with the supposition that after the

entanglement interaction ‘there is no longer interaction between the two parts,’ no

communication between A and B ­and the measurement of A’s position indeed cannot

have affected B’s position and momentum­ after the collision which entangled them.

If ­as the authors insist­ their states remain entangled, then this already implies their

communication to be instant so the measurement of A cannot but affect B, which in a

universe where it is the same time everywhere implies action at a space distance, an

infinite light velocity, not in a SCU where we have an instant communication ­action­

over any spacetime distance. It is the assumption that the universe has a beginning,

that it has been created by some outside intervention ­ that particle properties are

privately owned quantities they were endowed with at their one­off creation at the big

bang, only the cause of interactions, that they have an autonomous existence so don’t

have to interact to keep existing­ why the authors assume that A and B only interact if

we manipulate, collide them, say, or if nature forces them to interact in some event.

If we only can say that A and B are entangled if there is a continuous and instantaneous

communication between them, then the interaction by means of which A’s position is

measured doesn’t only affect A’s momentum but both B’s position and momentum as

well ­in which case we cannot infer from A’s measured position where B exactly was at

the time A’s position was measured if we hadn’t measured A’s position. Similarly, we

cannot say that ‘the states of the two systems before t = 0 is known’ ­that both the

exact position and momentum of A and B are defined, known to the last of an infinite

series of decimals­ unless it is known not only to us, but to nature itself, to all particles

within their IH since otherwise they wouldn’t be part of the same universe.

If both their states would be known exactly at t = 0, then A and B would be entangled

even before the collision in the sense that the information about their state is known

to, entangled with the state of all other particles within their interaction horizon, with

respect to which their position and momentum can be specified, regardless of whether

or not we can access that information without by measuring their position affect their

momentum or vice versa. We only can say that A and B are entangled, belong to each

other’s universe, if there is a continuous, instant exchange of information between

them so the confusion originates in the belief that we live in a universe where it is the

same time, where time passes at the same pace everywhere ­the assumption special

relativity is based upon­ why we came to assume that light is something which moves

at a finite velocity through space, in time.

It is curious how one can say that particles are entangled ­which presupposes their

communication to be instant­ yet in the same sentence deny such instantaneity:

Wikipedia 1

A possible resolution to the apparent paradox might be to assume that the state of the

particles contains some hidden variables whose values effectively determine, right from

the moment of separation, what the outcomes of the … measurements are going to be.

This would mean that each particle carries all the required information with it, and

nothing needs to be transmitted from one particle to the other at the time of

measurement.

In an effort to try to spirit the instantaneity problem away, hidden variable theory

assumes that the particles know what measurement they’re going to be subjected to

at the time they become entangled, whether their momentum or position or along

which axis their spin or polarization direction is going to be measured: that they can

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement (7­4­2018)

99

predict the future. Such clairvoyance, however, is excluded by experiments1 which

show that the spin or polarization direction of entangled particles is indeterminate ­

neither up nor down / left nor right along some axis­ before the measurement, that

we don’t measure the state they already were in, but that ­Schrödinger’s cat­ it is

the measurement which forces them to adopt either one of the possible directions,

information which then needs to be instant­communicated between the entangled

particles. Such experiments prove that we live in a universe where the transmission

of information between all involved particles ­including those of the experimental

setup to measure their spin direction or the polarization filters the orientation of

which affects the spin or polarization A and B will be found to have­ is instant, that

there is a continuous exchange of energy, of information between all particles within

each other’s interaction horizon. Wikipedia 2

The paradox is that a measurement made on either of the particles apparently collapses

the state of the entire entangled system—and does so instantaneously, before any

information about the measurement result could have been communicated to the other

particle (assuming that information cannot travel faster than light) and hence assured the

"proper" outcome of the measurement of the other part of the entangled pair. In the

Copenhagen interpretation, the result of a spin measurement on one of the particles is a

collapse into a state in which each particle has a definite spin (either up or down) along

the axis of measurement. The outcome is taken to be random, with each possibility having

a probability of 50%. However, if both spins are measured along the same axis, they are

found to be anti­correlated. This means that the random outcome of the measurement

made on one particle seems to have been transmitted to the other, so that it can make

the "right choice" when it too is measured.

Though the article continues by saying that

It is not even possible to say which of the measurements came first. … Therefore, the

correlation between the two measurements cannot be explained as one measurement

determining the other: different observers would disagree about the role of cause and

effect.

it doesn’t draw the inescaple conclusion that such experiments prove that big bang

cosmology ­the idea that it is the same time everywhere­ is fundamentally wrong.

If in a SCU their communication is instant, all physically relevant information about the

state of one particle is present, in real time, at all other particles it exchanges energy

with, with which it is entangled, then we obviously cannot subject it to a measurement

interaction without simultaneously affecting all other particles, without informing

them about the state it adopted when measured.

It is the continuous, instant energy ­information­ exchange between all involved

particles which effectuates what the hidden variables are supposed to do: instruct B

what polarization or spin direction to adopt when A, the particle it is one­on­one

entangled with, by the measurement interaction performed on it is forced to choose

one or the other spin or polarization direction.

As the continuous exchange of energy, of information only serves to preserve the

status quo, to uphold the world we see, it seems to be hidden, as if there occurs no

such exchange at all, an exchange which only would become observable if we could cut

it off as the particles then would cease to exist and vanish without trace like the picture

on a TV when we pull its plug ­and with it the observer and his universe.

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem#Testing_by_practical_experiments and

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0811/0811.3129.pdf2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Paradox (6­5­2020)

100

The answer to the question the EPR paper asks ­whether the quantum mechanical

description of physical reality is complete­ depends on whether or not there exists a

completely knowable reality in the first place, whether there is a single, absolute,

objective reality at the origin of our observations causally preceding the observation

thereof ­which it only is in a classical mechanics, in a big bang universe.

While a BBU has an external reality we may imagine to look at from the outside; as a

SCU only exists as seen from within and by definition cannot have particular properties,

be in any particular state as a whole, there is no single, absolute, objective universe­

wide reality, no universe­wide now all objects and observers live in, we must specify

the observer or observing particle when describing their universe, not the universe as

there is no such thing, but the universe they observe.

THOUGH THE WORLD at macroscopic level seems to constitute an objective reality and

obey causality ­so we can quantify the relation between cause and effect, predict the

result of experiments without which no science would be possible; at quantum level

the universe ultimately cannot be understood causally, only rationally ­obey the Nix

law­ from the point of view of the particles doing the creating.

While it is gravity, the tendency of energy to keep creating itself which drives the

changes we experience as the passing of time, which in imposing a direction on events

seems to enable us to distinguish cause from effect ­so the world at macroscopic level

does appear to live in a time realm not of its own making, as if it is the same time, as if

time passes at the same pace everywhere even when nothing would happen, change;

instead of saying that the sign of the energy of particles alternates in time we can as

well say that they alternately move in forward and backward time directions, that they

oscillate about some zero­time point as they keep creating and uncreating each other

over and over again in every cycle of their energy exchange.

Instead of saying that particles in some mysterious manner were created with a certain

rest mass at the big bang and masses for some unfathomable reason attract so tend to

contract to stars and galaxies as time passes ­that time eternally passes at the same,

particular unperturbable pace anyway no matter whether something happens, changes

or not; if the definition of what a universe is implies that particle properties are cause

and effect of their interactions ­that they only acquire mass if and when they contract

to stars and galaxies, changes we experience as the passing of time, that it is gravity,

the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself­ then the observed sequence

of events does not prove that the earlier event is cause of the later one.

If particles only exist to each other if, to the extent and for as long as they interact and

the energy they observe each other to have, the evolutionary phase they observe each

other to be in depends on their distance ­if the energy, the evolutionary phase it is

observed to be in by a nearby observer is a superposition of energies, of evolutionary

phases, all of which keep contributing to the energy she observes it to have, phases

which remain components of the relatively ‘late’ phase she observes it to have (in what

only to her is the present), then we cannot even speak about an ‘earlier’ phase as this

presupposes that it has vanished, disappeared from the universe: as we can as well say

that it is its relatively ‘late,’ high energy phase which makes it possible to be observed

to have a low energy, to be in an ‘early’ phase of its evolution by a distant observer, we

cannot say that one phase causally precedes the other.

While the assumption of BBC that the universe grows older at the same pace anywhere

means that the early evolutionary phases of the entire universe, of galaxies eventually

should vanish into the past, be no longer part of the universe at later times; this is at

odds with the fact that as a galaxy in a BBU is observed to be as it was at an earlier time

101

in the past as it is more distant so what happened in the past in that galaxy keeps

affecting events in other galaxies at later times, the earlier events in and the earlier

phases of the galaxy don’t actually cease to exist, vanish from the universe ­which

reminds of Faulkner’s remark that ‘the past is never dead. It’s not even past.’

The point of this diversion is to emphasize that we cannot, as in BBC, speak about the

of the evolutionary phase particles, starts and galaxies are in without specifying the

observer or observing particle: that there is no single, objective reality at the origin of

our observations, which is the same to all observers and observing particles ­at least

not a particle ­quantum­ level.

As the universe of every observing particle always contains particles in all possible

phases of their evolution, terms like earlier and later are relative, local notions so we

cannot say that the evolutionary phase we observe a particle or galaxy in is the state in

which it is, of itself as there is no such thing in a SCU. Moreover, we only can say that a

particle or galaxy is in some particular evolutionary phase if and when it actually is

observed to be in that phase and only to that observer or to identical observers at the

same distance and who are in the same state of motion relative to the observed.

THE ADVANTAGE OF particles of being in different states, at different places, moving in

different ways, of being part of different configurations at once or oscillating between

such states, places, configurations ­of an indefiniteness in their position and motion

which varies within every cycle­ combined with an instant communication is that it

facilitates their evolution to elementary particles as it the instant feedback between

particles which allows them to coordinate and adjust their properties / behavior to

each other, to the circumstances they create and are the product of.

So Instead of throwing dice the faces of which are numbered 1 to 6 until a winning

combination comes up (which to determine presumes that there are criteria about

what might constitute a winning ­viable­ combination of particle properties, species,

laws and constants of nature ­that the laws of nature are operational even before

there are particles); it is gravity which in favoring more compact, (UP) higher­energy

above less compact, lower­energy configurations paves the way for successively more

viable configurations ­particle properties, species, atomic nuclei­ which, combined with

an instant communication speeds up their evolution to elementary particles, without

which there would be no evolution possible. So it isn’t that the numbers of the dice are

fixed before the throw and it only is the accidental combination of numbers of the dice

in a throw which determines, by chance alone, the direction of their evolution; the

numbers of the dice ­the properties of the different particles­ themselves are

ambiguous, indeterminate, subject to evolution until the throw ­whether they come up

as a collection of weakly bound particles, particles without well­defined properties,

positions and momenta or as strongly bound, cohesive, organized collective of particles

with different, distinct yet entangled properties: that it are the properties of the

different particles which managed to survive a trial and error evolution ­the repeated

throwing of the dice­ which determine, paint the numbers on the faces of the dice so

to say, the properties of the particles in atomic nuclei and atoms­ and vice versa, the

properties of the atomic nuclei and electrons ­the properties of stars and galaxies­

which determine those of their component particles and vice versa.

102

You can't say A is made of B / or vice versa. / All mass is interaction ­Richard Feynman 1

12

Higgs and the origin of massIF THE DEFINITION of what a universe is implies that particles, particle properties are

cause and effect of their interactions, then can it make sense to accuse one particle

species ­Higgs bosons­ of causing particles like electrons and quarks to have mass?

Frank Wilczek 2

The bad news is that nothing in these ideas explains the origin of the mass of the Higgs

particle itself, nor do they greatly elucidate the observed complicated structure of quark

and lepton masses and mixings.

If we don’t know what caused the Higgs particle to have mass (nor can calculate its

value from first principle), then can we claim to understand the origin of the mass of

electrons, quarks and W and Z particles? To say that it owes its mass to self­interaction

with its own field doesn’t explain anything as long as we don’t know the origin of that

field ­unless we say that it is caused by its quanta ­Higgs bosons­ and we have a circular

reasoning. If we say that the Higgs field or the mass of the Higgs boson is caused by

another, as yet undiscovered particle, a particle the mass of which to explain requires

the existence of yet another particle which causes it to have mass and this goes on at

infinitum, then we cannot understand the origin of mass even in principle, while if we

say that there is a primordial particle which causes the Higgs boson to have mass, then

the mass of that particle and hence the mass of the Higgs particle similarly cannot be

explained.

If the universe at quantum level cannot be understood causally, only rationally then a

mechanism which tries to explain the mass of particles as the effect of some cause

cannot possibly enlighten us about the origin of mass. One problem of the present

approach in the quest for the origin of mass is that in assuming that particle properties

only are the cause of forces, we came to think of the mass, electric and color charge of

particles as qualitatively different, unrelated quantities, as if an electron, say, has two

batteries, one filled with gravitational charge and the other with electric charge.

However, if in a SCU any kind of charge contributes to, is an expression of the energy of

particles, if the energy involved in one interaction, associated with one force, one kind

of charge powers and is powered by all other interactions it simultaneously is involved

in due to other charges and even its motion, its kinetic energy is a source of gravity and

powers what we observe as its mass, then it is unlikely that mass is a charge a particle

has independent from, in addition to other kinds of charge.

If mass in a SCU cannot causally precede gravity and energy is a source of gravity, we

may call that energy ‘mass’ and an object only can be said to have energy if it has a

position from which it can act, if according to the UP the energy of a particle is higher

as the position it acts from is less indefinite, then the uncertainty principle defines the

rest mass of a particle as greater as the position of its mass center is less indefinite.

The advantage of this definition is that it links energy and spacetime, agreeing with the

proposition that it is localized energy which turns an abstract space where, if it would

make sense to speak about the pace of time, it would pass at the same pace anywhere

into a real spacetime, as opposed to BBC where concepts like ‘energy density of the

universe’ and ‘cosmic time’ define energy, space and time as independent, unrelated

1 Quoted in Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman (1992) by James Gleick p. 52 Origins of Mass (2012) Frank Wilczek p 31 http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.7114

103

quantities ­which if true would mean that space and time exist even in the absence of 

energy, that a particle can exist, have mass in an otherwise empty universe, suggesting 

‘the a priori existence of spacetime, which matter merely modifies and does not create.

If ‘all mass is interaction’ means that all interactions between particles due to any kind 

of charge contribute to their energy, their mass, then it isn’t a gravitational charge they 

have independent from, in addition to other kinds of charge, especially in a universe 

where a charge cannot causally precede the force it powers and is powered by. 

The idea of mass as a gravitational charge may originate in the assumption that particle 

properties are intrinsic, static quantities, only the cause of forces so the electric charge 

of a particle is either positive or negative, always,1 so charged particles, depending on 

their charge sign, either attract or repulse ­a force which, as it only can be as strong as 

the counterforce it meets, requires the existence of a qualitatively different, unrelated 

kind of charge ­a gravitational charge­ to overcome the electric repulsion between 

protons to enable them to form atomic nuclei. Though the electric force is said to be 

much stronger than gravity; the electric repulsion between two protons in practice 

only can become as strong as the counterforce ­gravity­ it meets. If any kind of charge 

contributes to their energy, including their electric charge, then their charge would 

power two opposite forces. If when in a SCU their position becomes less indefinite as 

their distance decreases so their energy increases and with it both their electric 

repulsion and their gravitational attraction, and a charge cannot causally precede the 

force it powers and is powered by, its expression as a force, we can as well say that 

both their electric charge and mass increases, that it is gravity which, in creating its

own counter force, creates, powers their electric charge. 

Frank Wilczek 2

Einstein’s original paper does not contain the equation E = mc², but rather m = E/c² … The 

title of the original paper is a question: Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy

Content? …  I think he would have been delighted to learn that our answer to his question 

is a resounding “Yes!” Not only does the inertia of bodies depend on its energy content; 

for ordinary matter most of inertia is the energy associated with moving quarks and 

gluons, themselves essentially massless, following m = E/c². 

While most of the mass of baryons may originate in the motion of quarks and gluons;

as without a nonzero rest mass, the kinetic energy E = ½ mv² of quarks cannot increase 

and cause the mass of baryons, quarks are thought to owe their tiny ‘starter’ mass to 

interactions with the Higgs field, a mass which subsequently is enhanced by their 

motion. If gluons indeed move at the speed of light so their position is completely 

indefinite, then they cannot express their energy, contribute to the mass of baryons.

If a selfcreating universe definition cannot have particular properties, be in any single, 

particular state as a whole, then the Higgs field which is supposed to pervade all of 

space cannot have the same nonzero value everywhere it must have if it is to cause 

identical particles to have the same mass everywhere, always, to be identical.

The homogeneity of the Higgs field seems to serve as a regular grid relative to which 

we can specify the location and motion of particles, to keep the starter masses of 

quarks and rest masses of electrons, W and Z bosons constant, the same throughout 

the universe, something which, once acquired via the Higgs field only acts as the cause 

of interactions, as if they would keep existing even when prevented to interact, be it 

1 As opposed to the color charge of quarks, which as it is supposed to alternate, suggests that their 

properties ­their color and electric charge­ are dynamic quantities, cause and effect of their interactions.2 The Universe Is a Strange Place (2005) Frank Wilczek p 6, http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0511067

104

without mass in the absence of the Higgs field. However, if when the IH’s, the universes 

of two particles coincide, overlap less as they are farther apart so the part of their 

energy they owe to each other is lower so their behavior, their properties are less 

related, their interactions weaker, then it makes less sense to say that it are identical 

particles. If such distant, ‘alien’ particles in the course of time migrate through space, 

then they may elsewhere cause observations indicating the existence of dark matter.

THE IDEA IS that particles like electrons and quarks have no intrinsic mass but acquire 

mass by interacting with the Higgs field, a mass which is enhanced by their motion. 

Max Jammer:

That our contemporary knowledge about particles can hardly be expected to solve the 

problem of mass is clearly shown by the fact that the mass spectrum of elementary 

particles has so far defied any explanation. Nobody knows why the mass of the electron is 

about 0.0005 GeV, that of the muon about 0.11 GeV, that of the tauon 2 GeV and that of 

the top­quark about 170 GeV. All attempts to find a general formula for these so widely 

diverging mass­values ­ in the hope that it would lead to an explanatory theory, just as the 

Balmer formula for the spectral lines of hydrogen was a clue for the construction of 

quantum mechanics ­ have failed. … [] … the Higgs mechanism … is often credited with 

explaining the ‘origin’ or ‘genesis’ of mass. But if a process ‘generates’ mass it may 

reasonably be expected to provide information about the nature of what it ‘generates’ as 

well. In order to see whether this is really the case we should, of course, know the 

‘machinery’ of this mechanism. [] ... the Higgs mechanism is based on the assumption of 

the existence of a … “Higgs field,” which permeates all of space. By coupling with this field 

a massless particle acquires a certain amount of potential energy and, hence, according to 

the mass­energy relation, a certain mass. The stronger the coupling, the more massive the 

particle. 1

The way particles are thought to acquire mass in their interactions with the Higgs field is 

somewhat analogous to the way pieces of blotting paper absorb ink. … the pieces of paper 

represent individual particles and the ink represents energy, or mass. Just as pieces of 

paper of different size and thickness soak up varying amounts of ink, different particles 

‘soak up’ varying amounts of energy or mass. The observed mass of a particle depends on 

the particle’s ‘energy absorbing’ ability, and on the strength of the Higgs field in space.2

Or as Abdul Salam once expressed it: “The massless … particles ‘eat’ the Higgs particles (or 

field) in order to gain weight, and the swallowed Higgs particles become ghosts.” 

It should now be clear that in the Higgs mechanism mass is not ‘generated’ in the particle 

by a miraculous ‘creatio ex nihilo,’ it is only transferred to the particle from the Higgs field, 

which contained it in the form of energy. …

Thus, in spite of all the strenuous efforts of physicists and philosophers, the notion of 

mass, although fundamental in physics, is … still shrouded in mystery. 1 

If the particles which owe their rest mass to the Higgs field are to have the same value 

everywhere, the field must have the same value everywhere, its quanta be distributed 

uniformly over space, so if the Higgs mechanism is to explain anything, it must explain 

how the field came to be switched on and why it has the value it has, the origin of its 

energy and how its quanta came to be and managed to remain distributed uniformly 

over space as gravity between them would amplify any inhomogeneity and destroy the 

homogeneity of the field necessary to ensure that these particles have the same mass 

everywhere. Moreover, it also should explain how the particles it is to provide with 

mass can know what mass they ought to pick up from the field, of the origin of the 

property which enables them to soak up the right amount of energy, how they can 

know what kind of particle they are to going to be when they grow up ­and let’s not ask 

1 Concepts of Mass in Contemporary Physics and Philosophy (2000) Max Jammer p 161­1672 The Higgs Boson, Martinus Veltman, in Scientific American (1986) p 76 

105

whether, if any kind of charge contributes to the energy, the mass of particles, they 

also pick up other properties from the Higgs field, like electric and color charge.

Martinus Veltman, in 1986 1

In order to endow particles with mass, the Higgs field, if it exists, would have to assume a 

uniform, nonzero value even in the vacuum. … The Higgs force is not a universal force, 

because it couples differently to different particles. Specifically, if a particle is observed to 

have mass, the strength of the coupling to the Higgs field is assumed to be whatever 

quantity is necessary to generate precisely that mass. Presumably the Higgs field does not 

couple to the photon, since experiment shows the photon is massless. But apparently it 

couples to the W+, W­ and Z0 particles, because they do have mass. It should perhaps be 

noted that particles could have a mass of their own, in addition to what they are thought 

to acquire from the Higgs field. 

Curiously, however, in the standard model not a single particle could have a mass of its 

own without destroying the mathematical completeness of the theory. From a physical 

point of view little is gained by proposing that the Higgs boson accounts for mass. It is not 

known, for example, why the Higgs field should couple more strongly to some particles 

than it does to others. Nor do investigators understand how the mass of the Higgs boson 

itself (which is not known) comes about, although it is generally presumed to be 

dominantly through a self­interaction with the Higgs field. In this sense ignorance about 

the origin of particle masses is replaced by ignorance about particle­Higgs couplings, and 

no real knowledge is gained. 

Moreover … the graviton … should couple to anything that carries energy, including the 

Higgs field. The coupling of the graviton to the Higgs field ­ever present in all space­ would 

generate a huge “cosmological constant: ”it would curve the universe into an object 

roughly the size of a football. If the Higgs boson is assumed to have roughly the same mass 

as the weak vector bosons, the energy density of the Higgs field in the vacuum would be 

10 trillion times greater than the density of matter in an atomic nucleus. If the Earth were 

compressed to this density, its volume would be approximately 500 cubic centimeters, or 

a bit more than the size of a soft­drink can. Needless to say, this is contrary to experiment. 

The theorists' way out is really something. It is assumed that the “true” vacuum (one 

without a Higgs field) is curved in a negative sense: it has a cosmological constant equal in 

magnitude but opposite in sign to the one generated by the Higgs field. The introduction 

of the Higgs field then flattens out space to make precisely the universe as we know it. 

This solution is, of course, not very satisfactory, and many ingenious attempts have been 

made to solve the problem of the huge cosmological constant. None of the attempts has 

succeeded. If anything, matters have grown worse because theorists keep dumping more 

particles and fields into the vacuum. 

… the only legitimate reason for postulating the Higgs boson is to make the standard 

model mathematically consistent. … the introduction of the Higgs boson to give such 

consistency had nothing to do with its introduction to account for mass.

The supposition that the Higgs field would curve the universe ‘into an object roughly 

the size of a football’ again shows how difficult it is to not think about it as an ordinary 

object the size of which BFPD can be measured even from outside the universe, as if it 

lives in a space realm not of its own making, as if the length of the meter is defined 

even outside of it. Leon Lederman: 2

So Higgs is great. Why, then, hasn’t it been universally embraced? Peter Higgs, who loaned 

his name to the concept (not willingly), works on other things. Martinus Veltman, one of 

the Higgs architects, calls it a rug under which we sweep our ignorance. Sheldon Glashow

is less kind, calling it a toilet in which we flush away the inconsistencies of our present 

theories.

1 Ibid. Veltman (1986) p 76­80.2 The God Particle (1993) M. Lederman p 375 

106

While the critique of these Nobel laureates may, for the time being, have been silenced 

by the discovery of a particle consistent with the Higgs boson; that doesn’t necessarily 

prove that it gives mass to electrons, quarks, W and Z bosons, especially as we don’t 

know the origin of the mass of the Higgs boson nor does the Higgs mechanism answer 

any of the above objections and questions or solve the problem of the Higg’s mass: 1

The Higgs is the only known particle of its type, and its suffers from a peculiar 

mathematical problem that the other elementary particles are immune to: quantum 

fluctuations make a huge contribution to the Higg’s mass. Contributions like this are 

normally small, but for the Higgs they lead to a mass much larger than is observed ­too 

large, indeed, by a factor of 10 14. Not a little bit off, but dramatically, inadmissibly wrong.

If according to the UP the energy of a particle is higher as the position its energy acts 

from as a source of gravity, then the rest mass particles observe, cause each other to 

have (if they would be able to distinguish between the rest mass of a particle and its 

expression as gravity) is related to their distance. If it is invariant, then that doesn’t 

mean that it is an interaction independent quantity, but because it only can change if 

the energy increases of all particles within its IH ­which, due to the tendency of energy 

in a SCU to increase, they eventually will, like when they contract at places. If it is a 

quantity intrinsically related to space and time, if it is the energy, the mass of a particle 

which makes positions in its vicinity (at an extremely short distance from its mass 

center) physically different, then it is hard to see how particles can have a mass they 

owe to the Higgs field, a mass which is unrelated to their distance, to space and time.

If an electron only can interact with the Higgs field if it has energy and energy is a 

source of gravity so it already has mass, then what would it need Higgs for? 

Can nature really be so inefficient as to create mass­challenged particles, invent Higgs 

bosons to give them mass and subsequently craft gravitons to communicate that mass? 

However, the accuracy of the predictions2 of the Higgs mechanism is so impressive that 

it raises the question whether it does what the continuous energy exchange between 

particles in a SCU does: express and preserve their, each other’s properties, to preserve 

the status quo, an exchange which if cut off would make the universe cease to exist.

1 Lost in Math (2018) Sabine Hossenfelder p. 372 “The success of the Higgs­based electroweak theory and Standard Model is illustrated by their 

predictions of the mass of two particles later detected: the W boson (predicted mass: 80.390 ± 0.018 GeV, 

experimental measurement: 80.387 ± 0.019 GeV), and the Z boson (predicted mass: 91.1874 ± 0.0021, 

experimental measurement: 91.1876 ± 0.0021 GeV). Other accurate predictions included the weak neutral 

current, the gluon, and the top and charm quarks, all later proven to exist as the theory said.’ 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson#cite_note­predictions­20 (27­3­2020)

107

I believe that there are 55,747,724,136,275,002,577,605,653,961,181,555,468,044,717,914,

527,116,709,366,231,425,076,185,633,033,296 protons in the universe, and the same number of

electrons. Arthur Eddington 1

Theories of explosions, including the first picoseconds of the big bang … are unfalsifiable, not­

withstanding widely cited ... “evidence” such as isotopic abundances at the surfaces of stars and

the cosmic microwave background anisotropy. One might as well claim to infer the properties of

atoms from the storm damage of a hurricane. Robert B. Laughlin 2

13

Observational evidence for a big bang universe WHILE THE OBSERVATIONAL evidence for a big bang seems so overwhelming that 

almost all physicists take it for a fact; if the universe by definition cannot have certain 

properties, be in any particular state as a whole so BBC describes a fictitious universe, 

then we need to reexamine the interpretation of the observations BBC is based upon 

and look for observations which are inconsistent with its predictions.

The evidence for the big bang consists of the redshift of galaxies, the cosmic microwave 

background radiation (CMB); the relative abundances of light elements which, as they 

cannot have been formed in stars, must have been synthesized shortly after the big 

bang, the distribution of quasars, the metallicity of stars and nebulae and the evolution

and large scale structure of the universe.

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiationAS ACCORDING TO big bang cosmology all elementary particles were created ready­

made shortly into the big bang3 and their properties only are the cause of interactions, 

their distribution over space should be more or less random, inhomogeneous, it came 

as a surprise that the cosmic microwave background radiation was observed to be 

about the same in all directions. The idea of an (in)homogeneous distribution of 

particles ­like the concept ‘energy density of the universe’­ presupposes that space 

exists independent from the presence of particles ­as opposed to a selfcreating 

universe where it is localized energy which turns an abstract space into a real, physical 

spacetime, where there is no spacetime in the absence of particles, of energy.

The CBM is supposed to be relic radiation emitted some 380,000 years after the big 

bang, to originate from the time when the universe was cooled enough for electrons 

and protons to form electrically neutral hydrogen so photons could travel freely 

without being immediately (re)absorbed by free electrons and protons ­as a result of 

which and the universe became transparent to radiation. Due to the expansion of 

space the wavelength of the photons which existed at the time became stretched, 

redshifted to its present value, corresponding to a temperature of about 2.72⁰ Kelvin.

As an expanding universe implies that regions which are sufficiently far apart recede 

from each other faster than the speed of light, what happens in one region cannot 

affect what in happens in the other. As with the passing of time the region from which 

we can receive light increases ­our observation horizon recedes from us at the speed of 

light­ new areas will come into view. 

The curious thing, now,  is that these new regions look no different from other regions: 

they have a CMB which is isotropic to about one part in 100,000.

1 Cosmology and Controversy (1996) Helge Kragh p 672 A Different Universe. Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (2005) Robert B. Laughlin p 211.3 Or evolved within 10−36 second after the start of the big bang.

108

This is the horizon problem: how came these regions to have the same temperature if 

they are too far apart to ever have been able to interact, communicate and smooth out 

temperature differences? 

To explain how the universe came to look as it does today, it would have to have 

started from improbably fine­tuned initial conditions at the big bang. Another problem, 

the flatness problem, arises from the fact that for the universe to look flat today

… some of the initial conditions of the universe … [must have been] be fine­tuned to very 

'special' values, and that small deviations from these values would have extreme effects 

on the appearance of the universe at the current time. In the case of the flatness problem, 

the parameter which appears fine­tuned is the density of matter and energy in the 

universe. This value affects the curvature of space­time, with a very specific critical value 

being required for a flat universe. … The ratio of the actual density to this critical value is 

called Ω, and its difference from 1 determines the geometry of the universe: Ω > 1 

corresponds to a greater than critical density ρ > ρc and hence a closed universe, Ω < 1 

gives a low density open universe, and Ω equal to exactly 1 gives a flat universe. … 

The current density of the universe is observed to be very close to this critical value. 

Since the total density departs rapidly from the critical value over cosmic time, the early 

universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by 

one part in 10 62 or less. … a very small departure of Ω from 1 in the early universe would 

have been magnified during billions of years of expansion … In the case of an overdensity 

[Ω > 1] this would lead to a universe so dense it would cease expanding and collapse into a 

Big Crunch in a few years or less; in the case of an underdensity [Ω < 1] it would expand so 

quickly and become so sparse it would soon seem essentially empty, and gravity would 

not be strong enough by comparison to cause matter to collapse and form galaxies.1

To spirit these fine­tuning problems away, the universe is proposed to have undergone 

a rapid exponential expansion2 from 10−36 second after the big bang whereby nearby 

regions with different energy density were separated so fast that they disappeared 

beyond each other’s horizon, an inflation which, to fit observations, must have ended 

sometime between 10−33 and 10−32 seconds after the big bang after which space starts 

to expand at its normal rate ­whatever ‘normal’ means if its rate cannot be inferred 

from first principles. This inflation is supposed to be caused by a hypothetical inflaton

field which permeates all of space and has a huge potential energy which, as the field 

goes to its ground state, is released and drives the expansion of space. 

As the new regions which come into view today

… are exactly the same regions that were pushed out of the horizon during inflation … 

they are at nearly the same temperature and curvature, because they come from the 

same originally small patch of space. The theory of inflation thus explains why the 

temperatures and curvatures of different regions are so nearly equal. It also predicts that 

the total curvature of a space­slice at constant global time is zero. This prediction implies 

that the total ordinary matter, dark matter and residual vacuum energy in the Universe 

have to add up to the critical density … 3

The idea is that however inhomogeneous the universe may have been initially, we 

always can choose areas sufficiently small that each of these original patches of space 

was almost completely homogeneous and that our present observable universe 

consists of one of these tiny, since that time inflated and expanded patches of space 

and that our present observation horizon hasn’t yet exceeded the boundary of this 

original, homogeneous patch of space ­and, if the expansion of the universe indeed 

accelerates, never will. 

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem (13­9­2019)2 That is, a ­the scale factor, the ‘size’ of the universe­ grows as e λ t with time t, and λ a constant3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) (21­10­2019) 

109

As to the flatness problem, the inflaton field

… contains a certain energy density, but unlike the density of the matter or radiation 

present in the late universe, which decrease over time, the density of the inflationary field 

remains roughly constant as space expands. Therefore, the term ρa² increases extremely 

rapidly as the scale factor a grows exponentially. 

Recalling the Friedmann equation (Ω ­ 1 − 1) ρa²  = − 3kc² / 8πG and the fact that the right­

hand side of this expression is constant, the term |Ω ­ 1 − 1| must therefore decrease with 

time. Thus if |Ω ­ 1 − 1| initially takes any arbitrary value, a period of inflation can force it 

down towards 0 and leave it extremely small ­ around 10 ­62 as required … Subsequent 

evolution of the universe will cause the value to grow, bringing it to the currently 

observed value of around 0.01. Thus the sensitive dependence on the initial value of Ω has 

been removed: a large and therefore 'unsurprising' starting value need not become 

amplified and lead to a very curved universe with no opportunity to form galaxies and 

other structures. 1

While it is nice to decrease |Ω ­ 1 − 1|so that whatever value the initial energy density 

and distribution of the universe actually might have been before inflation doesn’t in 

any way affect how the universe looks today; its credibility is undermined by the fact 

that we can tweak the critical factors of the theory ­the rate of inflation and the times 

it starts and stops­ to fit (our interpretation of) observations as in doing so we just 

replace one improbability −that the universe without inflation has the exact right initial 

density− with the improbability that these factors all have the exact right values to 

make the CMB isotopic and the universe flat.2 As to cut the relation between its initial 

and present value is to cut off any relation between cause and effect, inflation doesn’t 

solve the fine tuning problem but only makes it appear that we solved it. 

Because the exponential, accelerating expansion of space

… stretches out any initial variations in density or temperature to very large length scales, 

an essential feature of inflation is that it smooths out inhomogeneities, anisotropies and 

reduces the curvature of space. This pushes the Universe into a very simple state in which 

it is completely dominated by the inflaton field and the only significant inhomogeneities 

are tiny quantum fluctuations. … [which] form the primordial seeds for all structure

created in the later universe. … 

During inflation, the energy density in the inflaton field is roughly constant. However, the 

energy density in everything else, including inhomogeneities, curvature, anisotropies, 

exotic particles, and standard­model particles is falling, and through sufficient inflation 

these all become negligible. This leaves the Universe flat and symmetric, and (apart from 

the homogeneous inflaton field) mostly empty, at the moment inflation ends. … The 

nature of the inflaton field is currently not known.3

Inflation increased 

… the linear dimensions of the early universe by a factor of at least 10 26 (and possibly a 

much larger factor), and so increased its volume by a factor of at least 10 78. Expansion by 

a factor of 10 26 is equivalent to expanding an object 1 nanometer (10 ­ 9 m)… in length to 

one approximately 10.6 light years (about 62 trillion miles) long. … It is not known exactly 

when the inflationary epoch ended, but it is thought to have been between 10 ­ 33 and 10 ­

32 seconds after the Big Bang.4 … Inflation is a period of supercooled expansion, when the 

temperature drops by a factor of 100,000 or so. … This relatively low temperature is 

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem (16­12­2018)2 The road to reality (2004) Roger Penrose p 752 ­ 759; A critique from one of the architects of inflation: 

http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/0411036.pdf3 With a the scale factor (essentially the 'size' of the universe) and ρ the total density of mass and energy 

in the universe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology) (13­12­2018)4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch (10­12­2018)

110

maintained during the inflationary phase. When inflation ends the temperature returns to 

the pre­inflationary temperature; this is called reheating … because the large potential 

energy of the inflaton field decays into particles and fills the Universe with Standard 

Model particles, including electro­magnetic radiation, starting the radiation dominated

phase of the Universe. Because the nature of the inflation is not known, this process is still 

poorly understood …1

As the expansion of space exhausts the potential energy of the inflaton field, space 

only can keep inflating if the freshly created space comes with the same high­energy 

density −until the time the freshly created energy decides to convert itself into the 

particles of the Standard Model instead of reproducing itself and keep inflating space:

In standard cosmology, there are three components of the universe: matter, radiation, 

and dark energy. Matter is anything whose energy density scales with the inverse cube of

the scale factor, i.e., ρ ∝ a−3, while radiation is anything which scales to the inverse fourth 

power of the scale factor (ρ ∝ a−4). … For radiation, the decrease in energy density is 

greater, because an increase in spatial distance also causes a redshift. The final 

component, dark energy, is an intrinsic property of space, and so has a constant energy 

density regardless of the volume under consideration (ρ ∝ a0). Thus, unlike ordinary 

matter, it does not get diluted with the expansion of space.2 … The simplest explanation 

for dark energy is that it is an intrinsic, fundamental energy of space. This is the 

cosmological constant …  Λ … Since energy and mass are related according to the equation 

E = mc 2, … this energy will have a gravitational effect. It is sometimes called a vacuum 

energy because it is the energy density of empty vacuum. The cosmological constant has 

negative pressure equal to its energy density and so causes the expansion of the universe 

to accelerate. The reason a cosmological constant has negative pressure can be seen from 

classical thermodynamics. In general, energy must be lost from inside a container (the 

container must do work on its environment) in order for the volume to increase.

Specifically, a change in volume dV requires work done equal to a change of energy −P dV, 

where P is the pressure. But the amount of energy in a container full of vacuum actually 

increases when the volume increases, because the energy is equal to ρV, where ρ is the 

energy density of the cosmological constant. Therefore, P is negative and, in fact, P = −ρ. 3

One problem is that we only can speak about the density of the energy which is to 

drive the expansion of space if it could have any value at all, if energy and space would 

be unrelated quantities (so it cannot be understood even in principle why it has the 

value it has, why space expands at the rate it does), then it cannot be an intrinsic 

property of space, another how this energy can decide when to start to convert itself 

into Standard Model particles instead of keep expanding space. As the cosmological 

constant was very large during inflation, zero thereafter to take on a tiny value some 

nine billion years later as the expansion of the universe starts to accelerate so varies at 

will, it isn’t an intrinsic property of space after all.

If energy only can act if it has a position to act from, if it can be localized, if the energy 

of particles is cause and effect of their interactions, a dynamic, wavelike quantity, in 

one phase as positive as it is negative in the next so cannot power a force which is 

either attractive or repulsive, then there cannot be two independent, opposite kinds of 

energy the relative amounts of which we can adjust to fit observations. As we cannot 

at the time of the big bang predict from first principle the rate of expansion of space at 

any time, the inflation hypothesis and cosmological constant are ad hoc inventions to 

save the big bang tale and don’t explain the observed isotropy of the CMB and flatness 

of the universe. 

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#Reheating (16­12­2018)2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Technical_definition (19­3­2019)3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Cosmological_constant (19­3­2019)

111

It isn’t only unclear how the inflaton field knew when to start to decay into what kinds 

of particles in what ratio, how they knew what properties they ought to pop up with; if 

they only appear at the end of inflation, then what did the initial inhomogeneities of 

the universe inflation is to smooth out consist of? If when the position of massless 

particles like photons and gravitons is completely indefinite, they cannot act as the 

source of such inhomogeneities, then that must mean that there already were massive 

particles before inflation, so if the universe wasn’t able to distribute them uniformly 

over space before inflation, then how did it manage to install a perfectly homogenous 

inflaton field, distribute its quanta uniformly over space? 

If the quanta of the inflaton field have energy and gravitons couple to anything which 

has energy, then shouldn’t they couple to inflatons ­like they should, but fail to couple 

to the quanta of the Higgs field­ and cause space to contract instead of inflating it?

The theory also doesn’t specify what event triggered the transition of the metastable

inflaton field from its high potential energy to its ground state and started the inflation: 

if the information about the occurrence of the triggering event cannot travel faster 

than light so instructions that the field should start inflating space arrive at different 

times at different places or such triggering events happen randomly at different places 

and times, then it would cause instead of smooth out inhomogeneities even though 

they may be unobservable, beyond our observation horizon. If, on the other hand, the

quanta of the inflaton field have a clock aboard and are preprogrammed at the big 

bang about the rate at which they are to drive the inflation and when to start and stop 

inflating space, then this suggests that the universe has been created by some outside 

intervention and, as the expansion of the universe began to accelerate some four 

billion years ago, that there is a continuing interference from outside the universe.

Inflation therefore doesn’t solve the horizon problem but just dilutes and inflates them 

out of sight by choosing the size of the original patch of space which is to expand to the 

present observable universe, the rate at which it inflates and the times to start and 

stop inflating to fit observations and solve the flatness problem by uncoupling its 

present curvature from whatever value the initial energy density of the universe

actually might have been −if the concept would make any sense to begin with.

In fact, the energy of the inflaton field requires an improbable fine tuning itself:

If we assume … that the cosmological constant has been constant at all times, then we run 

into a new difficulty vis­à­vis inflation. The universe was driven to inflate because of the 

extra energy it obtained from a phase transition. That energy is very similar to the dark

energy and inflation of the universe to that in the classic …model of de Sitter.  … Thus 

there was an effective cosmological constant that drove the inflationary universe. Only the 

time scale for inflation was very short and so the corresponding cosmological constant 

was very large, compared to its present value. How large? It was large by a factor 10 108 … 

So prima facie one is forced to conclude that after the inflation was over, the extra energy 

almost disappeared , leaving behind an extremely tiny fraction of the order of one part in 

this large number. Further, this leftover has to be very finely tuned, otherwise, the whole 

expansion of the universe would go astray. This is ironical, since the one reason for 

invoking inflation was to avoid fine tuning of precisely this nature. … Now it appears that 

inflation brought its own fine tuning to an even greater degree! To avoid this problem one 

needs to have a dynamical mechanism which would reduce the cosmological constant 

from its initial very large value to what is required today.1

Though we can speculate that there are many universes and that the one we live in 

accidentally has the right properties for beings to evolve which are surprised to find 

1 Facts and Speculations in Cosmology (2008)  J.V. Narlikar, G. Burbidge p 222­223 

112

themselves in a flat universe with an isotropic CMB so no improbable fine tuning is 

needed; in a SCU any fine­tuning occurs during the trial and error evolution selecting 

what particle properties, species and associated laws and constants of nature survive,

no outside intervention is needed.

If the definition of what a universe is implies the communication between particles to 

be instant, then the CMB radiation is produced as we observe it, whatever its origin ­

keeping in mind that unlike in a BBU where we see a distant galaxy as it was, of itself, in 

a distant past, in the past; in a SCU we see it in an ‘earlier’ phase of its evolution, as it is 

as we look at it in what only to us is the present. It is because in BBC the rest energy of 

particles is supposed to be an intrinsic, interaction independent quantity, only the 

cause of forces ­because the concept ‘energy density of the universe’ defines energy 

and space as independent quantities­ why a big bang is expected to have produced a 

inhomogeneous distribution of matter in the first place, why we came to think of 

empty space as if it is some rarefied kind of stuff which is the same and is produced at 

the same rate everywhere, that space and time, the length of the meter and duration 

of the second are defined even in the absence of energy, a kind of stuff the properties 

of which then shouldn’t be related to whatever it may come to contain so shouldn’t be 

curved by energy, to the properties of the particles it is to accommodate ­which is at 

odds with the UP according to which space consists of ‘matter fields, whose quanta are 

fermions (i.e., leptons and quarks), and force fields, whose quanta are bosons (e.g., 

photons and gluons).’ 1

The picture BBC sketches of the universe, a list of the ingredients ­visible and invisible

kinds of matter, of attractive and repulsive kinds of energy­ it should contain in what 

amounts at what times to fit observations reads as the recipe of a witch brewing some

magical concoction. As according to BBC the universe could have been different, it 

cannot be understood even in principle why it is as it is, why bother?

It is curious how cosmologists, in speaking about its properties and state, as if it is an 

ordinary object which only for practical difficulties cannot be observed from without,

can describe the universe from the point of view of its creator without being aware of 

doing so, that despite fine­tuning problems nobody finds it suspicious that nothing in 

the entire big bang scenario comes naturally, the sequence of events, of an expansion 

the rate of which varies at will, is preordained to change at  future times at the big 

bang or which keeps being adjusted by some outside interference yet omits to address 

the question of the origin of the energy created at the big bang, violating sacrosanct 

conservation laws or how the particles to be created knew what properties to pop up 

with or how, how it can have a beginning if it always could create itself: that nobody 

wonders whether big bang cosmology may be a prime example of wishful thinking 

instead of science.

The abundance of light elementsTHE OBSERVED RELATIVE abundances of light elements are invoked as evidence for the 

big bang: their production rates critically depend on the baryon­photon ratio the value 

of which depends on the surplus of matter over antimatter in the early universe.2

Clearly, if the Nix law forbids the universe to have any particular property as a whole, it

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero­point_energy (7­12­2019)2

Numerical coincidences and ‘tuning’ in cosmology (2004) Martin J. Rees 

https://arxiv.org/ftp/astro­ph/papers/0401/0401424.pdf p. 3

113

cannot contain more matter than antimatter so there is no such surplus to determine 

the value of the baryon­photon ratio, then it cannot predict the observed abundances.

Though the formation of the light elements in a BBU may require temperatures and 

pressures exceeding those in stars; if when a SCU only exists as seen from within so 

cannot be in any single evolutionary phase as a whole, the universe of any observer

always contains objects in all possible phases of their evolution, then that includes the 

phase in which the light elements are formed, so if the transmission of the CMB is 

instant, then he observes their formation ­and emission of the CMB­ as it happens.

If the properties of particles cannot causally precede those of the stars and galaxies 

they form nor the other way around, if particles only acquire properties, evolve to 

elementary particles, to protons and neutrons which combine to atomic nuclei as they 

contract to stars and galaxies, then the observed abundances must be the result of this 

evolution.1 If the virtual particles of empty space indeed are the interference products 

of the real particles of stars and galaxies but the real particles similarly cannot causally 

precede the virtual particles nor vice versa, then we might as well say that the virtual 

particles are the tentative precursors of the real, elementary particles they eventually 

will evolve to, that their properties evolve, become less indefinite as their energy 

increases as they contract to stars and galaxies.

While the formation of light elements in BBC is supposed to require the hot, dense 

conditions shortly after the big bang to overcome the electric repulsion between 

protons so we can, knowing their properties, calculate in what ratio the light elements 

will be formed in what conditions; if when in a SCU the energy increase of particles, 

their evolution to elementary particles proceeds more or less gradual, the same goes 

for the relative magnitudes of any kind of charge which contributes to their energy, 

then it is conceivable that the electric and color charge of the particles which are in the 

process of evolving to quarks in an ‘earlier’ phase of their evolution is weaker and with 

it their attraction due to their color charge and the electric repulsion between the 

protons they form, it may take less extreme conditions to start the tentative trial and 

error selection of the properties of elementary particles, the formation of light and 

other elements. That is, if when quarks don’t occur as independent particles but only 

appear in duplets and triplets, we can call them particles.

The question then, is whether, instead of, as in BBC where light elements are formed 

within a short time interval shortly after the big bang in extreme conditions, we can say 

that if clocks in a SCU are observed to run at a slower pace ­particles to oscillate at a 

1 “The energy released in the synthesis of cosmic 4He from hydrogen is almost exactly equal to the energy 

contained in the cosmic microwave background radiation. This result strongly suggests that the 4He was 

produced by hydrogen burning in stars and not in the early stages of a big bang. In addition, we show that 

there are good arguments for believing that the other light isotopes, D, 3He, 6Li, 7Li, 9Be, 10B, and 11B, were 

also synthesized in processes involving stars. By combining these results with the earlier, much more 

detailed work of Burbidge et al. and of Cameron, we can finally conclude that all of the chemical elements 

were synthesized from hydrogen in stars over a time of about 1011 yr.” … “The hot big bang cosmological 

model is not able to predict the temperature (cf. Turner 1993). But what is remarkable about the result 

that we have described here is that the energy density of the observed blackbody radiation is extremely 

close to the energy density expected from the production of helium from hydrogen burning. We showed 

earlier that this energy is 4.5 × 10 ­13 erg cm­3, and when this energy is thermalized, the temperature turns 

out to be T = 2.76 K. While the value of the baryonic density in galaxies and their environs is not known 

with anything like the precision with which the blackbody temperature is measured, it is clearly not very 

different from ρ = 3 10­31 g cm­3 (H0 = 60 km s­1 Mpc­1, and dark/luminous matter ratio ≈ 10) and, of 

course, the calculated temperature is only proportional to ρ = ­1/4.” 

The Origin of Helium and Other elements Burbidge G. and Hoyle F. The Astrophysical Journal, 509:L1­L3, 

1998 December 10 (Turner, M. 1993, Science, 262, 861)

114

lower frequency­ as they are more distant, we observe their evolution to elementary 

particles, their combination to light elements proceed at a much slower pace ­i.e., at a 

much lower temperature and pressure over a much longer time, somewhat like how, 

given enough time, quantum tunneling enables particles to cross energy barriers they 

cannot cross classically. 

Another question is if (and when) quarks must have a nonzero ‘starter’ ­rest­ mass, an 

energy which is enhanced, multiplied by their motion, what its origin is if we reject the 

Higgs ‘explanation’ ­quote marks as it doesn’t explain anything as long as the origin of 

the mass of the Higgs particle is a mystery. If in a SCU the mass of a particle cannot 

causally precede gravity, if it has no fundamental boundary separating its energy from 

(its effect upon) space, if it is energy which turns an abstract space into a real, physical 

spacetime, if the particle is a modulation in and of spacetime, then it is it is conceivable 

that it acquires its rest mass,1 its properties by interacting with all objects within its IH.

Whereas in a BBU where quark properties causally precede those of baryons, atomic 

nuclei, of stars and galaxies; quark properties in a SCU are cause and effect their inter­

actions with all objects within their IH so would cease to exist if we could cut off their 

energy exchange: that its rest mass (if it makes sense to speak about its rest mass if it 

cannot be at rest and has no autonomous existence) isn’t a privately owned, mortgage­

free, fixed quantity, something which, once acquired, doesn’t require any effort of the 

particle, but a dynamic quantity, something it only conserves as long as it keeps 

interacting, that ‘to be’ is not a static state, a noun, but a verb.

The distribution of quasars and the metallicity of starsTHE OBSERVATION THAT the metallicity of stars and nebulae is lower as they are older 

and quasars were much more common in the early universe than they are today ­that 

they only are found at large distances­ seems to constitute evidence for a big bang. 

Wikipedia: 

A quasar .. is an extremely luminous active galactic nucleus (AGN) in which a supermassive 

black hole with mass ranging from millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun is 

surrounded by a gaseous accretion disk. As gas in the disk falls towards the black hole, 

energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which can be observed across 

the electromagnetic spectrum.2 []… the conditions for the formation of luminous AGN 

were more common in the early universe, such as a much higher availability of cold gas 

near the centre of galaxies than at present. It also implies that many objects that were 

once luminous quasars are now much less luminous, or entirely quiescent.3

The observation that quasars only are found at large distances disqualifies a steady 

state universe where, as matter keeps being created everywhere, we should find

galaxies in all phases of their evolution ­including quasars­ at all distances.

If particles in a SCU only can contract to clusters (and clusters of clusters) if they do so 

everywhere, in concert and time is observed to pass at a slower pace at larger 

distances, then we observe galaxies not as they were at an earlier moment in cosmic 

time, in a more distant past, in the past, but as they are when we look at them, in an 

‘earlier’ phase of their evolution as they are more distant, in what only to us is the 

present. That quasar activity stops as the availability of cold gas drops below some 

level doesn’t necessarily mean that they were formed in the past. If due to the 

continuing selfcreation of energy in galaxies their appearance, properties, processes, 

1 If it makes sense to speak about its rest mass if it cannot be at rest and has no autonomous existence.2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar (1­4­2020) https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro­ph/9611163.pdf (22­2­2020)3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_galactic_nucleus#Cosmological_uses_and_evolution (22­2­2020)

115

composition and state changes in time and with it the rate at which matter is created, 

then so may the conditions in (and the time during) which quasars can form.

Evolution of galaxies and the large scale structure of spaceIt is because concepts like cosmic time and the energy density of the universe define

energy, space and time as unrelated quantities why a big bang is expected to produce 

an inhomogeneous distribution of matter, why there is a horizon and flatness problem. 

The observed flatness, CMB isotropy and homogeneity then is incomprehensible and 

only can be ‘explained’ away if we resort to magic: by conjuring up an inflation which 

isn’t only artificial, far­fetched, contrived as it cannot be explained from first principle 

why and when it happens and at what rate, but is chosen to fit observations, so it isn’t 

surprising that inflation proves to be even more unlikely1 than the observation it was 

invented to explain away, that the universe accidentally is flat and has an isotropic 

CMB. If anything, the observed isotropy of the CMB and large­scale homogeneity of the 

universe constitute evidence against the big bang hypothesis.

THOUGH THE QUESTION whether if a SCU has no external reality so doesn’t live in a 

time realm not of its own making but contains, produces all time inside of it, time must 

be observed to pass at a slower pace at a larger distance, this means that the universe 

somehow expands is still unresolved; it certainly isn’t like a BBU where going back in 

time all stuff ends up in a point.

If in a SCU it is localized energy which makes positions at different distances physically

different, distinguishable so the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime, then 

this reminds of the developing process of a photo in a darkroom where increasingly 

more and sharper details become visible as it develops rather than an increase of the 

distance between the objects depicted in it ­of the distance between the ready­made 

particles at the big bang or between galaxy clusters­ so going back in time all points in 

spacetime become more identical physically as the energy of particles, stars and 

galaxies decreases until it is void of energy and space and time cease to exist. 

If localized energy, the gravitational field it is the source, the manifestation of is an 

area of ‘condensed’ spacetime as seen from outside the field, if the increase of the 

energy of objects is accompanied by the increase ­not of their distance in space­ but of 

their spacetime distance as measured inside their gravitational field, from the mass 

center of one object to that of the other, then this increase isn’t an expansion of space 

in time. Only in a universe which lives in a time realm not of its own making, where 

time passes at the same pace everywhere can we speak about the expansion of space

in time, of the increase of the distance in space between objects, if we can measure 

their locations in the same time slice, at the same moment in cosmic time.

While space in a BBU expands at the same rate everywhere at the same time so we

may imagine to look at the universe from without, ‘watch’ the spherical shell universe

expand at the same rate everywhere at the same time; as a SCU only exists as seen 

from within so cannot be in any single, particular state as a whole, the universe of any

observer always contains objects in all phases of their evolution ­objects he doesn’t see 

as they were at an earlier moment in cosmic time as they are more distant, in the past, 

but as they are at present, in what only to him is the present, here we only can speak 

about the spacetime distance between objects, not about the distance in space 

between them at some moment in cosmic time as there is no such thing in a SCU. 

1 See, for example, A Critical Look at Inflationary Cosmology (1999) Earman J. &  Mosterin J. in Philosophy

of Science, vol. 66, no. 1, 1999, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/188736

116

Though the creation of energy is the creation of spacetime so a gravitational field is an 

area of ‘condensed’ spacetime, most of it is localized near the mass center of objects as

the observed pace of clocks and length of rods only varies substantially near their mass 

center.1 If given the tendency of energy to increase, to keep creating itself, particles 

evolve to ever­higher energies to eventually end up in the black hole at the center of 

their galaxy and add to its mass, then the increase of the mass of the hole may take 

more time as it is heavier if the position of its mass center then is situated at a larger 

spacetime distance from the observer, she observes its mass increase at an increasingly 

slower pace as the hole is heavier. If when a greater mass, a stronger gravitational field 

of the hole constitutes a greater spacetime distance between its mass center, the point

its energy acts from and the observer, he observes time to pass at a slower pace at its 

mass center, then we might say that its mass recedes in space and postpones in time 

its expression as gravity so in this sense we can say that spacetime expands in a SCU.

Though spacetime only can expand, or rather, create itself if time passes ­suggesting 

that space and time are unrelated quantities; this they only are in a universe where 

time always passes at the same pace in empty space, not in a universe where time is 

observed to pass at a slower pace at a larger distance, to pass at an infinitesimal pace 

at the rim of the interaction horizon of any observer anywhere. 

If as seen from afar the hole, its gravitational field is an area of ‘contracted’ spacetime 

which nearer to its center is a more private spacetime, a spacetime which only unfolds 

to a test particle penetrating it, a penetration which by an distant observer is observed 

to proceed at a pace which is slower as the hole is heavier and the particle is nearer to 

its mass center, if the hole’s field slows down the decent of the particle into the hole, 

then it is as if the mass of the hole expresses itself more locally, that what happens in 

its vicinity is of less import to the distant observer, that the universes of the observer 

and the test particle (and hole) coincide, overlap less as they are farther apart.

TO RECAPITULATE, THE all­important question is whether or not we may imagine to 

look at the universe from the outside: whether if by definition there is nothing outside

of it relative to which it can be said to have properties, to interact with, to express its 

existence, the universe can have certain properties, be in some particular state as a 

whole as seen from within as well as ‘seen’ from the outside ­a question which 

contains its own answer ­yes­ since to ask it presupposes that it is the same time 

everywhere, that the universe lives in a spacetime space and time continuum not of its 

own making, that it has an external, if for practical reasons, unobservable reality.

The problem is that if when the universe has certain properties, be in some particular 

state as a whole, it could have been different, it cannot be understood even in principle 

why it is as it is, how it can create itself, have a beginning if when it can create itself, it 

always could, a beginning which, as it presumes a previous state in which it didn’t yet 

exist, implies that time already passes even before the big bang, outside the universe.

Another problem is that in a universe where particles, particle properties only are the 

cause of interactions, everything which is ever to happen is preordained to happen as 

and when it does, meaning that the universe has been created by some creator.

1 “Curvature of spacetime is a relativistic manifestation of the existence of mass. Such curvature is 

extremely weak and difficult to measure. For this reason, curvature was not discovered until after it was 

predicted by Einstein's theory of general relativity.” 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass#Definitions (1­4­2020)

117

As a selfcreating universe only exists as seen from within, as it contains, produces all 

energy, space and time inside of it, as the creation of energy is the creation of space­

time so there is no universe­wide now, time cannot be observed to pass at the same 

pace at all distances then past, present and future must be relative, local notions. 

While much remains unexplained in this exploratory study of how the universe might 

go about creating itself, about its general mechanics, how it can create itself yet have 

no beginning, no definite age and how this alters our notion of space and time, how it 

can keep creating itself out of nothing without violating any conservation law; if, as 

discussed, the universe only can have a beginning if it has been created by some 

outside intervention, a BBU doesn’t even satisfy the definition of what a universe is. 

While it is good practice in physics to let observations decide whether some theory

might be valid; as the universe by definition cannot have particular properties nor be in 

any particular state as a whole, as it only exists as seen from within so no objective 

statement can be made about its properties and state, a different approach is needed.

Though relationalism points in the right direction, its followers have yet to realize that 

BBC ­causality­ is an unsurmountable obstruction to their case: while they rightfully 

claim that space and time ­distances between bodies and durations of events are 

relative­ so must be specified not relative to Newton’s absolute space and time but 

relative to each other, they still consider the rest energy of particles to be an absolute 

quantity, something which BFPD can be measured even from without the universe.

The problem of big bang cosmology is that it tries to explain causally ­that the universe 

is caused into existence, implying a creator outside of it­ what only can be understood 

rationally: it is because we believe that the universe has a beginning, a definite age, 

that it lives in a time continuum not of its own making why we came to interpret the 

constant of nature called ‘the speed of light’ as a velocity instead of the property of 

spacetime it is in a selfcreating universe ­or that because we assume that light moves 

through space in time we had to believe that the universe has a beginning so has been 

created by some outside intervention.

ABBREVIATIONS

BBC big bang cosmology

BFPD but for practical difficulties

BBU big bang universe

CM classical mechanics

GR or GRT general relativity theory

GTD gravitational time dilation

IH interaction horizon

OH  observation horizon = interaction horizon

QCD quantum chromodynamics

QED quantum electrodynamics

QG quantum gravity 

QLG quantum loop gravity

QM quantum mechanics

SCU selfcreating universe

SR or SRT special relativity theory

SSU steady state universe

ST string theory

SUSY supersymmetric

UP uncertainty principle