In its cosmological discourse, the Qur’an declares, “And of everything We have created pairs” (Qur’an, 51:49). The term used in this verse, shay’in (شَيْءٍ), literally denotes “everything” or “all things.” Classical exegetes have traditionally interpreted this expression as referring to the duality observed throughout creation, such as male and female, day and night, belief and disbelief, and other complementary opposites within the natural and moral order. However, when the broader context of the passage is examined, it becomes apparent that the “creation” mentioned in this verse refers not merely to earthly pairs, but to the very origination of the universe itself. For instance, the preceding verse states, “We built the universe with great might, and We are certainly expanding it” (Qur’an, 51:47), a statement that both implies a definite beginning of the cosmos and alludes to its continuous expansion. Contemporary cosmology affirms that space–time emerged from a singular origin, commonly described as the Big Bang, and that the universe has been expanding ever since. Within this framework, a critical question arises: what, then, does the Qur’an signify by the phrase “And of everything We have created pairs”?
When these verses are read together and correlated with current astrophysical data on the formation of matter, a plausible interpretation emerges, namely, that the Qur’an’s reference to “pairs” may refer to the creation of subatomic particles and their corresponding antiparticles. In quantum physics, this phenomenon is formally known as particle–antiparticle symmetry or parity, which describes the fundamental duality inherent in the fabric of matter itself.[1] It is evident that all entities within the universe are composed of subatomic particles, which themselves are generated in complementary pairs. Accordingly, it may be posited that the Quranic expression كُلِّ شَيْءٍ (“all things”) in chapter Dhariyat 51:49 alludes to the principle of particle parity, as the phrase “all things” encompasses the totality of existent phenomena.
The prediction of antiparticles was first made by Paul Dirac in 1928, when he formulated a relativistic equation for the electron. The mathematical form of his equation implied that for every positive-energy solution, there must also exist a corresponding negative-energy solution. To avoid physical paradoxes, Dirac interpreted these negative solutions as representing a new kind of particle identical in mass to the electron but carrying a positive charge (the positron) which was experimentally discovered by Carl Anderson in 1932.[2] This mirrored relationship between particles and antiparticles is a direct consequence of charge conjugation symmetry, which states that the fundamental laws of physics remain unchanged if all particles are replaced by their antiparticles and all charges are reversed.[3] In an ideal symmetric universe, every time a particle is created, its antiparticle should be produced simultaneously, ensuring that the overall charge and other conserved quantities remain balanced. This is observed in many high-energy processes, such as pair production, where a high-energy photon transforms into an electron-positron pair.[4]
However, this particle-antiparticle symmetry was violated during the creation of the early universe. According to the standard model of cosmology, the universe began with the Big Bang, during which immense energy was converted into matter and antimatter in equal proportions. The principle of particle–antiparticle symmetry suggests that for every particle created, an antiparticle with identical mass and opposite charge should have emerged.[5] If this symmetry had remained perfect, matter and antimatter would have annihilated each other, leaving behind a universe filled only with radiation. Yet, observational evidence clearly indicates a dominance of matter, a condition that allowed galaxies, stars, and ultimately life to exist. The central question, therefore, is why the universe contains more matter than antimatter. Theoretical physicist Andrei Sakharov proposed in 1967 that this asymmetry could only arise if certain fundamental conditions were satisfied.[6]
These include:
- Violation of baryon number conservation, allowing the creation or destruction of matter independently of antimatter.
- Violation of C-symmetry and CP-symmetry, enabling slight differences in the behaviour of particles and antiparticles.
- Processes occurring out of thermal equilibrium, such that these small asymmetries were not immediately balanced out in the early universe.[7]
Experimental discoveries in the mid-20th century provided some support for the second of these conditions. In 1964, James Cronin and Val Fitch demonstrated CP violation in the decay of neutral kaons, particles composed of a quark and an antiquark.[8] This meant that certain weak interactions do not treat matter and antimatter in the same way, leading to a minute but cumulative imbalance in favour of matter. While the exact mechanisms remain an active area of research, many physicists believe that these symmetry-breaking processes in the earliest moments after the Big Bang led to the survival of a tiny excess of matter, approximately one part in a billion.[9] As the universe cooled, this excess matter remained after the mutual annihilation of particles and antiparticles, giving rise to all observable structures in the cosmos today.
Although conventional physics provides a partial explanation for the observed matter–antimatter imbalance through minute CP violations in weak interactions, it does not adequately address the fundamental question of why matter was favoured over antimatter, nor why the law of parity appears to have been violated. Keep in mind that CP violation is an empirical feature of the Standard Model rather than an anomaly. Given that the Quranic verse (51:49) asserts that “everything is created in pairs,” the unresolved question that arises is: where did all the antimatter go?
I propose that the law of particle parity is, in fact, not violated. The hypothesis advanced here suggests that the Big Bang may have produced more than one universe, offering a possible resolution to the particle asymmetry observed in our cosmos. Specifically, one universe could be predominantly composed of matter, while another might be dominated by antimatter. This proposition is conceptually compatible with certain models of cosmic inflation, which posit that the primordial vacuum experienced rapid quantum fluctuations, potentially giving rise to multiple causally disconnected regions, effectively, two opposing “bubble universes.”
If the symmetry-breaking mechanisms following the Big Bang occurred differently across these regions, one domain could have formed with a surplus of matter, while another accumulated antimatter. In such a scenario, the universal balance of matter and antimatter would still be maintained across the two systems, even though local asymmetry is observed within each universe. This approach preserves the fundamental symmetry implied by quantum field theory while explaining why our universe appears matter dominated.
Such possibility would indicate a mirror image of our universe dominated by antimatter. If a universe composed entirely of antimatter exists, it would exhibit almost identical physical behaviour to our own. This is because the laws of physics, as currently formulated in the Standard Model, are largely symmetric under charge conjugation, meaning that replacing all particles with their antiparticles should leave the fundamental interactions unchanged.[10] In such a universe, antiprotons, antineutrons, and positrons would combine to form antiatoms and antimolecules that mirror the structure of ordinary matter. The electromagnetic and nuclear forces governing these interactions would behave identically, since their magnitudes and coupling constants are the same for both matter and antimatter.
The flow of time in an antimatter universe would not differ from our own. The fundamental equations of physics are time-symmetric, and time’s apparent direction is defined not by the laws themselves but by the increase of entropy, as articulated in the Second Law of Thermodynamics. What is more fascinating is, from a biochemical perspective, life based on antimatter is theoretically possible. Since antimatter mirrors matter at every level of physical law, antiatoms could assemble into complex molecules exhibiting the same bonding dynamics as ordinary chemistry.[11] If such an antimatter universe contained stable anti-stars producing the same energy through nuclear fusion, and anti-planets with suitable temperatures and chemical diversity, then anti-life could conceivably exist under analogous biological principles.
In conclusion, the Quranic verse, “And of all things We created in pairs” (Quran 51:49), may be interpreted as plausibly alluding to the existence of an anti-universe, thereby suggesting that even the universe itself was created in a dual or complementary form. Within this interpretative framework, the verse could be understood as extending beyond biological or material dualities, such as male and female, day and night, or matter and antimatter, to encompass a cosmological symmetry at the most fundamental level of creation.
It is, however, important to emphasise that this proposition does not constitute a definitive theological assertion derived from the scripture, but rather a hermeneutical and interdisciplinary analysis of the verse in light of contemporary cosmological theories. The ta’wil (interpretation) of “And of all things We created in pairs” thus allows for the conceptual possibility that the universe may possess a mirror counterpart, an anti-universe, reflecting the divine pattern of balance and symmetry that permeates all levels of existence.
Although the existence of an antimatter universe remains a theoretical possibility rather than an established physical conclusion, its conceptual alignment with the Qur’anic principle of complementary creation invites new philosophical reflection.
References
Andrei D. Sakharov, “Violation of CP Invariance, C Asymmetry, and Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe,” JETP Letters 5 (1967): 24–27.
David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2008), 90.
Edward Kolb and Michael Turner, The Early Universe (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990), 186–190.
J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay, “Evidence for the 2π Decay of the K₂⁰ Meson,” Physical Review Letters 13, no. 4 (1964): 138–140.
Paul A. M. Dirac, “The Quantum Theory of the Electron,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A 117, no. 778 (1928): 610.
Quran 51:47-49
Richard P. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 125.
Steven Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 492.
Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 1993), 134.
Steven Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1: Foundations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 130.
[1] Paul A. M. Dirac, “The Quantum Theory of the Electron,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A 117, no. 778 (1928): 610.
[2] Ibd 614.
[3] David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles, 2nd ed. (Weinheim: Wiley-VCH, 2008), 90.
[4] Richard P. Feynman, QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 125.
[5] Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 1993), 134.
[6] Andrei D. Sakharov, “Violation of CP Invariance, C Asymmetry, and Baryon Asymmetry of the Universe,” JETP Letters 5 (1967): 24–27.
[7] Steven Weinberg, The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (New York: Basic Books, 1993), 136.
[8] J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch, and R. Turlay, “Evidence for the 2π Decay of the K₂⁰ Meson,” Physical Review Letters 13, no. 4 (1964): 138–140.
[9] Edward Kolb and Michael Turner, The Early Universe (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1990), 186–190.
[10] Steven Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. 1: Foundations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 130.
[11] Steven Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 492.