A Universe from Nothing

Last updated
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing
AUFN LawrenceKrauss.jpeg
Softcover edition
Author Lawrence M. Krauss
LanguageEnglish
Subject Physics
Cosmology
Publisher Free Press
Publication date
January 10, 2012
Publication placeUnited States
Media typePrint (Hardcover and Softcover), e-book
Pages224 pp
ISBN 978-1-4516-2445-8
523.1/8
LC Class QB981 .K773 2012
Preceded by Quantum Man  
Followed by The Greatest Story Ever Told—So Far  

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012, by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is the claim that "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction." [1] [2]

Contents

Publication

The book ends with an afterword by Richard Dawkins in which he compares the book to On the Origin of Species — a comparison that Krauss himself called "pretentious". [3] Christopher Hitchens had agreed to write a foreword for the book prior to his death but was too ill to complete it. [4] To write the book, Krauss expanded material from a lecture on the cosmological implications of a flat expanding universe he gave to the Richard Dawkins Foundation at the 2009 Atheist Alliance International conference. [4] [5] The book appeared on The New York Times bestseller list on January 29, 2012. [6]

Reception

Praise

Caleb Scharf, writing in Nature , said that "it would be easy for this remarkable story to revel in self-congratulation, but Krauss steers it soberly and with grace". [7]

Ray Jayawardhana, Canada Research Chair in observational astrophysics at the University of Toronto, wrote for The Globe and Mail that Krauss "delivers a spirited, fast-paced romp through modern cosmology and its strong underpinnings in astronomical observations and particle physics theory" and that he "makes a persuasive case that the ultimate question of cosmic origin – how something, namely the universe, could arise from nothing – belongs in the realm of science rather than theology or philosophy". [8]

In New Scientist , Michael Brooks wrote, "Krauss will be preaching only to the converted. That said, we should be happy to be preached to so intelligently. The same can't be said about the Dawkins afterword, which is both superfluous and silly." [9]

Critique

George Ellis, in an interview in Scientific American , said that "Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions." He criticized the philosophical viewpoint of the book, saying "It's very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy." [10]

In The New York Times , philosopher of science and physicist David Albert said the book failed to live up to its title; he said Krauss dismissed concerns about what Albert calls his misuse of the term nothing, since if matter comes from relativistic quantum fields, the question becomes where did those fields come from, which Krauss does not discuss. [11]

Commenting on the philosophical debate sparked by the book, the physicist Sean M. Carroll asked:

"Do advances in modern physics and cosmology help us address these underlying questions, of why there is something called the universe at all, and why there are things called 'the laws of physics,' and why those laws seem to take the form of quantum mechanics, and why some particular wave function and Hamiltonian? In a word: no. I don't see how they could. Sometimes physicists pretend that they are addressing these questions, which is too bad, because they are just being lazy and not thinking carefully about the problem. You might hear, for example, claims to the effect that our laws of physics could turn out to be the only conceivable laws, or the simplest possible laws. But that seems manifestly false. Just within the framework of quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of possible Hilbert spaces, and an infinite number of possible Hamiltonians, each of which defines a perfectly legitimate set of physical laws. And only one of them can be right, so it's absurd to claim that our laws might be the only possible ones.

Invocations of "simplicity" are likewise of no help here. The universe could be just a single point, not evolving in time. Or it could be a single oscillator, rocking back and forth in perpetuity. Those would be very simple. There might turn out to be some definition of "simplicity" under which our laws are the simplest, but there will always be others in which they are not. And in any case, we would then have the question of why the laws are supposed to be simple?

Likewise, appeals of the form "maybe all possible laws are real somewhere" fail to address the question. Why are all possible laws real? And sometimes, on the other hand, modern cosmologists talk about different laws of physics in the context of a multiverse, and suggest that we see one set of laws rather than some other set for fundamentally anthropic reasons. But again, that's just being sloppy. We're talking here about the low-energy manifestation of the underlying laws, but those underlying laws are exactly the same everywhere throughout the multiverse.

We are still left with the question of there are those deep-down laws that create a multiverse in the first place." [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

The anthropic principle, also known as the observation selection effect, is the hypothesis that the range of possible observations that could be made about the universe is limited by the fact that observations are only possible in the type of universe that is capable of developing intelligent life. Proponents of the anthropic principle argue that it explains why the universe has the age and the fundamental physical constants necessary to accommodate intelligent life. If either had been significantly different, no one would have been around to make observations. Anthropic reasoning has been used to address the question as to why certain measured physical constants take the values that they do, rather than some other arbitrary values, and to explain a perception that the universe appears to be finely tuned for the existence of life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Multiverse</span> Hypothetical group of multiple universes

The multiverse is the hypothetical set of all universes. Together, these universes are presumed to comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, information, and the physical laws and constants that describe them. The different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "flat universes", "other universes", "alternate universes", "multiple universes", "plane universes", "parent and child universes", "many universes", or "many worlds". One common assumption is that the multiverse is a "patchwork quilt of separate universes all bound by the same laws of physics."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theory of everything</span> Hypothetical physical concept

A theory of everything (TOE), final theory, ultimate theory, unified field theory, or master theory is a hypothetical, singular, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all aspects of the universe. Finding a theory of everything is one of the major unsolved problems in physics.

In philosophy, the philosophy of physics deals with conceptual and interpretational issues in physics, many of which overlap with research done by certain kinds of theoretical physicists. Historically, philosophers of physics have engaged with questions such as the nature of space, time, matter and the laws that govern their interactions, as well as the epistemological and ontological basis of the theories used by practicing physicists. The discipline draws upon insights from various areas of philosophy, including metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of science, while also engaging with the latest developments in theoretical and experimental physics.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lee Smolin</span> American theoretical physicist (born 1955)

Lee Smolin is an American theoretical physicist, a faculty member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, an adjunct professor of physics at the University of Waterloo, and a member of the graduate faculty of the philosophy department at the University of Toronto. Smolin's 2006 book The Trouble with Physics criticized string theory as a viable scientific theory. He has made contributions to quantum gravity theory, in particular the approach known as loop quantum gravity. He advocates that the two primary approaches to quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity and string theory, can be reconciled as different aspects of the same underlying theory. He also advocates an alternative view on space and time that he calls temporal naturalism. His research interests also include cosmology, elementary particle theory, the foundations of quantum mechanics, and theoretical biology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fine-tuned universe</span> Hypothesis about life in the universe

The characterization of the universe as finely tuned intends to explain why the known constants of nature, such as the electron charge, the gravitational constant, and the like, have their measured values rather than some other arbitrary values. According to the "fine-tuned universe" hypothesis, if these constants' values were too different from what they are, "life as we know it" could not exist. In practice, this hypothesis is formulated in terms of dimensionless physical constants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrei Linde</span> Russian-American theoretical physicist

Andrei Dmitriyevich Linde is a Russian-American theoretical physicist and the Harald Trap Friis Professor of Physics at Stanford University.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lawrence Krauss</span> American particle physicist and cosmologist (born 1954)

Lawrence Maxwell Krauss is a Canadian-American theoretical physicist and cosmologist who taught at Arizona State University (ASU), Yale University, and Case Western Reserve University. He founded ASU's Origins Project in 2008 to investigate fundamental questions about the universe and served as the project's director.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David Albert</span> American academic

David Z. Albert is Professor of Philosophy and Director of the MA Program in The Philosophical Foundations of Physics at Columbia University in New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kalam cosmological argument</span> Philosophical argument for the existence of God

The Kalam cosmological argument is a modern formulation of the cosmological argument for the existence of God. It is named after the Kalam from which many of its key ideas originated. Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig was principally responsible for revitalizing these ideas for modern academic discourse through his book The Kalām Cosmological Argument (1979), as well as other publications.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Michał Heller</span> Polish philosopher, cosmologist, Roman Catholic presbyter, awarded Templeton Prize

Michał Kazimierz Heller is a Polish philosopher, theoretical physicist, cosmologist, theologian, and Catholic priest. He is a professor of philosophy at the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Kraków, Poland, and an adjunct member of the Vatican Observatory staff.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Boltzmann brain</span> Philosophical thought experiment

The Boltzmann brain thought experiment suggests that it might be more likely for a brain to spontaneously form in space, complete with a memory of having existed in our universe, rather than for the entire universe to come about in the manner cosmologists think it actually did. Physicists use the Boltzmann brain thought experiment as a reductio ad absurdum argument for evaluating competing scientific theories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Everything</span> All that exists; the opposite of nothing

Everything, every-thing, or every thing, is all that exists; it is an antithesis of nothing, or its complement. It is the totality of things relevant to some subject matter. Without expressed or implied limits, it may refer to anything. The universe is everything that exists theoretically, though a multiverse may exist according to theoretical cosmology predictions. It may refer to an anthropocentric worldview, or the sum of human experience, history, and the human condition in general. Every object and entity is a part of everything, including all physical bodies and in some cases all abstract objects.

The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity. Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss, Stephen Hawking or Alexander Vilenkin, call or called this state "a universe from nothingness", although the zero-energy universe model requires both a matter field with positive energy and a gravitational field with negative energy to exist. The hypothesis is broadly discussed in popular sources. Other cancellation examples include the expected symmetric prevalence of right- and left-handed angular momenta of objects, the observed flatness of the universe, the equal prevalence of positive and negative charges, opposing particle spin in quantum mechanics, as well as the crests and troughs of electromagnetic waves, among other possible examples in nature.

<i>The Grand Design</i> (book) 2010 popular science book by Stephen Hawking

The Grand Design is a popular-science book written by physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and published by Bantam Books in 2010. The book examines the history of scientific knowledge about the universe and explains eleven-dimensional M-theory. The authors of the book point out that a Unified Field Theory may not exist.

<i>The Cosmic Landscape</i> Book by Leonard Susskind

The Cosmic Landscape is a non-fiction popular science book on the anthropic principle and string theory landscape. It is written by theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind. The book was initially published by Little, Brown and Company on December 12, 2005.

<i>The Hidden Reality</i> Book by Brian Greene

The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos is a book by Brian Greene published in 2011 which explores the concept of the multiverse and the possibility of parallel universes. It has been nominated for the Royal Society Winton Prize for Science Books for 2012.

<i>Quintessence: The Search for Missing Mass in the Universe</i> Book by Lawrence Krauss

Quintessence: The Search for Missing Mass in the Universe is the fifth non-fiction book by the American theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss. The book was published by Basic Books on December 21, 2000. This text is an update of his 1989 book The Fifth Essence. It was retitled Quintessence after the now widely accepted term for dark energy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Why is there anything at all?</span> Metaphysical question

"Why is there anything at all?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a question about the reason for basic existence which has been raised or commented on by a range of philosophers and physicists, including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Martin Heidegger, who called it "the fundamental question of metaphysics".

<i>Brief Answers to the Big Questions</i> 2018 popular science book by Stephen Hawking

Brief Answers to the Big Questions is a popular science book written by physicist Stephen Hawking, and published by Hodder & Stoughton (hardcover) and Bantam Books (paperback) on 16 October 2018. The book examines some of the universe's greatest mysteries, and promotes the view that science is very important in helping to solve problems on planet Earth. The publisher describes the book as "a selection of [Hawking's] most profound, accessible, and timely reflections from his personal archive", and is based on, according to a book reviewer, "half a million or so words" from his essays, lectures and keynote speeches.

References

  1. Reynosa, Peter (2016-04-12). "Some of the Changes Lawrence M. Krauss Should Make to the Second Edition of "A Universe From Nothing"". Huffington Post . Retrieved April 13, 2016.
  2. Krauss, Lawrence M. (2012). A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing . New York: Free Press. p.  183. ISBN   978-1-4516-2445-8.
  3. Andersen, Ross (2012-04-23). "Has Physics Made Philosophy and Religion Obsolete?". theatlantic.com. Retrieved 4 March 2014.
  4. 1 2 Krauss, Lawrence. "Afterword from Lawrence Krauss' New Book – A Universe From Nothing". excerpt. richarddawkins.net. Archived from the original on 21 February 2013. Retrieved 11 February 2012.
  5. Lawrence Krauss's 2009 lecture A Universe from Nothing
  6. "Non Fiction Best Sellers". The New York Times. January 29, 2012. Retrieved 11 February 2012.
  7. Scharf, Caleb (25 January 2012). "Cosmology: Plucked from the vacuum". Nature. 481 (7382): 440. Bibcode:2012Natur.481..440S. doi: 10.1038/481440a .
  8. Jayawardhana, Ray (17 February 2012). "A Universe From Nothing, by Lawrence Krauss". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 21 June 2018.
  9. Brooks, Michael (14 January 2012). "The paradox of nothing". New Scientist . 213 (2847).
  10. Horgan, John. "Physicist George Ellis Knocks Physicists for Knocking Philosophy, Falsification, Free Will". Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  11. Albert, David (25 March 2012). "On the Origin of Everything". The New York Times Sunday Book Review. Retrieved 25 April 2012.
  12. Carroll, Sean (April 28, 2012). "A Universe from Nothing?". Cosmic Variance Blog. Discover magazine. Archived from the original on July 25, 2020. Retrieved December 7, 2018.