A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing

The inspiration behind the book came from the reception Krauss received after his 2009 "Something From Nothing" lecture went viral on YouTube (that year) and has since accumulated over 1.8 million views. Interestingly, at least for me, I've actually stumbled across this lecture and watched it based off pure interested that was previously stimulated by social commentary on the subject. Congenially enough the social commentary I came across usually tied the idea of a universe starting from nothing to Lawrence Krauss. Not only was the lecture's premise salacious, but the lecture in essence was enticing to say the least. It's one of those moments that even though you might not fully understand the science, you nevertheless become more of a skeptic and in my case atheist. The proposed possibility, even if small, of a universe coming into existence from nothing, i.e. without the need of a creator, substantially increases the viability of atheism and at the same time illuminates the futility of creation-arguments. Those who intend to read this book should perhaps watch the lecture and get a little bit of a general overview. The text though, is a more detailed and all-encompassing description. Ill detail why in the next paragraph:Right off the bat in the preface the author brings justice to the philosophically obscure subtitle - "Why there is something rather than nothing". According to Krauss, in a scientific sense, when scientists usually ask "why?" they usually mean "how?". This avoids invoking purpose. Also, in the preface, the author brings clarity to "nothing" - semantics, interpretation, etc.The author begins by speaking about the first astronomical writings and discoveries from centuries ago and ultimately lays the foundation on the later half of the book. He speaks on behalf of the more recent and major discoveries of the past century or two. We've found ways to measure the recessionary velocity of stars by observing their frequencies. We've discovered that not only are we not the center of our solar system, but our solar system is not the center of our galaxy and our galaxy is not the center of the universe. We now know the universe is expanding and the planet's distance is proportional to its recessionary velocity. Einstein discovered general relativity and the results are [now] manifest; space-time is bent and we can observe gravitational lensing (i.e. the result from the local curvature of space around massive objects). A plethora of unequivocal evidence has been found that reinforces the big bang theory. Hubble had made some of the most exigent observations and unknown scientists from New Jersey discovered cosmic background radiation that emanates from the big bang itself. Visible galaxies are observed and data is recorded and charted, and most of the mass of the system does not come from the stars and planets themselves, but between the galaxies. This is what has come known to be Dark Matter, that dominates the density of the clusters of galaxies. In older interpretation, Dark Matter comprised of only 30 percent of what is required to produce a flat universe, which is in Krauss's words: "the only mathematically beautiful universe". 70 percent of the energy of the universe was missing, which we now know as Dark Energy.In the 4th chapter, "nothing" is finally added into the equation (pun intended). Einstein's equation of general relativity on the left side describes the curvature of the universe and the strength of the gravitational forces acting on matter and radiation, and on the right side lay the contingent quantities that reflect the total density of all kinds of energy and matter within the universe. It started when Einstein tried to superimpose a small extra constant term to the left-hand side of the equation to represent the small extra repulsive force throughout space in addition to the standard gravitational law of attraction between distant objects. This was done to ameliorate the bizarre phenomenon of an expanding universe that a semblance seems to defy the law of gravity and at the same time allow for a static universe. This small constant term, which became known as the cosmological constant, was later called by Einstein himself his biggest blunder. As Krauss mentioned, moving the constant to the right side of the equation is trivial for a mathematician but huge leap for a physicist. The reason is because the only thing that could contribute to such a term is "nothing" (i.e. "empty" space).The author later starts to talk about the evidence of the expanding universe and the "jerk", that is, the moment where an object (in this case the universe) goes from a decreasing expansion velocity to a suddenly increasing expansion velocity. Scientists know the universe is expanding because they measure the recession velocity of the distant objects as a function of their distance. Much of the science Krauss explicates is testimony to things like Dark Energy; energy from empty space. The evidence that empty space has energy comes from observing the rate of speed-up of our expanding universe. In chapter 8, the author proposes an interesting question based off an equally interesting observation. The observation is that we live in a "special" time because it is the only time in the history of our universe that energy in empty space is comparable to the energy density in matter. As time increases, the universe gets bigger and presumably the density of matter in the universe gets smaller. Th cosmological constant, i.e. the energy density of empty space, remains constant. When plotted both happen to cross around the time period we live in which begs the question; why? If the energy in empty space was 50 times bigger then both would have crossed 1 billion years after inception and there would be no galaxies, stars, or planets. To Steven Weinberg the cosmological constant could have been "anthropically"selected; which is the idea that somehow if there were many universes and statistically only in a few would energy in empty space take the correct value for existence. This is also known, to some variation, as the multiverse. According to Krauss, many central ideas that drive much ideas in particle physics actually require a multiverse. He goes over many popular interpretations, like string theory - not into much detail. For a detailed analysis on string theory (and basically anything else encompassing theoretical science), I highly suggest Brian Greene's The Fabric Of The Cosmos.Toward the twilight of the book, after already reviewing the modern scientific picture of the universe, it's history, what "nothing" is, and its possible future, the author finally addresses the question he described in the beginning of the book: why is there something rather than nothing?? While addressing the question, the author addresses the plausibility of the commonplace notion of a creator. But ultimately, the answer to as why there is something rather than nothing can become in the author's words trite: "there is something simply because if there were nothing, we wouldn't find ourselves living there!". Krauss recognizes the frustrating triviality of such a response, but science has told us that anything profound can be drastically different from our preconceptions. Asking why there's something rather than nothing might not be an important question at all. "Something" might be necessary in reality or might not be common in the multiverse (if it's even extant).Complementing Krauss's sardonic wit is his intellectual superiority, as well as his ability to paint a picture. The result might confound like Picasso, but nevertheless, the canvas displays mastery and innovation. Understanding from the layman might be far-fetched, but may ultimately be inevitable as the information in this book could one day be understood to be the unfathomable truth.4.8/5

I greatly enjoyed reading A Universe From Nothing, and found it to be scientifically clear and very well written -- but in my view the book glossed over too quickly the profound philosophical implications of modern cosmology. The afterward by Richard Dawkins suffered the same shortcoming.The book prompted me to watch Krauss' Sept. 11, 2011 talk posted on Youtube that briefly summarized the key ideas. Krauss' side-comments during the talk, as well as the introduction by Richard Dawkins, again declared in which philosophical camp they wished to pitch their tent. But I worry that the elegant scientific concepts summarized do not so clearly lead to that depressing existential position. Krauss jokingly shared his view of the human situation near the start of his talk when he remarked that he had considered using the title, We Are All Fu..ed! Humorous, but is it true?The eminent philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a bit more poetic in his choice of language as he wrote in 1903 of humanity's desperate situation (I quote from a rendition published by Augros and Stanciu in The New Story of Science (1984), an interesting book but one with major flaws of its own):"That man is the product of causes which had no provision of the end they were achieving; that his origins, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and beliefs are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labors of the ages, all the devotion ... all the noonday brightness of human genius are destined to extinction ... all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built."In sum, in his book Krauss wonderfully recounts in an approachable style the key concepts of modern cosmology, but falls with rather startling self-certainty into the depressing philosophical notions voiced by Russell more than a century ago. Krauss was a bit more flexible in his Youtube talk when for one brief moment he showed one slide and remarked about the element of mystery in all this. But he radically undervalues this element. As I will explain, mystery is fundamental in view of a necessary first logical but unprovable step required in all complex arguments.In spite of the keen desire by Krauss and Dawkins to be, I presume, purely rational scientists untainted by wishful thinking, these sorts of truly strong scientific intellectuals must recognize that any argument must begin with one or a few key unproven assumptions -- this is unavoidable. As has been elegantly proven by Kurt Gödel (1906-1978), no complex system of thought, even formal mathematics, can be built up from scratch and be internally fully consistent without resort to at least one external assumption or definition that cannot be definitively proven within that complex system. This is Gödel's water-tight "incompleteness theorem" (1931), and its surprising truth has to do with the contradictions necessarily encountered regarding self-referential sets. Descartes (1596-1650), for example, in his Discourse on the Methods (1637) began with the fundamental proposition, "I think, therefore I am." When considering the modern "Theory of Mind," to cite another example, one could propose that a human person is in reality just an isolated brain floating in an oxygenated physiologic solution in a vast alien experiment, and all mental experiences, sensations, interactions with other persons, etc. result from a gigantic simulation --- other persons actually have no minds at all. Alternatively, even though we cannot prove that other persons exist and have independent minds, we can reasonably assume that that is truly the case, and move ahead from there as we try to grasp "reality."Coming to unavoidable unprovable assumptions related to cosmology, which sorts of assumptions make most sense? In science we often resort to Occam's razor -- the principle of parsimony: an explanation should be as simple as possible until a somewhat more complex explanation is actually required to fit with the facts. Krauss along with modern cosmologists seem to find that all the mass and energy in the universe apparently sum to zero, and the argument is convincing and, I think, probably true. And he also invokes a sort of anthropic principle: that humans exist because in this present universe, as opposed to many other unfavorable universes, the natural laws crystalized in forms that made human beings physically possible. But is this parsimonious? There certainly is a heavy burden of "specialness" if one believes that there has been only a single universe, this is it, and it is exactly perfect so that intelligent beings can exist and evolve. But there may be arguably an even more heavy burden to the alternative view favored by Krauss; that there are billions of parallel universes -- the "multi-verse" --- or perhaps billions of sequential universes. Krauss thinks that in nearly all of these many universes the conditions were not right for sentient beings, but in at least one very rare case, a universe came into existence that made life possible. So has there been only one universe that is unique and special, or have there been billions of random universes? My belief is that, at the present time, reasonable persons have no basis by which to settle definitively which of these assumptions is the closest to the truth. Moreover, my intuition is that it is precisely this question that is the crux of the fundamental unprovable assumption that we must make when thinking about the ultimate meaning of life -- or lack thereof. In view of Gödel, it is fully scientific and allowed for each person to consider and to make this choice of a key starting assumption, and then thereafter one must logically develop a consistent world view based on observed facts. Perhaps I am wrong, but I believe that Krauss and Dawkins should carefully think about this. Gödel is the key.A particular aspect of Krauss' argument bothers me, however. The billions of universes are supposedly arising from nothing, and actually are nothing since in each universe the total mass and energy sums to zero. But Krauss invokes that this is possible because within quantum nothingness there are virtual particles that are rapidly entering and exiting existence. But if there is truly nothing, then how do the newly formed virtual particles "know" what characteristics to briefly assume? Must there not be "laws" to guide them? In other words, it appears that there may be "several types of nothing" -- one type is seething with virtual particles of certain types that are rapidly appearing and disappearing, but I am interested really in another type of nothing -- absolutely nothing, lacking even in the virtual particles. Can there be different types of nothing? This calls to mind the work of the German mathematician Georg Cantor (1845-1918), the expert in set theory, who proved that there were different types of infinity. He showed, for example, that the real numbers are "more numerous" than the natural numbers, even though both are infinite.Thus, my view, in agreement with Arthur Stanley Eddington's (1882-1944) famous essay The Decline of Determinism (1935), is that we do not live in a "billiard ball" deterministic universe. Quantum mechanics allows for indeterminism, and also, in my view, free will. I tried to make such a case in my brief essay The Inherent Uncertainty of Nature Is a Basis for Religion published in The Scientist in December, 1988. Various influences that shaped my thinking have been described in a book, Chess Juggler (2011). I'll admit to being influenced over the years also by the profound insights of the philosopher Mortimer Adler (1902-2001) -- one of his many books was How to Think About God (1980). Even Isaac Newton (1642-1727) reflected philosophically in his Opticks (1704) that he wanted to learn "Whence it is that Nature doth nothing in vain; and whence arises all that Order and Beauty which we see in the World." Let me close with what the naturalist and anthropologist Loren Eiseley (1907-1977) wrote in The Immense Journey, "Rather, I would say that if `dead' matter has reared up this curious landscape of fiddling crickets, song sparrows, and wondering men, it must be plain to even the most devoted materialist that the matter of which he speaks contains amazing, if not dreadful powers, and may not impossibly be, as Hardy has suggested, `But one mask of many worn by the Great Face behind.'"