A Universe From Nothing
Lawrence M. Krauss
Free Press, New York, 2012
Whenever I mention the extraordinary developments in modern cosmology, a friend of mine likes to try to stump me with the age-old question, "How could something come from nothing?" Why are quarks quarks, how can things pop out of nowhere? No one knows of course; that's just the way it is. Yet believing that quantum indeterminacy leaves room for a "God of the gaps"-explanation of nature is becoming increasingly untenable. The belief that nature inevitably leads to God--which Catholics call "natural theology,"--along with the assertion that God created the world out of nothing--"Ex nihilo creavit deus mundum--are not substantiated by science. Lawrence M. Krauss's fascinating book, "A Universe from Nothing," helps to fill in that gap where God still allegedly dwells; he of course does not completely remove it--nothing can, pun intended. It is becoming increasingly likely that the only ingredient needed to create a universe is so-called empty space, or even more radically, nothing at all. And to ask where nothing at all came from is meaningless indeed.
I continue to be fascinated by a cosmology that envisions the universe as the ultimate "free lunch"--something, quite a lot in fact, from nothing. I knew about virtual particles popping in and out of so-called empty space; this is allowed by the laws of quantum physics as long as the existence of these particles is extremely short and that the net charge of particles remain zero. Many of the theories discussed in the book, however, were new to me.
One of the things I've inferred, although I've never seen it in print, is that there is no such thing as nothing in our universe. Space without matter and radiation is not empty at all. It is seething with activity at the Plank length--10 to the minus 35 meters, that is, approximately a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a meter--This is the border beyond which our "regular" world governed by Einstein's laws breaks down. The laws of cause and effect no longer apply; in this "area" particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Pure nothing does not exist in the cosmos; it is a concept that exists in our heads. We know of nothing in nature, that is, well, nothing.
I've learned a lot from Krauss, a renowned cosmologist and first-class theorist, who directs the Origins Project at the University of Arizona. His book is well written and well worth reading by anyone interested in physics. He wrote the book for an educated lay audience, members of which will have no difficulty with his explanations. Here are some of the things that a member of this group, namely myself, learned from the book:
1. I used to believe that creation occurs when a virtual particle, very occasionally, bursts into existence by having enough energy to become "real." This would take an extraordinary amount of energy. Krauss informs us that this is unnecessary; if the gravitational energy and mass energy of the particle were zero, as it is in our universe, the particle could remain in existence without abrogating the law of conservation of energy, as the first example would. After this, a phase change would cause a phenomenal inflation resulting in a flat universe like ours.
2. I used to believe that the only plausible basis for the birth of a universe was empty space, the home of virtual particles, as indicated above. Krauss speculates that there might have been truly nothing before our universe came into being. The creator here would again be quantum fluctuations, which, by chance, would enable something to arise.
3. A new concept for me is the theory that something arises from nothing because nothing is unstable. Nothing, (either the nothing that might have "predated" our universe or the "empty space" nothing of our universe,) inevitably results in something! Krauss quotes the physicist Frank Wilczek who was one of the first to develop this concept:
One can speculate that the universe began in the most symmetrical state possible and that in such a state no matter existed; the universe was a vacuum. A second state existed, and in it matter existed. The second state had slightly less symmetry, but was also lower in energy. Eventually a patch of less symmetrical phase appeared and grew rapidly. The energy released by the transition found form in the creation of particles. This event might be identified with the big bang...The answer to the ancient question "Why is there something rather than nothing" would be that "nothing" is unstable. (Page 159.)
It is important to note that while the creation of universes from nothing is inevitable, this doesn't make ours or any other universe special in any way. The Copernican principle, namely that, cosmically speaking, there is nothing special about our position in the universe, is thus almost infinitely extended--There is nothing special about our entire universe either, being merely one of countless other quantum fluctuations that have come into existence in the multiverse.
Does God play dice? You betcha.
As far as I can tell, we have no idea of the cause of quantum fluctuations, which may indeed be a meaningless question. They are the basis of everything, galaxies, suns, planets, knickknacks and you and me. If a precocious child should ask, "Daddy, why are there quantum variations?," Daddy has no recourse but to reply, "That's the way it is." And that apparently is the way it is. Few modern physicists believe, as Einstein did, that there is something more fundamental. Certainly not a creator God!
We thus can counter the Catholic "Ex nihilo creavit deus mundum," with the more accurate,' "Nihil et deum creavit homo"--Human beings created nothing and God!
Wallace Steven wrote in a poem of the need to distinguish the "nothing that isn't (from) the nothing that is." Most physicists and poets would agree--if you're not sure, read this fascinating book. If you do, I am sure you will never view nothing as nothing again.
Lawrence M. Krauss
Free Press, New York, 2012
Whenever I mention the extraordinary developments in modern cosmology, a friend of mine likes to try to stump me with the age-old question, "How could something come from nothing?" Why are quarks quarks, how can things pop out of nowhere? No one knows of course; that's just the way it is. Yet believing that quantum indeterminacy leaves room for a "God of the gaps"-explanation of nature is becoming increasingly untenable. The belief that nature inevitably leads to God--which Catholics call "natural theology,"--along with the assertion that God created the world out of nothing--"Ex nihilo creavit deus mundum--are not substantiated by science. Lawrence M. Krauss's fascinating book, "A Universe from Nothing," helps to fill in that gap where God still allegedly dwells; he of course does not completely remove it--nothing can, pun intended. It is becoming increasingly likely that the only ingredient needed to create a universe is so-called empty space, or even more radically, nothing at all. And to ask where nothing at all came from is meaningless indeed.
I continue to be fascinated by a cosmology that envisions the universe as the ultimate "free lunch"--something, quite a lot in fact, from nothing. I knew about virtual particles popping in and out of so-called empty space; this is allowed by the laws of quantum physics as long as the existence of these particles is extremely short and that the net charge of particles remain zero. Many of the theories discussed in the book, however, were new to me.
One of the things I've inferred, although I've never seen it in print, is that there is no such thing as nothing in our universe. Space without matter and radiation is not empty at all. It is seething with activity at the Plank length--10 to the minus 35 meters, that is, approximately a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a meter--This is the border beyond which our "regular" world governed by Einstein's laws breaks down. The laws of cause and effect no longer apply; in this "area" particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Pure nothing does not exist in the cosmos; it is a concept that exists in our heads. We know of nothing in nature, that is, well, nothing.
I've learned a lot from Krauss, a renowned cosmologist and first-class theorist, who directs the Origins Project at the University of Arizona. His book is well written and well worth reading by anyone interested in physics. He wrote the book for an educated lay audience, members of which will have no difficulty with his explanations. Here are some of the things that a member of this group, namely myself, learned from the book:
1. I used to believe that creation occurs when a virtual particle, very occasionally, bursts into existence by having enough energy to become "real." This would take an extraordinary amount of energy. Krauss informs us that this is unnecessary; if the gravitational energy and mass energy of the particle were zero, as it is in our universe, the particle could remain in existence without abrogating the law of conservation of energy, as the first example would. After this, a phase change would cause a phenomenal inflation resulting in a flat universe like ours.
2. I used to believe that the only plausible basis for the birth of a universe was empty space, the home of virtual particles, as indicated above. Krauss speculates that there might have been truly nothing before our universe came into being. The creator here would again be quantum fluctuations, which, by chance, would enable something to arise.
3. A new concept for me is the theory that something arises from nothing because nothing is unstable. Nothing, (either the nothing that might have "predated" our universe or the "empty space" nothing of our universe,) inevitably results in something! Krauss quotes the physicist Frank Wilczek who was one of the first to develop this concept:
One can speculate that the universe began in the most symmetrical state possible and that in such a state no matter existed; the universe was a vacuum. A second state existed, and in it matter existed. The second state had slightly less symmetry, but was also lower in energy. Eventually a patch of less symmetrical phase appeared and grew rapidly. The energy released by the transition found form in the creation of particles. This event might be identified with the big bang...The answer to the ancient question "Why is there something rather than nothing" would be that "nothing" is unstable. (Page 159.)
It is important to note that while the creation of universes from nothing is inevitable, this doesn't make ours or any other universe special in any way. The Copernican principle, namely that, cosmically speaking, there is nothing special about our position in the universe, is thus almost infinitely extended--There is nothing special about our entire universe either, being merely one of countless other quantum fluctuations that have come into existence in the multiverse.
Does God play dice? You betcha.
As far as I can tell, we have no idea of the cause of quantum fluctuations, which may indeed be a meaningless question. They are the basis of everything, galaxies, suns, planets, knickknacks and you and me. If a precocious child should ask, "Daddy, why are there quantum variations?," Daddy has no recourse but to reply, "That's the way it is." And that apparently is the way it is. Few modern physicists believe, as Einstein did, that there is something more fundamental. Certainly not a creator God!
We thus can counter the Catholic "Ex nihilo creavit deus mundum," with the more accurate,' "Nihil et deum creavit homo"--Human beings created nothing and God!
Wallace Steven wrote in a poem of the need to distinguish the "nothing that isn't (from) the nothing that is." Most physicists and poets would agree--if you're not sure, read this fascinating book. If you do, I am sure you will never view nothing as nothing again.
No comments:
Post a Comment