A universe can arise from nothing: the quantum vacuum is not stable

A universe from nothing; the universe from the quantum vacuum

Lawrence M. Krauss born 1954A physicist who argues that the laws of physics can explain how a universe arises with nothing before it.

See profile

What it claims

A universe can arise from nothing through the laws of physics alone: the question "why is there something?" has a scientific answer.

Why

The quantum vacuum is unstable and a flat universe can have zero total energy: the laws of physics suffice to produce a universe.

The same idea through history

Alexander Vilenkin1982Vilenkin proposes that a universe could appear by quantum tunnelling from a state without space or time, which he calls "nothing" (Physics Letters B, 1982).

Stephen Hawking2010Hawking and Mlodinow argue that, given gravity and quantum physics, the universe can and will create itself spontaneously from nothing (The Grand Design).

Lawrence M. Krauss2012Krauss presents the idea to the general public: the vacuum is unstable, the total energy of a flat universe can be zero, so a universe need not "cost" anything.

In short

"A universe can arise from nothing: the quantum vacuum is not stable" is an argument by Lawrence M. Krauss (Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, 2012, 2012) on the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" (answer: physics answers). Its claim: A universe can arise from nothing through the laws of physics alone: the question "why is there something?" has a scientific answer. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P4). AskPhilosophy presents 1 objection, 1 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

Krauss, A Universe from Nothing, 2012

Valid with an implicit premise

For two thousand years it was believed that "from nothing, nothing comes". Quantum physics shakes this rule: in what was thought to be empty, particles appear and vanish all the time. If, in addition, the total energy of a flat universe is zero, then making a universe costs nothing. Krauss concludes that science can explain how a universe arises from a state without matter, or even without space or time, with no need for a creator. The question would then belong to physics, not metaphysics.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.

Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Without the implicit premise: Without P4, one can accept all the physics of the premises and still ask: why these laws, why these quantum fields? We would then have described how a universe comes from a physical state, not why there is a physical state rather than nothing.

Valid with P4. P1, P2 and P3 say what physics allows; P4 says this answers the philosophical question. Without P4 we would only have a theory of how universes arise from a particular physical state. This is where the whole debate lies: is Krauss's "nothing" the question's "nothing"?

Analogy. Imagine a marble resting on a perfectly sharp peak: the tiniest nudge makes it roll. Quantum physics would say the "vacuum" is that unstable peak. But one may ask: where do the slope, the marble and the nudge come from?

Objections

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

David Albert 2012 · attacks premise 4

Albert, a philosopher of physics, replies that the vacuum of quantum field theories is not nothing: it is a particular arrangement of fields, just as a giraffe or a refrigerator is another. The true equivalent of "nothing" in that theory would be the absence of the fields themselves. And Krauss admits that he takes the laws of quantum mechanics for granted without saying where they come from.

Krauss replies

Lawrence Krauss 2012 · Krauss's reply

Krauss answers that the scientists' "nothing" is the vacuum, and that some philosophers and theologians keep redefining it so that it is never the one science describes. This is what the passage of his book quoted by Albert himself says. Krauss repeated this defence in the press (The Atlantic, April 2012) and in the paperback postscript; we could not re-read those two texts, so we summarise nothing more from them.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 1714

The underlying question remains the one Leibniz asked: even if the quantum vacuum is called "nothing", where do the laws governing it come from, and why these laws rather than others or none? This is not a reply by Leibniz to Krauss, which never took place, but the modern form of his principle of sufficient reason.

see the argument

Where the debate stands (our summary)The disagreement is about the meaning of the word "nothing". If it means the absence of all matter, the quantum vacuum is an example; if it means the absence of everything, including fields and laws, it is not. This definitional split is unresolved, and the question "where do the laws come from?" remains open (our summary).

What today's voices say

Defend it

Lawrence KraussHis own argument: quantum mechanics and gravity make 'nothing' unstable, so a universe can arise from it.

Sean CarrollAsked whether modern physics answers why there is anything at all, he replied 'In a word: no. I don't see how they could.'

Criticize it

John LennoxHe says Krauss and Hawking's 'nothing' is a quantum vacuum with laws, so it does not answer why there is something. A universe creating itself from nothing is 'a flat contradiction'.