Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Lawrence Krauss book disputed

A new paper claims:
Abstract. We study some claims in Krauss’ recent book, A Universe from Nothing: Why there is something rather than nothing, that are employed to show that a universe can come from “nothing”. In this brief paper, we show that many of the claims are not supported in full by modern general relativity theory or quantum field theory in curved spacetime.

Claim 1: “General Relativity tells us unambiguously that a closed universe whose energy density is dominated by matter like starts and galaxies, and even more exotic dark matter, must one day recollapse in a process like the reverse of a Big Bang - a Big Crunch”

Claim 2: “Considering the geometry of the universe is like imagining a pencil balancing vertically on its point on a table. The slightest imbalance one way or the other and it will quickly topple. So it is for a flat universe. The slightest departure from flatness quickly grows. Thus, how could the universe be so close to being flat today if it were not exactly flat.”

Claim 3: Krauss claims on several occasions in the book that the total energy of a closed universe is zero

Claim 4: Krauss claims that “in quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing”

Claim 5: Krauss clams that ”the structures we can see, like stars and galaxies, were all created by quantum fluctuations from nothing”


  1. Watch as I wave my pseudo scientific reification wand and intone the word "quantum fluctuations" over my hat! Presto change-o, Voila! CREATION EX NIHILO! wow, godhood was never so easy.

    Quantum tunneling, quantum entanglement, quantum fluctuations, hmmm...let me just substitute 'quantum plot device', there, that's more like it. When physics relies upon fiction writing devices in order you function, you really have hit rock bottom.

    Who knew that if you put the word 'quantum' into an utterly non-explanatory statement that it becomes miraculous? Mr. Krauss obviously doesn't get out much or he would know that even farmers know what bullshit smells like. Sad thing is, many mathematicians (and physicists) don't realize that the fact you can pull any number you like out of thin air and calculate on it means absolutely nothing in relation to reality, except that they can make stuff up. The concept of 'Nothing' can not and never could 'fluctuate', nor can it 'fabricate', 'fibrillate', 'fornicate', 'flatulate', or spontaneously 'do' anything. If 'nothing' was actually capable of an action, I would venture it would be rather slothful, not the type to be gallivanting about creating universes out of...er...umm, well, that's the problem right there, see?

    So much for the rigors of science. Poor causality, alas, I knew him well.

  2. A physicist definition of vacuum is not what most folks think of vacuum. For the physicist the vacuum is quite complex in QUANTUM field theory