I learned a lot and became more curious about cosmology. I am glad I read the book.

3 stars because the book does not fulfill its promise. The book lays out the author’s knowledge of cosmology and physics at length. Only towards the end of the book does he starts addressing the question, but not really because he does not really like the question. You can tell it would force him to go outside of physics and cosmology, like philosophy, and he does not want to venture out there. Ultimately, he answers with something along the lines of “perhaps nothingness is an unstable state”. Ok, fair.

The book just does not fulfill its promise of taking a serious shot at all aspects of the question. Don’t get me wrong: you definitely learn a lot of cosmology and physics that are relevant to the question from reading the book. ( )

Very readable, but I still certainly don't understand everything. I had to keep saying to myself "well, if you say so" - but I think that's just inevitable given the topic. ( )

appreciated the science part, but felt sorry for his lack of faith in the existence of our creator. just b/c one believes in the creator doesn't mean we can't do good science and asking questions that deepens our understanding of the things that were made in nature. ( )

Reading A Universe from Nothing, physicist Lawrence Krauss' hybrid of a science book and an anti-religion polemic, I couldn't help but think it would have been a much better book to read back in 2012, when it was first published. For not only has the science moved on (at one point, Krauss speculates on what the Large Hadron Collider might tell us, now that it has started running (pg. 35)), but his ardent New Atheist rhetoric hasn't, and reminds us that, unfortunately, that particular intellectual movement hasn't made any movement at all in the years since.

Krauss is at his best when he commits to the actual science. He starts slow, going into some of the basics of Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics for the general reader, before stepping things up a notch and formulating his argument as to 'why there is something rather than nothing'.

Essentially, and without going into the nitty-gritty of how Krauss backs up his argument, it amounts to the fact that what we call 'nothing' – that is, empty space – is in fact a teeming morass of virtual particles and other such astrophysical peculiarities. There is, in fact, a great amount of energy in this empty space – something that we call 'dark energy' (which is different from dark matter). Because of quantum fluctuations, this dark energy can not only create 'something' out of this 'nothing', but it is inevitable that it will do so, resulting in a universe. 'Nothing' is inherently unstable (pg. 170). To paraphrase Voltaire, the universe is so strange that if it didn't exist someone would have to invent it.

Krauss smooths out the edges of this theory, and presents it more comprehensively than I have done. It is, I admit, sometimes a bit too comprehensive, and Krauss can get lost in the weeds, happily expounding on ideas that are familiar to him but not so much to us. By the time he started talking about Feynman's ideas of "sum over paths formalism" (pg. 162), he not only lost me – a fairly regular science reader – but, I realised, had already left most of his general audience behind.

This is a shame, because the book really shines when Krauss reflects on some of the implications of his arguments, and of the logical and conceptual developments in modern science. Some of these have become slightly hackneyed and Instagram-worthy (such as the line about how every atom in our bodies has come from inside a star (pg. 17)), but many remain profound. In his Afterword, Richard Dawkins rightly notes how striking is Krauss' observation that, at some point in the far-distant future, it will be impossible for astronomers to verify that the universe started with a Big Bang (pg. 107). The cosmic background radiation that serves as its evidence for us will have dissipated too widely to be identifiable. So too the galaxies: they will have moved so far apart that their light will be on too great a wavelength to reach our eyes. Unnervingly, Krauss notes, it may be that, should our current knowledge be lost by then (as it surely would on such a timescale), then those astronomers of the future would not know there was a Big Bang, or that there were even other galaxies. "It is sobering to suggest that one can use the best observational tools and theoretical tools at one's disposal and nevertheless come up with a completely false picture of the large-scale universe" (pg. 118).

Considering this admission, it is strange that Krauss is so secure and complacent in his view of God and religion. The religion vs. science debate is something that, like politics, is a tremendously interesting arena that has become increasingly tedious and disappointing due to the all-but-complete inability (or unwillingness) of each side to understand the other. It is the main flaw in Krauss' book and it ought not form such a big part of my criticism. But Krauss makes his anti-theist opinions a central and unavoidable part of his book, so we as readers have to meet him there. We either ignore it (which would half the book in length), oppose it (making the book disagreeable) or agree with it. My assessment is that these parts of the book will only appeal to those who already agree with such overtly New Atheist views, making for a rather polarising – not to say redundant – reading experience.

There is something slightly obnoxious and self-satisfied about the New Atheist conversation (and I say that as someone who happily delved into that milieu between 2008 and 2016). Krauss, to his credit, refrains for the most part from taking cheap shots at those who believe in a 'sky-god' and a man who walks on water, but, even as someone who has no deep, inherited belief system or spiritual identity, and who values knowledge and reason, I find something distasteful about contemporary 'scientism'. On two occasions in A Universe from Nothing, Krauss proudly volunteers the fact that he carries a card around in his wallet with a graph on it, for when he meets people who don't believe the Big Bang happened (pp18, 111). This, to me, does not seem like an appropriate use of a professor's time or mental energy, and is akin to a champion boxer roaming the streets looking for a fight, or a millionaire responding to a poor person saying that there's no money by pulling out a wad of bills and saying "no, you're wrong, there's plenty". People unable or unwilling to acknowledge logic – such as the logic behind the Big Bang, or any claim backed by verifiable scientific data – are people to be pitied, quietly or even silently. Ignored, not mocked and eviscerated. Maybe it's an American thing (Krauss delivers that hoary old chestnut about how more Americans believe in angels than in evolution), but from here in England it seems a lot like punching down, or attacking straw men. Scientists and educated people need to get over the fact that some people are dumb, and focus on improving their ideas by having the necessary conversations on a higher intellectual plain.

Krauss' decision to go on the offensive against religion is not only slightly obnoxious and quixotic, but it leaves him open to some irresistible counter-attacks. It is something of a Pyrrhic victory when Krauss successfully argues for why there is something rather than nothing, for if Krauss had kept this as a solely scientific argument (i.e. the afore-mentioned 'quantum fluctuations' in empty space) it would have been extremely gratifying. But by chaining it to his anti-religion cudgel, he over-reaches. By straying too far onto this ground, he reminds us that, as far as metaphysics goes, he has not proven that 'something' can arise out of 'nothing'. Compelling as a scientific observation, his argument that empty space in fact contains plenty of quantum energies and virtual particles reminds us that his 'nothing' is in fact a 'something'. The question remains: how did those quantum energies and virtual particles, those 'somethings', get to be in that 'empty' space in the first place? The underlying metaphysical argument remains unaddressed.

Had Krauss stuck to the science, it would not have to be this way. He is at his best when discussing the implications of scientific discoveries: for example, when discussing the afore-mentioned observation about how future astronomers won't have any clue about the Big Bang, he toys with the anthropic principle by saying that we live in a 'special time'. "Dark energy is measurable today because 'now' is the only time in the history of the universe when the energy in empty space is comparable to the energy density in matter" (pg. 122). In the following paragraphs, he notes the irony that this cutting-edge scientific discovery turns the Copernican principle inside out. After all, Copernicus' discovery that we're not the centre of the universe, or even of our solar system, was one of the great conceptual leaps that led science to its current place.

I could have done with more such content in Krauss' book. It is there, and in sufficient quantities to make its reading worthwhile, but those logical counterattacks to Krauss' over-commitment to the anti-God bit are, as I said earlier, irresistible. He claims he attacks God because there's no place for such a being without observable evidence, and yet makes the afore-mentioned acknowledgement that we live in a 'finite time' in which dark energy is observable (pg. 109), and that, correspondingly, there may emerge "some new observable quantities we cannot yet detect" that could be sifted by the astronomers of the future (pg. 116). This has some unacknowledged implications for his worldview: is the Big Bang true now, but not objectively true for those future astronomers, for to them it won't be verifiable? Is such objectivity unattainable? Krauss is pulling the reader into these ill-advised and unnecessary loops, and what is more he leaves them unaddressed. He acknowledges that astronomers of the future will not be able to observe much of the cosmological evidence that we can observe today, but avoids entirely the obvious logical corollary (raised by Neil deGrasse Tyson - https://youtu.be/TgA2y-Bgi3c?t=334 - on a talk show, of all the things) that there may well be things unobservable today that were observable to astronomers of a previous cosmic iteration. Maybe all traces of God have disappeared, and only His laws are left.

By this, I do not intend a theist 'gotcha' – I am not referring to the sort of 'God' who cares about unleavened bread and onanism, but the sort of 'God' that Einstein referred to: the convenient byword for undiscovered gubernatorial powers, sublime natural symmetries and exciting, as-yet-unknown forces. It is quite sad that I even feel the need to point this out, such is the state of the tedious, zero-sum religion-versus-science debate. The attacks, launched from both sides, muddy what should be clear waters, and Krauss' book, for all its fine qualities, is very much a part of this self-defeating trend.

A Universe from Nothing, which could have been a good popular science book, diminishes itself by scratching its itch and aligning itself more with the science-adjacent New Atheist movement. I can't escape the feeling that this movement has been watching its pot. Having lost its most eloquent and admirable advocate in Christopher Hitchens in 2011 (Krauss writes in his Preface that he had wanted Hitch to contribute a foreword), its remaining members have been diminishing in intellectual freshness and cultural relevance ever since. This is sad, and you find yourself wanting the self-described rationalists to rouse themselves. But then you come across an unreflective line like the following, from page 174 of A Universe from Nothing, that it is a "simple fact that nature may be cleverer than philosophers and theologians". It's hard not to recognise the inferred assumption that nature is not cleverer than atheists and scientists, and to be turned off by it. ( )

In some ways, "A Universe From Nothing" reminded me of Stephen Hawking's book, "The Grand Design". Both discussed the depth and breath of our Universe, it's origins, and how it all came to be, from a scientist's point of view. I'm sure they're both excellent books, and while I tend to think Mr. Krauss wrote this in simple layman's terms as much as possible, I tend to gauge the author's success in bringing this information down to my level by how well I can express his ideas to others once I've finished the book. While I think Krauss did a better job than Hawkings in keeping his concepts simple and his book readable, my inability to explain the book's concepts to anyone else prevents me from rating this book too high.
I'm sure it's not fair of me to rate this book lower than average based on my inability to absorb all the ideas behind Krauss' writings. The author isn't using freakish scientific jargon, his writing is crisp and clean. But when all is said and done, I still can't say I understand something, like how the universe all around us, could conceptually arise from "nothing". So while I believe the book succeeded in informing me, it did less to bring the understanding down to my level. I understood his words without the true meaning behind the words. I'm still glad I had the opportunity to hear Krauss' ideas, and there were interesting ideas and discussions throughout, but just don't ask me to explain those ideas, because I still cannot. Perhaps the audiobook version of this book was a poor choice on my part, and the written word would have been more beneficial so I could stop and absorb the material as it was presented, at a pace more suited to my learning style.
( )

Clearly, I'm not the right person to read books about theoretical physics. I'm sure it was well written, and full of bright ideas, but I did not understand them.

Last qtr was a major letdown with polemic.. ( )

Interesting, gets a bit preachy in places, but the science is fascinating and well explained. ( )

Interesting book about the intersection of cosmology (the biggest) and and quantum (the smallest), and how various forms of “nothing” lead to essentially everything. Physics for people who are smart but not graduate level physicists. ( )

He explains how but doesn't explore how enough, at least here.

A dream, perhaps relevant: "...I draw an infinity symbol on my palm and show it to someone. They get excited and say, "oh, you're into infinity? Well, according to the holographic principle, infinity can be less than zero!"

Krauss has written a book for the lay reader about the latest developments in theoretical physics, explaining how the big bang was created from nothing, and has gone onto create all the things that make up the visible universe.

He goes on to explain how the universe is expanding, and the methods that they use to ascertain its size, and some of the latest theories, but quantum physics has always been a bit beyond me, and this book has confirmed that I am out of my depth with a lot going on in theoretical physics at the moment.
( )

Perhaps ”nothing” is unstable ( )

I won't go into any detail, as there are plenty of other reviews that give more of an overview. My only comment, and it's difficult to say this without being snarky or sarcastic, is that Krause simply never answers the question. Or rather, he pulls a bait and switch which is very typical of amateurs who deign to write about the big questions of metaphysics, but merely succeed in displaying their ignorance, or even worse, their dishonesty. Whether Krauss is merely incompetent or just dishonest, I cannot say. What I can say is that not only does he not answer the question, he doesn't even address the question,. Instead he commits an equivocation fallacy that renders his entire book irrelevant. If anything, this is a superb example of why having a PhD in one field means zero in when it comes to writing in another field. And make no mistake, the question of why there is something rather than nothing is not a question of physics. It is a question of metaphysics. It is a philosophical and theological question. The physical sciences simply do not have, and by their very nature cannot possibly have, the tools required to answer it. Krauss may be a very fine physicist, but his mistakes in this book are unworthy of a freshman philosophy major.

The basic issue is that instead of offering a theory of how the universe came into being from nothing, he changes the definition of nothing, thus avoiding the question entirely. So let's set the record straight. The definition of the word "nothing" in the historical discourse is this: nothing means absolute non-being, the utter lack of existence of anything, including space, time, matter, energy, vacuums, or anything else of any imaginable existence and substance whatsoever. So when Krauss speaks of quantum fluctuations in nothing, he is actually talking about SOMETHING. Krauss redefines the word "nothing" to mean something which is already there, presumably existing eternally, and in this something (empty space or whatever) another something that is already there begins to fluctuate. OK, well where did these things come from then? How did they get there? Why is there THAT something, rather than true nothing (non-being)?

Once this move is made, the entire book sinks into the quicksand of irrelevance. It may be that the physics it contains is interesting in its own right. But so far as resolving the question he promises to address, it has nothing whatever to say. So I leave this book with one star, which is more generous than it deserves. Really, the only point of this book is to serve as an illustration of fallacious argumentation in an introduction to logic class. Or perhaps it can be a warning to scientists that if they are going to play in the philosophers' playground, then they should at least understand the basic questions at stake. Or better yet, why don't they stick to what they know and leave the philosophy to those who are trained to do it. It's no wonder Richard Dawkins approves the book. After all, he's the poster boy for a scientist who demonstrates utter incompetence in his attempts to address philosophy of religion (i.e. The God Delusion). If anyone wants to see an intelligent discussion of these issues, well, I would strongly urge you to not waste your time with scientists doing amateur philosophy. Really, it's just down right embarassing. ( )

Counted among the best of contemporary science popularizers, Dr. Lawrence Krauss presents an edifying and eminently readable guide through the scientific theories of cosmogony, as well as the history of scientific research and discovery on the topic, all to answer the question, “Is there truly such a thing as nothing?”

An award-winning theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Krauss explains various theories and evidence including the Big Bang versus steady state theory, cosmic inflation, particle physics, string theory (of which he is not necessarily a proponent), dark energy, dark matter, cosmic microwave background radiation, the “cosmic jerk” effect on the accelerating universe, and much more. He also spends several pages pondering whether cosmologists and astronomers trillions of years from now will be able to ascertain the true origins of the universe once it has expanded to a point where so much physical evidence may no longer be available.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that an underlying theme of Krauss’s book is the dismissal of theology and all Creation myths as possessing any factual basis for the origin of the universe—a point which Krauss touches on sporadically at various points.

One aspect that I enjoy as much as the science is learning about the history of scientific theories and discovery. As the book unfolds, Krauss—like Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Michio Kaku, and others—takes the time to offer brief anecdotes and background information on several of the notable physicists, mathematicians, astronomers, and cosmologists who have contributed to our knowledge of the universe over the past century. ( )

Krauss, Lawrence M. (2012). A Universe from Nothing. New York: Free Press. 2012. ISBN 9781451624458. Pagine 226. 9,99 €

Non è la prima volta che provo a leggere un libro di cosmologia: il tema non mi appassiona, ma mi dico che è dovere di una persona colta (come aspiro a diventare) cercare di capire i progressi della scienza e della conoscenza anche in campi diversi da quelli che mi sono congeniali.

Questa filosofia mi ha spesso portato ad aperture di nuovi orizzonti, ad avventure del pensiero e a esperienze felici, ma non sempre. A volte la stessa filosofia è stato un lasciapassare per la frustrazione.

Ricordo ancora quando – studiavo all’università – volli cimentarmi con La linguistica strutturale di Giulio C. Lepschy. Non esattamente rocket science, come si suol dire. La 4ª di copertina diceva qualcosa del tipo:

La linguistica strutturale è venuta occupando un posto centrale nella cultura, al punto d’incontro fra scienze esatte e discipline umanistiche. Al rigore dei suoi metodi guardano spesso come a un modello studiosi in campi diversi, dall’antropologia alla storia, dalla logica alla cibernetica alla critica letteraria. Questo è dovuto a un rinnovamento che la linguistica ha operato nelle proprie basi e nei propri metodi, introducendo distinzioni come quelle di sincronia e di diacronia, sintagmatica e paradigmatica, “langue” e “parole”, e interpretando gli elementi linguistici in base alla loro pertinenza rispetto a certe funzioni, che essi possono esercitare in quanto costituiscono un sistema. In questo libro uno specialista presenta al lettore italiano non specialista una rassegna sistematica dei metodi della linguistica strutturale, un esame delle sue varie correnti, e una discussione di alcune più recenti applicazioni.

D’accordo, qualche termine intimidiva (“sincronia e diacronia, sintagmatica e paradigmatica, langue e parole“) ma l’editore ti tranquillizzava (“uno specialista presenta al lettore italiano non specialista”): io ero certo un non specialista ed Einaudi all’epoca era un editore serio. E dunque, avanti. Avanti un corno. Incontrai per la prima volta nella mia vita la sensazione di aver cozzato contro i limiti della mia capacità di comprensione, e dovetti ammettere a me stesso che potevano esserci cose con non capivo e non avrei capito. In un certo senso fu anche un’esperienza tardiva (ero stato fortunato a non avere incontrato questi miei limiti intellettuali più precocemente, come invece mi era avvenuto con quasi tutte le attività sportive e con l’acuità sensoriale) e salutare (conoscere i propri limiti è evidentemente meglio che credersi un superuomo).

Dopo quella disavventura, l’esperienza di incontrare qualcosa che non capivo, o che capivo solo dopo un grande sforzo di applicazione e che comunque avevo la sensazione di non capire fino in fondo (“You don’t understand anything until you learn it more than one way” come ha scritto Marvin Minski) si è presentata molte volte. Soprattutto con la cosmologia e con la fisica. Influendo persino sull’andamento del complesso di Edipo e sulle scelte di studio della mia prole: ma questa è tutta un’altra storia.

Ho affrontato Krauss perché speravo sinceramente che le sua qualità di “divulgatore” mi avrebbero aiutato (avevo letto il suo libro, godibilissimo, su La fisica di Star Trek) ad affrontare un tema che un risvolto affascinante l’ha senz’altro: Why is there something rather than nothing? Perché c’è qualche cosa invece di niente?

Domanda che ha anche un risvolto teologico, evidentemente. Evidentemente, almeno, per noi italiani che ci siamo scontrati con il tomismo fin dai tempi della scuola e, si suppone, i conti con questo modo di ragionare – apparentemente a tenuta ermetica, ma in realtà fragilissimo – li abbiamo fatti da un pezzo. E la presenza di una post-fazione di Richard Dawkins, ormai arruolato full-time a paladino di una visione scientifica e razionalistica del mondo, mi sembrava una garanzia che la risposta alla domanda sarebbe stata, appunto, scientifica e razionalistica.

Sotto questo profilo non sono stato deluso. Ma mentirei se dicessi che ha capito tutto.

Il libro è, in qualche misura, “figlio” di una conferenza-lezione di Lawrence Krauss, ancora una volta introdotta da Richard Dawkins, al meeting 2009 della Atheist Alliance International. Il filmato è stato visto da 1,3 milioni di persone nel momento in cui scrivo. Eccolo qui:

***

Al termine della recensione, alcuni passi del libro che mi sembrano degni di nota. Il riferimento è come di consueto alle posizioni sul Kindle:

[…] data rarely impress people who have decided in advance that something is wrong with the picture. [456: come a dire che, se hai un pregiudizio, non sarà l'evidenza dei dati a farti cambiare idea.]

The pattern of density fluctuations that result after inflation — arising, I should stress, from the quantum fluctuations in otherwise empty space — turns out to be precisely in agreement with the observed pattern of cold spots and hot spots on large scales in the cosmic microwave background radiation. While consistency is not proof, of course, there is an increasing view among cosmologists that, once again, if it walks like a duck and looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. And if inflation indeed is responsible for all the small fluctuations in the density of matter and radiation that would later result in the gravitational collapse of matter into galaxies and stars and planets and people, then it can be truly said that we all are here today because of quantum fluctuations in what is essentially nothing. [1374]

Of course, speculations about the future are notoriously difficult. I am writing this, in fact, while at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, which is full of economists who invariably predict the behavior of future markets and revise their predictions when they turn out to be horribly wrong. More generally, I find any predictions of the far future, and even the not-so-far future, of science and technology to be even sketchier than those of “the dismal science.” Indeed, whenever I’m asked about the near future of science or what the next big breakthrough will be, I always respond that if I knew, I would be working on it right now! [1602]

I should point out, nevertheless, that even though incomplete data can lead to a false picture, this is far different from the (false) picture obtained by those who choose to ignore empirical data to invent a picture of creation that would otherwise contradict the evidence of reality (young earthers, for example), or those who instead require the existence of something for which there is no observable evidence whatsoever (like divine intelligence) to reconcile their view of creation with their a priori prejudices, or worse still, those who cling to fairy tales about nature that presume the answers before questions can even be asked. [1636]

In this case, the answer to the question, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” will then simply be: “There won’t be for long.” [2470] ( )

This book is on the one hand a delight, and on the other hand a disappointment.

It's a lively and interesting look at current physics--or at least, physics as of 2011; developments have continued. Krauss gives us a clear, interesting, and compelling account of the current scientific understanding of how our universe came into existence, how matter and energy can come from nothing, and why such exotic concepts as dark matter are fundamental to understanding how this universe works the way it does and why we are even able to exist.

And if my references to "this universe" and "our universe" seem a bit strange, well, Krauss also describes why it's likely there's more than one universe.

This is all challenging material, and Krauss makes it worth the work to pay careful attention. That's a vital skill in a good science popularizer--and we need more good science popularizers. Children taught in school that science is a matter of rote memorization to pass a test are at far too high a risk of becoming adults who think science is a matter of belief and ideology--and that scientists are just being narrow-minded when they insist climate change is real, or that so-called "creation science" is simply, factually false, and not anything like real science. They will, in short, be at risk of becoming adults who think science is a liberal conspiracy out to undermine decent moral and religious values, and wreck our economy and way of life.

Where we run into trouble in this book is that Krauss thinks he has not not just make the science clear, but also make it clear that, in his mind, which he takes to be objective fact, of course you are totally free to believe in God, but "God" is completely unnecessary... He's far too polite, reasonable, and probably a totally nice guy, to say that only fools believe in God.

He doesn't seem to understand, as many other atheist or agnostic scientists do understand, that religion and science are not about the same things. (Granted, there are religious believers who make the same mistake, aided and abetted by poor quality science education in the schools.) No, Mr. Krauss, I don't need to know your views on God, or your views on my belief in God, to be a fascinated and receptive audience for your explication of the physics and cosmology you've devoted your professional life to doing such good work in. I'm not interested in what Christopher Hitchens had to say; if I were, I would read his books to find out, not yours. There's no need to quote him repeatedly in a books I'm reading because I want to know about the physics and cosmology you're writing about.

Seriously.

Now, I do need to say that there was not so much of this stuff that it prevented me from enjoying the book and learning from it. And I'm well aware that what annoyed me will make this book more attractive to some readers. If so, great! Enjoy! I don't write these reviews to discourage anyone from reading something they'll enjoy. My hope is, in fact, that even if you disagree with my judgments, you'll still be able to recognize in my reviews books you'll enjoy even if I dislike them, and books you won't enjoy even if I love them.

In any case, I did enjoy A Universe From Nothing. I just would have enjoyed it a bit more if he'd stayed on topic better.

So, on the whole, recommended.

I bought this book. ( )

A book for laymen that brings the thinking of astrophysics up to date. Krauss reminds me of Dawkins in his relative self absorption and the constant trouble he takes with religion. Let it go, guys. It like telling a color blind person about blue.

The takeaway that "nothing" is not stable is worth the read. A quantum fluctuation that engages in inflation can result in a universe. Yowza. ( )

A book for laymen that brings the thinking of astrophysics up to date. Krauss reminds me of Dawkins in his relative self absorption and the constant trouble he takes with religion. Let it go, guys. It like telling a color blind person about blue.

The takeaway that "nothing" is not stable is worth the read. A quantum fluctuation that engages in inflation can result in a universe. Yowza. ( )

A wonderful, very readable book...makes cosmology accessible to anyone (without the math, of course). Krauss sprinkles a few digs (on the First cause argument: "These issues have been debated and discussed for millennia, by brilliant and not-so-brilliant minds, many of the latter making their current living by debating them") and humor ("...Edwin Hubble, who continues to give me great faith in humanity, because he started out as a lawyer and then became an astronomer.")

Apparently, there is a lot of nothing, and it is the strangest of quantities in our universe. ( )

Doesn't actually elucidate the basic premise at all well, but, gives you the general idea of what this line of arguement is and some other things ( )

4.5 stars, really. The summary of the physics about how 'something' can come from 'nothing' is quite interesting. Kraus does let himself vent a bit more than necessary about the lack of basic scientific understanding in the American populace and the apparent desire of some religious extremists to perpetuate that ignorance. I understand his dismay, but it seems pointless to argue with them. They are like cranky old men yelling at the sunrise because they want to sleep a bit longer. Well, Okay. They can do that, but the sun is going to come up anyway. A preference for scientific explanations over supernatural ones already exists, but the process of science and its findings are not getting the exposure they deserve. Arguing with fundamentalists is less important now than calmly and clearly explaining science. The latter is what I think modern science writers should focus on. Carl Sagan was expert at this. ( )

"სამყარო არაფრისგან" ფიზიკოს ლოურენს კრაუსის ცნობილი ლექციის მიხედვით შექმნილი წიგნია, კრაუსი პოპულარულ ლექციას განავცრცობს და წარმოგვიდგენს სამყაროს შექმნის, წარმოშობის მეცნიერულ მოდელს. რის მიხედვითაც პრინციპში შესაძლებელია სამყარო წარმოშობილიყო არაფრისგან. "არაფერი" ძალიან ბევრს აინტრიგებს. "არაფერი" პუბლიკას შოკში აგდებს და კიდევ უფრო მეტ კითხვას უჩენს. როგორ შეიძლება სამყარო არაფრისგან წარმოშობილიყო? ეს არარეალურია, მაგრამ როგორც კრაუსი იტყოდა, კვანტური მექანიკაში შემიძლია არაფრისგან მივიღო რაღაც.
მაინც რა არის ეს "არაფერი"? ფილოსოფოსებმა და თეოლოგებმა გააკრიტიკეს კრაუსი რომ მისი "არაფერი" სინამდვილეში რაღაცაა. რადგან იგი საუბრობს ცარიელი სივრცის კვანტურ ფლუქტუაციებზე, რომელიც ქმნის მატერიას, რომ ნამდვილი "არაფერი" არ უნდა მოიცავდეს საერთოდ რაიმეს, არც რისიმე შექმნის პოტენციალს. ამის პასუხად ლოურენს კრაუსი აღნიშნავს რომ თუ სამყაროს შექმნამდე არსებული 'არაფერი" არ მოიცავდა არანაირ პოტენციალს, მაშინ ღმერთსაც არ შეეძლო რისიმე შექმნა. კრაუსის "არაფერი" პირველ ეტაპზე მართლაც ცარიელი სივრცის ენერგიაა, რომელსაც აქვს პოტენციალი შექმნას თვალუწვდენელი და მრავალფეროვანი სამყარო. მატერიის შექმნა ფაქტიურად ნულიდან, (არა მატერია, არა ატომი არა პროტონი, არა რადიაცია და ა.შ) ეს "არაფერი" ყველაფრის პირველადი სცენაა სადაც ყველა მოქმედება ვითარდება. ფილოსოფოსებს და თეოლოგებს ავიწყდებათ რომ "არაფერი" ამ შემთხვევაში მეცნიერული ტერმინია და არა ტრივიალურ ფილოსოფიური. ამ სიტყვას კრაუსი იყენებს რისიმე არ ყოფნის აღსანიშნავად და როგორც თავად იტყოდა, არა მატერია, არა ნაწილაკები, არა რადიაცია - "არაფრის" კარგი მიახლოებაა, მაგრამ კრაუსი ამ "არაფერზე" არ ჩერდება. ის განიხილავს კვანტური მექანიკის და გრავიტაციის შერწყმის შესაძლო შედეგებს. ამ შემთხვევაში კვანტური გრავიტაციის შედეგად შესაძლოა სივრცეც არაფრისგან დაიბადოს. კიდევ ერთი ნაბიჯი, არა მატერია, არა ნაწილაკები, არა სივრცე, უკეთესი მიახლოებაა არაფერთან.(მეცნიერებაში ყველაფერი მიახლოებითია)შემდგომი ერთი ნაბიჯი წინ უკვე ფიზიკის კანონების შექმნაა, მაგრამ ამას მხოლოდ ცალ ყბად ახსენებს ავტორი.
წიგნის მთავარი მიზანია სამყაროს შექმნის მეცნიერული ალტერნატივის ჩვენება, სადაც პრინციპში ბუნების კანონებს შეუძლიათ შექმნან ყველაფერი, ნებისმიერი ღვთაების და ზებუნებრივი ძალების ჩარევის გარეშე. ლოურენს კრაუსი როგორც გამოცდილი ფიზიკოსი, ძალიან ფრთხილად ეკიდება საკითხს. მისი მტკიცებები, გაჯერებულია რეალიზებით რომ სამყაროს შექმნის სურათი არაა სრული. მაგრამ მიუხედავად ამისა ეს არის მეცნიერება რომელიც ემპირულ ხასიათს ატარებს. ჩვენ გვაქვს დაკვირვებები და თეორიული მოდელები, ეს ყველაფერი გაცილებით ახლოა რეალობასთან ვიდრე ნებისმიერი თეოლოგიური და ჰაერზე გაკეთებული ფილოსოფიური მტკიცება.
ამ თემის სრულყოფილი დემინსტრირება შეუძლებელია რელიგიურ და მეტაფიზიკურ მტკიცებებთან დაპირისპირებების გარეშე.ავტორმა კარგად იცის თავის სათქმელი, მეცნიერება უკეთეს ალტერნატივას გვთავაზობს.
წიგნი ძალიან ინფორმაციული და საინტერესოა, კითხვის პროცესი უმეტესად წყალივით მიდის, მაგრამ ზოგიერთ მომენტში გამიჭრდა რაღაცეების სრულად გაგება, (უფრო დეტალების) შესაძლოა არაკამარისი ინფორმაციის გამოც. თუმცა სამყაროს შექმნა დამეთანხმებით რომ რთული თემაა. საერთოდ თანამედროვე კოსმოლოგიის წინაშე დასახული ამოცანები ძალზედ რთულია. ამიტომ ამ შემთხვევაში უფრო საკუთარ თავს ვადანაშაულებ ვიდრე ავტორს. ყველაფერს სფერული ძროხების ანალოგიით ვერ აღწერ. საჭიროა უამრავ თეორიაში გარკვევა, უამრავი დეტალის გააზრება. ალბათ ერთხელ წაკითხვა არც არის საკმარისი. (ყოველშემთხვევაში ზოგიერთ პასაჟს) ვფიქრობ ზოგიერთ ადგილას შესაძლებელი იყო უკეთესი ახსნაც, თუმცა წიგნს 4,5 ვარსკვლავი მაინც ეკუთვნის, მითუმეტეს წინა წიგნთან შედარებით (აგრეთვე კრაუსის "ფიზიკის შიში") რომელშიც იმდენი რაღაცაა აღწერილი და ახსნილი რომ კითხვით და შემდეგ წაკითხულის გაანალიზებით დაიღლები. ასე რომ ნახევარ ვარსკვლავს წავუმატებ კრაუსისადმი სიმპატიის გამო.
სამეცნიერო ლიტერატურით დაიტერესებულთათვის: ეს წიგნი აუცილებლად უნდა იყოს თქვენ თაროზე! ( )

Presenty, the essential question.

Bestselling author and acclaimed physicist Lawrence Krauss offers a paradigm-shifting view of how everything that exists came to be in the first place.
“Where did the universe come from? What was there before it? What will the future bring? And finally, why is there something rather than nothing?”

One of the few prominent scientists today to have crossed the chasm between science and popular culture, Krauss describes the staggeringly beautiful experimental observations and mind-bending new theories that demonstrate not only can something arise from nothing, something will always arise from nothing. With a new preface about the significance of the discovery of the Higgs particle, A Universe from Nothing uses Krauss’s characteristic wry humor and wonderfully clear explanations to take us back to the beginning of the beginning, presenting the most recent evidence for how our universe evolved—and the implications for how it’s going to end.

Provocative, challenging, and delightfully readable, this is a game-changing look at the most basic underpinning of existence and a powerful antidote to outmoded philosophical, religious, and scientific thinking.
(Misses the effective understanding of religious experience) ( )

Pretty thin, frequently screedy. Although I would not describe myself as a believer, I was nevertheless irritated by how facile and smug his frequent digs at believers in a "prime mover," "first cause," God, etc., were. If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that the current state of theoretical physics will one day look as antiquated as Newtonian physics does post-Einstein, or Aristotelian cosmology does post-Copernicus. When discussing the current state of our scientific knowledge, Krauss is usually forthright about the limits and provisionality of what we think we know, but when he turns to the subject of belief in God, all nuance and caution are abandoned, and he speaks as though the nonexistence of God were some kind of objective fact rather than a reasonable interpretation of available evidence. Perhaps this is what happens to a theoretical physicist who spends too much time debating creationist extremists. Enemies, they say, come to resemble each other, and on the subject of belief in God he speaks with all the arrogant confidence in his own infallibility of a Pope condemning birth control. Ridicule and cheap zingers may be delicious meat for the Christopher Hitchens crowd, but I would have welcomed more nuance and intellectual modesty. ( )

Lawrence M. Krauss has attempted to answer the question of why is there something rather than nothing. I.e., how did our universe evolve? He claims that religion and theology have been at best irrelevant, because positing a god does not solve the problem of “Who created the creator?” He has a different agenda:

“The purpose of this book is simple. I want to show how modern science, in various guises, can address and is addressing the question of why there is something rather than nothing: The answers that have been obtained—from staggeringly beautiful experimental observations, as well as from the theories that underlie much of modern physics—all suggest that getting something from nothing is not a problem. Indeed, something from nothing may have been required for the universe to come into being. Moreover, all signs suggest that this is how our universe could have arisen.”

Krauss first develops the arguments concerning the “big bang,” which is currently accepted by the vast majority of scientists and cosmologists. He then proceeds to explain that quantum physics requires that “virtual particles” pop in and out of existence all the time. He argues that modern physics views what we might call “nothing” as a seething field of virtual particles required by Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. He also discusses dark matter and dark energy before explaining the possibility of many universes (the “multiverse”) unlike our own coming into existence through natural processes.

Krauss doesn’t actually claim that he has the definitive answer to why there is something rather than nothing. Rather, he avers he is presenting an alternative to a theological approach, which he believes is more intellectually satisfying, even if not dispositive:

“In this sense, science, as physicist Steven Weinberg has emphasized, does not make it impossible to believe in God, but rather makes it possible to not believe in God. Without science, everything is a miracle. With science, there remains the possibility that nothing is. Religious belief in this case becomes less and less necessary, and also less and less relevant."

Those of you hoping to find a definitive answer to why there is a universe rather than nothing may be disappointed by this book. But then you would probably be disappointed by every book written on that deeply troublesome topic. I found this book to be stimulating and provocative, and I highly recommend it.

(JAB) ( )