A Universe from Nothing : Why there is Something rather than Nothing (Book Review)

I like to imagine all of existence as a fully blown balloon twisted in the middle with the opposing ends twisted in directions opposite to each other, so that it looks like a 3D symbol of infinity. One of the ends of that balloon is, of course, our observable universe. I also like to imagine and try to apply characteristics of things observed around in our world to the dynamics of how things play out in the universe. It is something like drawing an analogy between, let’s say gravitational forces of heavenly bodies and attraction between two human beings. I know it will seem absolutely preposterous to draw such an analogy but the reason why I believe so lies in the idea that all that there is, is just one energy, but manifesting itself differently, both characteristically and behaviorally, at different scales and levels. The same energy at heavenly scales becomes the attractive force of gravitation and the same energy at quantum levels becomes the energy of dancing uncertainty. And since energy exists in one end of the balloon (which is observable space), an equal amount of non-energy should also exist on the other end of the balloon so as to balance the ebullience of the energy in the other end. There is something on one side, and there is non-something on the other side and together therefore they make Nothing, but together they are also Everything that there is. Hence, Nothing is Everything, or Everything is Nothing – an upanishadic quote that became the root from which my current imagination of our existence sprouted.

But the existence and sustenance of this energy requires a first cause or a creator of this energy or a prime mover of this force which compels this energy to move through shapes, vaccums, objects and creatures. Prevalence of observable and consistent laws acting throughout the universe reveals a picture of a well structured evolution of our universe and therefore does away with the need of the “First Cause” requirement, because if it did exist, then there is absolutely no telling as to when the First Cause could become an intervening cause. This problem is resolved by Deistic arguments that postulate a First Cause that had a role to play only in the beginning and thereafter the universe was left on its own to evolve as it deemed fit on the basis of the laws initially made.

But none of that explains where this energy or the “First Cause” really came from? Now let me take you back to my balloon version of existence. We see one side of the balloon twisted in the middle through which energy courses through myriad forms, and therefore we see that there indeed exists something. However for something to exist, there has to be some principle or law, if not purpose or meaning, on which that something comes into existence. Though at this juncture, I was greatly inclined to conclude a first cause principle, Krauss beautifully shows how “nothingness” as opposed to “somethingness” that we see is essentially unstable and a boiling brew from which quantum fluctuations cause virtual particles to pop in and out of existence in such short periods of time that they essentially do not exist. However such virtual particles do exist, according to Krauss. These virtual particles that “live” (speaking simplistically) only for very short durations carry the potential to affect other particles, however microscopically small.

What causes these quantum particles to pop in and out of existence? We may not know why they do so or who makes them do so, but they really do so and that fact was figured as a possible reason for the big bang explosion that expanded our universe in every possible direction.  

This now makes me imagine of universe in another way. It can be like a kettle of boiling water, with the universes in it akin to bubbles that pop in and out existence (albeit over gargantuan periods of time) due to being affected by the way particles in a quantum fire below it interact with it, for however brief periods of time. Call it an inconsistent picture, if you will, because quantum fluctuations occur within the universe (in this case, inside the kettle), than below it, and moreover it again requires a cause, otherwise who would have lit the fire? Regardless of the inconsistencies in the way I paint my universes in the colours of my imagination, I derive utmost pleasure in forming different mental portraits as it makes me really wonder about the fascinating ways in which energy transforms through and takes different shapes. Scientific adventures into metaphysical curiosities are fraught with theoretical incompleteness, but nonetheless have a remarkable potential to boggle a person and cause a mini big bang in his neural activity. I knew my time was well spent in reading Lawrence M. Krauss after I came across this sentence in his book, “A Universe from Nothing: Why there is Something rather than Nothing.”

“However, a negative charge moving backward in time is mathematically equivalent to a positive charge moving forward in time.”

That added force to the way I imagine existence to be, (existence includes the universe and much more apart from it) so that what ever we see or observe has a direct parallel in another dimension which we perceive to be opposite to ours, though which ought not to be opposite in its own right. But who am I to clarify any of it further when even Krauss admitted in his book that the Universe behaves very strangely. 

Despite all of its rationality, logic, and scientifically proved equations, observations and experiments, I believe Krauss avoided dismantling the entire scientific muscle in this arena after calling our times as very propitious for knowing the true nature of our universe. He remarked that scientists in another system trillion years ahead in time will live in a universe that will have inflated so much that their galaxy would be the only one observable to them and all that would be observable apart from that will be empty dark space, thus potentially occluding any evidence of the big bang. I honestly think that the same could be applied to us in much the same vein, that what we are observing about the universe might be completely different from how it must have been 13.72 billions years ago (our estimate of the universe’s age) and all preceding contrary evidence must have gotten occluded? Krauss could have added something to counter this potential line of thinking or if he had put it unconnectedly in some page previously, I failed in figuring so.

I like these kind of books chiefly because they help me expand my mind and learn of newer ways of thinking and looking at the world and our universe. This happened after my mind did odd-degrees of somersaults back and forth after reading Hawking's Brief History of Time and Sagan's Dragons of Eden. Those two books did not make me a scientist overnight bubbling with a quantum enthusiasm of scientific curiosity, but what they did indeed was to add new dimensions to my creative imagination and this is what I expected out of this book too and was thoroughly not disappointed. I will not end up remembering the scientific logic in the book, but I will be really thankful to the book for adding another image of the universe in my mind (remember the kettle earlier?).

Finally, the idea of a universe coming from nothing and going to nothing is an idea that I deeply espouse because that idea provides a sense of closure to me and to know that science is also deeply rooted into unearthing answers to that hypothesis is a very comforting piece of news.

Image from here.