Skeptic » eSkeptic » May 30, 2012

The Skeptics Society & Skeptic magazine

The Latest Episode of Mr. Deity: Mr. Deity and the Rights


About this week’s eSkeptic

In this week’s eSkeptic, Andrew Zak Williams reviews Lawrence Krauss’ latest book A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing, with an Afterword by Richard Dawkins (Free Press, 2012, ISBN-13: 978-1451624458). This review appears in the Skeptic magazine 17.2 (2012).

Andrew Zak Williams is a barrister based in England. He has written for The Independent newspaper, The New Statesman, The Humanist and American Atheist. He is also a columnist at

Share this eSkeptic with friends online. Click the + for more options.
Subscribe to Skeptic magazine for more great articles like this one.

A Universe From Nothing?

by Andrew Zak Williams

In hindsight I couldn’t have chosen a worse time to interview the renowned cosmologist Lawrence Krauss. With his newly released book A Universe From Nothing adorning the New York Times bestseller list, the man of the moment had become the man with no moment to spare. Our first attempt by Skype was postponed due to a photoshoot that ran late. More troubling, the next delay was caused by a break-in at his office in Arizona State University where he is Foundation Professor and Director of the Origins Project. Our next attempt to speak conflicted with a live internet stream his publishers had organized for him with Richard Dawkins.

When we finally met, Krauss was remarkably relaxed and convivial, dressed in the brown suede jacket which, from what I can tell, has accompanied him on most of his public appearances for some time. Within moments, what struck me was the wide-eyed awe he retains for his subject. In fact, it was surely his infectious enthusiasm that turned his lecture on the origins of the universe at the 2009 Atheist Alliance International conference into an Internet sensation, attracting over a million YouTube hits, the success of which gave him the idea to write his latest book.

Since the book sets out to provide a plausible account for the origin of the universe—in particular one that doesn’t involve the supernatural—he could hardly have been surprised that not everyone welcomed his contribution to the subject. The extent of the flak he has received from some parts of the religious community was a recurring theme of our conversation.

“I’m not bashing religion,” he explained. “In fact, physicists spend so little time thinking about God they don’t bother worrying whether they are atheists. God is simply an irrelevance to physics.” Even so, as someone who recently debated the evidence for the existence of God with leading religious apologist William Lane Craig, he knows that his book could sound the death knell for one of the key arguments on which theists rely. (More below.) As for the likes of Craig, Krauss says they are “hucksters running cheap arguments and pedaling a philosophy that has been overtaken by science. They may not like the way the universe works, but who cares? The universe is the way it is.”

This exemplifies the straight-talking approach adopted in the book even though Krauss also frequently reaches inside a trunk-load of humorous analogies he’s heaved around the lecture circuit. Take antimatter: Krauss writes, “It is strange in the sense that Belgians are strange. They are not really strange; it is just that one rarely meets them.” And after explaining that the question why there is something rather than nothing has no basis in science, he drives home the point by announcing that the question “may be no more significant or profound than asking why some flowers are red and some are blue.”

So perhaps it should come as no surprise that the most quoted individual in the book isn’t one of the many theoretical physicists about whose works Krauss is thoroughly knowledgeable. Instead it’s the late Christopher Hitchens, the titan of the New Atheism who was to write a foreword to the work until his illness took him from us.

I asked Krauss about the loss to the skeptical cause following Hitchens’ passing: “He was cultured in a way that none of the rest of us are,” he replied. “So he connected with many people who may not otherwise have been interested in what the likes of, say, Richard Dawkins or I would have to say. Christopher was a wonderful human being. Simply irreplaceable.”

Krauss could see where I was going with this line of questioning and quickly noted, “I have received some emails from people suggesting that I could fill part of the gap left by him,” he added. “If I can fill the void in some small way, I’d be very pleased to do so. In fact, as a scientist I may even be able to reach some audiences that were beyond Christopher.”

This is where A Universe From Nothing comes in. In fewer than 200 pages it sets out to rebut the age-old argument raised by religious apologists who contend that the reason why there is something rather than nothing is that God, outside of time and space, created both at the moment of the Big Bang.

“I think it is virtually certain that everything we see came from empty space,” Krauss exposited. “And all the physics I know is highly suggestive that our universe popped into existence as a quantum fluctuation.” The book develops this by explaining that because of the laws of quantum mechanics and special relativity, empty space consisted of a bubbling brew of virtual particles spontaneously popping in and out of existence on timescales too small to notice. (It is this behavior that makes them virtual.) This was the “nothing” out of which the universe arose. These bubbling activities, known as quantum fluctuations, caused a mass density fluctuation which, in combination with the process of cosmological Inflation, resulted in the Big Bang.

But what about the religious apologists who say that there must have originally been a purer form of nothing, one that didn’t consist of virtual particles? Krauss was dismissive. “I’m not interested in classical, logical descriptions of nothing, but rather what science tells us about nothing. The philosophical bother may be there, but who cares? It just means the universe is cleverer than theologians are. The fact that you can’t get your head around it doesn’t make it less so.”

Still, Krauss’s book deals with how the universe could still have come into existence even if what preceded it was this purer form of nothing, one that doesn’t allow even for empty space. As he explained it to me, “If, at the very beginning, quantum mechanics was applied to gravity, space and time would have become dynamical and so would have spontaneously appeared. So you wouldn’t have needed pre-existing space. Instead the space itself would have arisen.” Why is that? Krauss’s answer: “Because nothing is unstable.” What does this mean? Krauss continued:

When you take out gravity, nothing will always be unstable with particles popping in and out of existence, but these are only virtual particles. But once you have gravity, you offer the possibility of creating something real—that is, not just virtual particles— with zero total energy. Nothing is unstable because once you’ve made something real with zero energy, quantum mechanics says you’ll always create it. If you wait long enough, no matter how small the probability is, it must arise. If you have particle pairs with a gravitational attraction that is just right for their total energy to be zero, you’re guaranteed that something will arise from nothing. That’s because nothing with total zero energy is unstable and so will create something with total zero energy.

In short, although there isn’t yet a fully worked out model of quantum gravity, Krauss’ point is that if you apply quantum mechanics to gravity, not only can a universe spontaneously appear from nothing, it must do so. After explaining this, he returned to a recurring theme: “Some of this bothers people. But who cares? Quantum mechanics is illogical—just get over it.”

I should pause at this point to mention that when religious apologists posit God to explain how something came from nothing, a skeptical retort sometimes heard is that the universe may be eternal: Our own baby universe originated at the Big Bang but the cosmos that gave birth to it may be eternal. And so there never was a nothing from which something arose. There are numerous models that allow for this, most notably the inflationary multiverse, quantum tunneling, and two ideas based on string theory, namely the Ekpyrotic (“conflagration”) scenario and the pre-Big Bang scenario. Yet these models are barely testable, let alone proven. Krauss’ book is particularly useful in showing that skeptics don’t need to resort to these scenarios in order to deal with theist cosmological arguments.

Where did the very laws of nature that Krauss describes come from? After all, some theists may agree with everything Krauss says but then posit God as the creator of the scientific laws that made it all possible. The book answers this question by referring to the possibility of an inflationary multiverse in which the natural laws of any particular baby universe are created spontaneously at the point of its creation. When I asked Krauss whether that means that he considers that the universe must be eternal after all, he swatted away the question by pointing to how much we still have to learn. He added, “Whether the laws themselves are fluid or whether there’s only one set of laws is something I’m agnostic about. I like the idea that there’s only one set of laws but what I like is irrelevant.”

Towards the end of our conversation I reminded Krauss about the afterword to his book in which Richard Dawkins writes that if On the Origin of Species was biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see A Universe from Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology. I asked whether he worries about trying to live up to the implied comparison with Darwin, one of the greatest scientists ever. Yet before he even responded, I knew the answer. Krauss is enjoying himself far too much for that. END

Our Next Lecture at Caltech:
Dr. Art Benjamin

Art Benjamin
The Secrets of Mental Math: The Mathemagician’s Guide to Lightning Calculation and Amazing Math Tricks

SUNDAY, JUNE 10, 2012 AT 2 PM
Baxter Lecture Hall

Teachers and parents, bring your students and kids to see the famous lightning calculator and mathemagician Art Benjamin demonstrate simple math secrets and tricks that will forever change how you look at the world of numbers. Get ready to amaze your friends—and yourself—with incredible calculations you never thought you could master, and learn how to do math in your head faster than you ever thought possible, dramatically improve your memory for numbers, and—maybe for the first time—make mathematics fun. Dr. Benjamin will teach you how to quickly multiply and divide triple digits, compute with fractions, and determine squares, cubes, and roots without blinking an eye. No matter what your age or current math ability, Dr. Benjamin will teach you how to perform fantastic feats of the mind effortlessly. This is the math they never taught you in school.

Admission policy for Baxter Lecture Hall

Due to security concerns, Baxter Hall will be locked and the audience will be admitted only through the doors on the South side of the building by the lily ponds. If, for medical reasons, you cannot climb the stairs to the hall on the 2nd floor, someone at the main entrance (located in the middle of the West side of the building) will escort you to the elevator.


First come, first served at the door. Seating is limited. $8 for Skeptics Society members and the JPL/Caltech community, $10 for nonmembers. Your admission fee is a donation that pays for our lecture expenses.


Announcing The Amaz!ng Meeting 2012
Southpoint Hotel & Casino, Las Vegas, NV
July 12–15, 2012

The Amaz!ng Meeting 2012: July 14-17, Las Vegas, Southpoint Hotel and Casino

THE AMAZ!NG MEETING (TAM) is an annual celebration of science, skepticism and critical thinking. People from all over the world come to TAM each year to share learning, laughs and the skeptical perspective with their fellow skeptics and a host of distinguished guest speakers and panelists.

The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) has hosted its annual Amaz!ng Meeting since 2003 as a way to promote science, skepticism and critical thinking about paranormal and supernatural claims to the broader public. TAM has been held in Las Vegas, NV since 2004 and has become the world’s largest gathering of like-minded science-advocates and skeptics.

With yet another incredible lineup of speakers, hands-on workshops, and entertainment, this is sure to be an Amaz!ng Meeting you won’t want to miss! Check out the entire program, and follow @jref on Twitter for the latest #TAM2012 news and announcements.




  1. BaronPike says:

    “The book answers this question by referring to the possibility of an inflationary multiverse in which the natural laws of any particular baby universe are created spontaneously at the point of its creation.”
    How does spontaneous creation qualify as an answer to how creation was spontaneous?

    • Bad Boy Scientist says:

      It doesn’t. And it wasn’t meant to answer _that_ question.

      The answer you quoted is for the question, “Where did the very laws of nature that Krauss describes come from?”

      So, the laws popped into existence along with the baby universe – this is key to understanding that each baby universe may have its own laws of ‘physics’.

  2. Jeffrey Herrmann says:

    Notwithstanding his title, “A Universe From Nothing,” Krauss admits in his book that the Universe did not quite come from nothing, but more accurately from almost nothing. See pp. 148, 150, 151, and 152. And the almost nothing from which the Universe arose must be governed by the laws of physics. See p. 142.
    Alan Guth in his book “The Inflationary Universe” gives the result of one calculation of approximately how much “almost nothing” is needed to inflate our Universe from an unimaginably small speck of space. It is about 25 grams equivalent of energy, or about one ounce.
    “A Universe From an Ounce” doesn’t make quite as catchy a title.

  3. Dr.Sidethink Hp.D. says:

    What I see as a Major Problem is the belief that questions like
    “why is there something rather than nothing ?” even make sense.

    There seems to be a prevailing hubris among Folks that we can understand just anything .

    We don’t have the development of language for this.
    Here’s an example

    Why is c8 a bad move?
    Chess player answer ” Unless you are a grandmaster, it’s an excellent way to get yer butt kicked”

    Non Chessplayer : ” Huh”

    Dog “arf”

    The difference in the two former responses is that the question
    COULD be explained to most humans
    but the dog lacks the language to understand the question
    The question does not only NOT make sens to Fido, But it COULD not

    Folks, there are some questions that don’t even make sense
    to us humans who believe that we Could understand them if given enough Mental Wheaties!

    Just as an aside, there are questions which make sense but show
    that the asker does not understand them.

    Pet examples

    1. How could a universe be spherical ?? What would be OUTSIDE it?? Huh? Huh??

    2 How could there be a beginning of time ?? what could be before this ?

    3. If Man come from a monkey, how come is they still monkeys?

    I think the best attempt is
    “Whazzup with the Broncos lately??”


  4. Fred Kohler says:

    The best argument against the existence of an initial creator is that such a creator would require immense intelligence, vastly superior to present day human intelligence & the executive ability to create something from nothing. This answer begs the initial question. Such an intelligence would require structure astronomically superior to our most advanced computers. How do theists account for such a phenomenon, or do they assume an evolution of the creator without accounting for the way such a creator evolved; not even answering the common Sunday School question of “what the creator did prior to creating the universe.” Such a pseudo solution does not solve anything.

    We have the choice of believing in the pseudo solution, or the admittedly somewhat incomplete answer that Larry Krauss gives. Let us admit that we may not know enough at this period in the development of human intelligence to give a full accounting for the existence of the universe; we may not even be able to ask the correctly formulated questions, but I much prefer a simple and perhaps inevitable beginning to the God hypothesis.

  5. kennwrite says:

    I love the idea that there is a search for the “beginning” of the universe; however, when will the absurd debate that something comes from nothing end? Obviously, a quantum fluctuation of particles popping in and out is “something”. Nothing is an impossible concept, since there is no known example of nothing. If there was, we’d have a whole set of words, thoughts, ideas, and even alternative universes to talk about.

    As to the argument with theologians, I remember the Bishop Robinson’s comment (I’m paraphrasing), `those that need to address the existence or non-existence of God posit Him as real to discuss Him. A true atheist should come to two conclusions: When speaking of God, there is nothing to speak about, and two, nothing can’t be spoken about. It’s as simple as that.

    Personally, I like the concept of God as an issue or non-issue. God is “real” to a believer in the sense that it serves a function in that person’s life; it seems a waste of time to convince that person to stop treating God as real if he or she is happy with the function God serves. Skeptics should only be concerned that believers don’t foist religion on physics and chemistry classes or decimate the teaching of science. However, let the believers believe if it makes them happy. We need more happy people, even if some of them seem a bit insipid at times.

  6. kennwrite says:

    By the way, Dr. Sidethink, I love your chess comment … do you play?

    • Dr. Sidethink says:

      I played chess in High School and College in the ’50’s.

      The problem with chess is that you must memorize a rather complicated set of algorithms until the “Midgame” starts.
      The ordinary player’s fate will usually be sealed by the tenth move even without blunders.

      I used to tell my Computer Science classes that I had to make Chessmaster give itself a lobotomy before I could stay even with it.

      I think the reason Human Mind can stay even with a Chess machine is just that some people are programmed to do a nulti level search for a while and have an uncanny ability to dismiss stupid moves
      What’s remarkable is the folks who invented or discovered how to make a computer beat all takers , in the first place .
      You can probably make a living playing chess with just a fraction of the skills a good progrim.

      I once played Sammy Rachevsky in a 50 game simultaneous.
      He won 48 and drew two.

      Contrary to common belief, people who can play “Blindfold” do not necessarily
      have an “eidetic” memory ( where you can “see” the board in your mind’s eye) but simply “Just know” where all the stuff is a on any board.
      to me that’s more amazing


Patreon: a new way to support the things skeptic creates

Get eSkeptic

Science in your inbox every Wednesday!

eSkeptic delivers great articles, videos, podcasts, reviews, event announcements, and more to your inbox once a week.

Sign me up!

Donate to Skeptic

Please support the work of the Skeptics Society. Make the world a more rational place and help us defend the role of science in society.

Detecting Baloney

Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic) by Deanna and Skylar (High Tech High Media Arts, San Diego, CA)

The Baloney Detection Kit Sandwich (Infographic)

For a class project, a pair of 11th grade physics students created the infographic shown below, inspired by Michael Shermer’s Baloney Detection Kit: a 16-page booklet designed to hone your critical thinking skills.

FREE PDF Download

Wisdom of Harriet Hall

Top 10 Things to Know About Alternative Medicine

Harriet Hall M.D. discusses: alternative versus conventional medicine, flu fear mongering, chiropractic, vaccines and autism, placebo effect, diet, homeopathy, acupuncture, “natural remedies,” and detoxification.

FREE Video Series

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Science Based Medicine vs. Alternative Medicine

Understanding the difference could save your life! In this superb 10-part video lecture series, Harriet Hall M.D., contrasts science-based medicine with so-called “complementary and alternative” methods.

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths of Terrorism

Is Terrorism an Existential Threat?

This free booklet reveals 10 myths that explain why terrorism is not a threat to our way of life or our survival.

FREE PDF Download

The Top 10 Weirdest Things

The Top Ten Strangest Beliefs

Michael Shermer has compiled a list of the top 10 strangest beliefs that he has encountered in his quarter century as a professional skeptic.

FREE PDF Download

Reality Check: How Science Deniers Threaten Our Future (paperback cover)

Who believes them? Why? How can you tell if they’re true?

What is a conspiracy theory, why do people believe in them, and can you tell the difference between a true conspiracy and a false one?

FREE PDF Download

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

The Science Behind Why People See Ghosts

Mind altering experiences are one of the foundations of widespread belief in the paranormal. But as skeptics are well aware, accepting them as reality can be dangerous…

FREE PDF Download

Top 10 Myths About Evolution

Top 10 Myths About Evolution (and how we know it really happened)

If humans came from apes, why aren’t apes evolving into humans? Find out in this pamphlet!

FREE PDF Download

Learn to be a Psychic in 10 Easy Lessons

Learn to do Psychic “Cold Reading” in 10
Easy Lessons

Psychic readings and fortunetelling are an ancient art — a combination of acting and psychological manipulation.

FREE PDF Download

The Yeti or Abominable Snowman

5 Cryptid Cards

Download and print 5 Cryptid Cards created by Junior Skeptic Editor Daniel Loxton. Creatures include: The Yeti, Griffin, Sasquatch/Bigfoot, Loch Ness Monster, and the Cadborosaurus.

Copyright © 1992–2018. All rights reserved. The Skeptics Society | P.O. Box 338 | Altadena, CA, 91001 | 1-626-794-3119. Privacy Policy.