![]() ![]() ![]() Therefore, Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is actually something. In quantum theory, gravity at this level of reality does not require objects with mass but does require physical stuff. This is because it is impossible to have a region where there are no fields because gravity cannot be blocked. Even if, as Krauss claims, there is no matter, there must be physical fields. Although his research claims that ‘nothing’ is the absence of time, space and particles, he misleads the untrained reader and fails to confirm (explicitly) that there is still some physical stuff. ![]() This is an interesting linguistic deviation, as the definition of nothing in the English language refers to a universal negation, but it seems that Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is a label for something. ![]() In his book he calls nothing “unstable”, and elsewhere he affirms that nothing is something physical, which he calls “empty but preexisting space”. Krauss’s ‘nothing’ is actually something. Absurd as this may sound, a few presuppositions and clarifications need to be brought to light to understand the context of his conclusions. Professor Lawrence Krauss’s book A Universe from Nothing invigorated and popularised the debate on the Leibnizian question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” In his book, Krauss argues that it is plausible that the universe arose from ‘nothing’. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |