Letter: Nothing is nothing

From Ralph Estling

Paul Davies writes: “Quantum physics and the so-called inflationary Universe scenario give a plausible account of the initial conditions, that is, of how the expanding Universe originated from nothing” (Letters, 23 September). I can’t help feeling this is just a mite over-optimistic.

Big bang cosmologists confidently inform us that it was the big bang which created space and time, matter and energy, that the Universe sprang causelessly and without reason – from out of Absolutely Nothing. They then take a short breath and go on to tell us that this particular sort of Absolute Nothing consisted of virtual quanta fluctuating in a false vacuum. If there were preexisting quanta, virtual or actual, in a pre-existing vacuum, false or true, then there was space and time, matter and energy, in some form or other.

Many cosmologists write about what they call the “creation” of the Universe without really describing the creation at all. What they describe is the Universe’s subsequent history. “Right,” they announce smartly, rubbing their hands, “this is the way it was: The Universe began from an initial state of Total, Absolute Nothingness. The quanta fluctuating in this vacuum resulted in …” and away they go, galloping off in all directions, while the rest of us are left far behind shouting “Whoa.”

Too late. They are out of sight and beyond hearing, having disappeared in a great cloud of dust and non sequitur, swishing their tails to shoo the flies away from their broad hypothesis.

Cosmologists insist that prior to the big bang there was no space. But what is a vacuum? There was no matter, no energy, they also insist. But some quanta are matter and all quanta and all vacuums possess energy. There was no time, they tell us. But if there were quanta, even virtual ones, and vacuums, even false ones, then there was duration and change, and if that is not time, then what is? We can call it “virtual time” or “false time” or “imaginary time” but these modifiers explain nothing, they only pretend to explain, while they hide our naked ignorance behind the fig leaf of humbug. For Nothing has no duration, nor does it change. This is because Nothing has no characteristics, no qualities, no properties, no attributes. That is why it is Nothing. If it had an attribute or two then it would be Something.

Big bang cosmologists are going to have to decide if the Universe, all of it, and not merely this or that portion of it, suddenly emerged Uncaused from Nothing for No Reason – or if it developed from pre-existing quanta in a pre-existing vacuum. And if they plump for the latter then they are going to have to demonstrate how these came into pre-existence. From some pre-pre-existing pre-pre-initial state? And so on? Backwards and downwards in eternal regression? Or did they “always” exist? And if so, how is this explained? Or is the Universe “just one of those things that happen from time to time”, as one cosmologist has “explained”.

I think we would be wise to heed the words of the physicist Lev Landau: “Cosmologists are often wrong, but never in doubt.”