Richard Dawkins Fooled by Lawrence Krauss

Epigraph: بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ وَإِذَا قَضَىٰ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees something, He says only, ‘Be,’ and it is. (Al Quran 2:117) Have they been created from nothing, or are they their own creators? Have they created the heavens and the…

December 31, 2024

5–8 minutes

philosophy, physics, quantum-physics, science, universe

Epigraph:

بَدِيعُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۖ وَإِذَا قَضَىٰ أَمْرًا فَإِنَّمَا يَقُولُ لَهُ كُن فَيَكُونُ

He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees something, He says only, ‘Be,’ and it is. (Al Quran 2:117)

Have they been created from nothing, or are they their own creators? Have they created the heavens and the earth? In truth they put no faith in anything. (Al Quran 52:35-36)

Written and collected by Zia H Shah MD, Chief Editor of the Muslim Times

Richard Dawkins wrote Afterword for Lawrence Krauss’ book titled, A Universe from Nothing, in 2012. The title is deceptive and Dawkins also falls for it. In his enthusiasm to deny a Creator, he concludes his Afterword with the following words:

Do the laws and constants of physics look like a finely tuned put-up job, designed to bring us into existence? Do you think some agent must have caused everything to start? Read Victor Stenger if you cannot see what is wrong with arguments like that. Read Steven Weinberg, Peter Atkins, Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking. And now we can read Lawrence Krauss for what looks to me like the knockout blow. Even the last remaining trump card of the theologian, ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?’ shrivels up before your eyes as you read these pages. If On the Origin of Species was to biology’s deadliest blow to supernaturalism, we may come to see A Universe from Nothing as the equivalent from cosmology. The title means exactly what it says. And what it says is devastating.

The book and the Afterword can be easily refuted by understanding what Krauss is trying to build his case on. He is primarily building on Alan Guth’s work.

Alan Guth’s Cosmic Inflation and the “Free Lunch” Concept

Alan Guth, a prominent theoretical physicist, professor in MIT and recipient of the prestigious Kavli Prize in Astrophysics (2014), introduced the concept of cosmic inflation in the early 1980s, revolutionizing our understanding of the universe’s origins. In this context, Guth famously referred to the universe as “the ultimate free lunch,” suggesting that the cosmos could have emerged spontaneously from nothing without violating physical laws. Gruber Laboratory

Cosmic inflation proposes that the universe underwent an exponential expansion within a fraction of a second after the Big Bang. This rapid inflation explains several cosmological observations, such as the universe’s large-scale uniformity and its flat geometry. Guth’s “free lunch” analogy stems from the idea that the total energy of the universe might be zero when considering both positive energy (matter and radiation) and negative energy (gravitational potential energy). In this scenario, the universe could originate from a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum, effectively arising from “nothing.” But, it is not the real nothing that the philosophers talk about in their metaphysics, merely a play on the word.

Not only that it is not a materially not nothing, it assumes the presence of all the complex laws of nature. Alan Guth and other cosmologist are on record that we have no idea, where the laws of nature came from.

Nevertheless, let us pursue further Krauss’ and Dawkins’ “nothing.”

Nature of Quantum Fluctuations

Quantum fluctuations are temporary changes in energy that occur spontaneously in empty space due to the principles of quantum mechanics. These fluctuations are a direct consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which states that certain pairs of physical properties, such as energy and time, cannot both be known to arbitrary precision simultaneously. As a result, even a perfect vacuum is not truly empty but is instead filled with transient energy variations. Wikipedia

In the quantum vacuum, particle-antiparticle pairs, known as virtual particles, can spontaneously appear and annihilate within extremely short timescales. These ephemeral events do not violate conservation laws because the particles exist only fleetingly, borrowing energy from the vacuum and returning it almost immediately. This dynamic activity implies that the vacuum possesses a baseline level of energy, referred to as zero-point energy. ScienceShot

In quantum mechanics, the concept of a vacuum differs significantly from the classical notion of empty space. Even in the absence of matter and radiation, the vacuum possesses a baseline energy known as zero-point energy. This intrinsic energy arises from the inherent uncertainties dictated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which prevents quantum systems from having precisely zero energy.

Zero-point energy refers to the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system can possess, and it remains present even at absolute zero temperature. In this state, all classical motion ceases; however, quantum fluctuations persist, ensuring that the system retains a finite amount of energy. These fluctuations are a fundamental aspect of quantum fields, leading to the continuous creation and annihilation of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs within the vacuum.

Refutation by Edward Feser

I want to now quote from a good refutation of Krauss by Prof. Edward Feser:

But Krauss simply can’t see the ‘difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.’ The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the
universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation.

One can sensibly argue that the existence of such a God has not been established. (I think it has been, but that’s a topic for another day.) One cannot sensibly dispute that the unchanging, simple, and necessary God of classical theism, if he exists, would differ from our changing, composite, contingent universe in requiring no cause of his own.

Krauss’ aim is to answer the question ‘Why is there something rather than nothing?; without resorting to God—and also without bothering to study what previous thinkers of genius have said about the matter. Like Richard
Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Leonard Mlodinow, and Peter Atkins, Krauss evidently thinks that actually knowing something about philosophy and theology is no prerequisite for pontificating on these subjects.[1]

Cosmological constant problem

In cosmology, zero-point energy is associated with the cosmological constant, which is linked to the accelerated expansion of the universe. The energy density of the vacuum, though minuscule on a per-volume basis, becomes significant when considering the vastness of space, potentially influencing the universe’s large-scale dynamics.

One of the significant challenges in modern physics is the discrepancy between the theoretically predicted value of vacuum energy density and the observed value inferred from cosmological measurements. This disparity, known as the cosmological constant problem, remains an open question in theoretical physics, prompting ongoing research into the true nature and implications of zero-point energy.

Testimony of Alan Guth himself

Krauss and indirectly Dawkins are banking on the work of Alan Guth and he does not share their outlandish claims. In the video below he does not make any irrational grandiose claims and clearly says that physicists have no idea, where the laws of nature came from: