German philosopher Martin Heidegger’s angst-ridden non-answer to what he called “the fundamental question” was that a fear of nothing was the defining feature of the human condition. We certainly seem scared that nothing is some kind of universal default. But why should we presume that nothing is more likely than something? After all, if we accept that we exist to ask the question, then we’ve proved something exists. It’s a whole lot harder to prove that nothing can exist.
It’s tempting to think that modern physics has made this line of reasoning easier. According to quantum field theory, even the vacuum of space is a lively soup of particles and fields popping up out of nowhere. This kind of random fluctuation is thought to have ultimately created our cosmos of stars, planets and existential worriers out of the quantum vacuum – admittedly abetted by some as-yet-unexplained happenstance, such as a period of faster-than-light inflation in the early universe, and matter somehow winning out against its evil twin, antimatter.
Advertisement
But there’s a huge flaw in this logic: the quantum vacuum is not nothing.
Metaphysics special: Philosophy’s biggest questions unravelled
What is reality made of? How do we know we exist, or if God exists? Join us as we test nine fundamental questions against the best scientific knowledge
Read more
And even if there were no quantum vacuum filling it, empty space would be anything but nothing. According to Einstein’s relativity, space moves, bends, snaps and has holes in it just like a tangible, material thing. Even old-school physics admits it has a property: size. “When we say there is an absolute vacuum between Earth and the moon, that doesn’t mean there is nothing,” says physicist David Deutsch of the University of Oxford. “No distance between us and the moon – that would be disastrous.”
Within this context, the idea that something can come from the “nothing” of free space is not a problem, says physicist Paul Davies of Arizona State University, Tempe. “The ballyhoo about a universe popping out of the vacuum is a complete red herring,” he says. “It just dodges the real issue, which is the prior existence of the laws of physics.”
More specifically, the question becomes why these laws of physics exist instead of any other set, including no set at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt-iJocLl_Y
“Even if the answer to why there is something rather than nothing were because of how quantum field theory works, the question would become why are the laws of quantum field theory as they are,” says Deutsch.
One answer might be because a universe built on this basis is particularly prone to producing conscious observers who ask what they think are probing questions. A popular idea is that all the other possible laws of physics – including no laws – exist elsewhere in a “multiverse” of all possible worlds.
In that case, why a multiverse? In the end, says Deutsch, physicists are going to have to accept they can only ever shift the goalposts on this one. “It’s a philosophical question and that’s that.” He thinks this is actually a good thing. Even if science could reveal an ultimate answer to why stuff is, we shouldn’t want it. “We can’t have a magic formula that resolves all problems,” he says. “That would be a disaster, thinking would become pointless.”
For him, the question is best explained by an old gag. “Why is there something? Because if there were nothing we’d still be complaining.”
This article appeared in print under the headline “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
