Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

This review is from: A Universe from Nothing (Hardcover) Late in the book the author uses the phrase, "a deeper nothing," as a final evocation of the source of creation. This is one of several examples in this book where we might have hoped for greater clarity. Since nothing is the subject of this book, we might expect to find a clear working definition of the word, but none is given. We are then left to surmise that the author makes use of the vacuum or empty space to signify nothing; the book then provides no insight on universal creation. It's recognized that the universe may have evolved from empty space, but this explanation leaves us with the question - "From whence came the empty space," or equally "From whence the `deeper nothing'?" Much of the author's picture of creation relies on unsubstantiated or speculative science. The first second in the history of the universe cannot be explained by known laws of physics. The inflationary universe agrees with astronomical observations, provided that dark energy and dark matter are included in the equation, and that spontaneous symmetry breaking is a correct theory of particle physics. But inflation in the early universe has astounding features, not the least of which is the existence of an intensely negative force that fuels the inflationary period and fades away in a split second. Also, Quantum Gravity is unknown; the proposed mediator of the gravitational force - the graviton - has never been detected, and gravity may be an entirely different force from the forces described by the Standard Model of particle physics. But the book's greatest weakness lies in its confused use of the word nothing. Unfortunately, the word nothing has several meanings, but the one we're looking for in the context of creation is the absolute absence of being. It is that nothing that does not exist. Any discussion of a universe created from nothing will have little value if it fails to recognize a more relevant meaning of nothing.