Now I haven't read the book - yet - but as I understand it Krauss tells usthat quantum theory and experiment has demonstrated that so-called empty space, such as the space between an atom's nucleus and its electrons, or the empty space of an absolute vacuum in which there are no particles, is not really empty; it is full of quantum fluctuation in which a whole host of virtual particles are being created and subsumed. He says that the fluctuations in the the 'nothing' of an absolute vacuum, which by definition is void of anything (any-thing), may result in something, and indeed have done so with regards to our local universe.
I'm not an expert in quantum theory, or in fact know anything about it in anything other than the most broad and superficial terms, but I'm quite happy to accept this, not least because there seems to be general consensus among experts that Krauss; explanations fit with what we actually do know and have demonstrated.
However, perhaps overly burdened by my ignorance, I stumbled upon a certain quandary with regards to Krauss' explanation. Perhaps those of you who do have a grasp on the technicalities can help me out here (which is why I'm posting this specifically in the Science section of the forum and not in the Philosophy bear pit)?
If we am to accept that the 'nothing' of the absolute vacuum, 'The Void' if you like, is packed with a frenzy of quantum activity, from which 'something' or 'anything' can arise, then 'nothing' is no longer nothing in any meaningful sense. Instead it is actually 'a something; 'nothing' is that from which something can arise. Giving this 'nothing' a property, particularly a theoretically sound and demonstrable property, makes it a something-or-other or a something-in-particular, surely?
Does the question not follow that this 'nothing' must also consist in 'something' and if so, isn't Krauss' explanation, as rigorous and parsimonious as it is, undermined, particular with reference to his books subtitle 'Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing'?
I know that Krauss' explanation is defined by the limits of our current understanding and knowledge, and that we have to use certain words to describe that explanation aside from the purity of mathematical expression, but hasn't he failed, to some extent, to support his assertions, though of course he has taken pains to qualify them.
Any thoughts would be warmly welcomed.