Posted: Apr 25, 2012 1:43 pm
Matt_B wrote:
Given that the whole point of the book is that the idea of "nothing" as being an absence of "something" has no basis in physics, I'd think a little poetic licence is forgiveable.
Of course, there can be no physics of nothingness, since nothingness is nothing physical (nor anything nonphysical).
Nothingness, the nothing (* is the absence of being—end of story. It is not what Krauss thinks it is!
(* I hate it when "nothing" is used as a noun rather than as an indefinite pronoun without being combined with the definite or indefinite article.)