Science › Creation theories
A universe tunneling from nothing
1982· Theory
SpeculativeA serious idea with no experimental proof yet.
Alexander Vilenkin's 1982 proposal that a tiny universe could quantum-tunnel into existence from no space, no time and no matter at all.
See it on the Science map →How it works
Treat the size of a closed, sphere-like universe as a particle moving over a hill. Very small sizes sit behind an energy barrier; beyond it, the energy of empty space makes the universe inflate. Classically, nothing crosses. Quantum mechanically, the size can tunnel through, starting from zero: no space, no time. The math gives odds for such a birth, highest for universes starting with very high vacuum energy, which then inflate strongly. Unlike Tryon's version, no parent space is needed.
Why it matters
It pushed 'creation from nothing' further than Tryon did: not a ripple in existing space, but the appearance of space and time themselves, governed by quantum rules.
How we know
None; it is mathematics. It favors a closed universe, but enough inflation would flatten any curvature beyond detection, so current measurements cannot test it.
Still a mystery
This 'nothing' still comes with quantum laws attached. What 'probability' means when there is only one universe and no prior time is also unclear.
Connections (5)
▸Why is there something rather than nothing? gets a proposed physics answer from A universe tunneling from nothingSpeculative
The relationship
Physics reframes the question: perhaps 'nothing' is unstable. If quantum rules let a tiny universe appear without space, time or matter, and its total energy is zero, then something is what 'nothing' naturally turns into. Lawrence Krauss's 2012 bestseller 'A Universe from Nothing' made this case; Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow argued similarly in 2010.
How the link was found
Edward Tryon (1973) and Alexander Vilenkin (1982) supplied the physics; Frank Wilczek suggested in 1980 that 'nothing' may be unstable; Krauss popularized the argument in 2012.
Is it proven?
Not proven. The quantum calculations are consistent but untested. Philosopher David Albert's 2012 New York Times review objected that a state governed by quantum laws is not nothing, so the deep question is untouched.
Open questions and mysteries
Is physicists' 'nothing' the philosophers' nothing? Is this an answer to why anything exists, or only a story of how our universe began?
▸Did the laws of physics come first? is the catch in A universe tunneling from nothingOpen question
The relationship
Tunneling from nothing removes space, time and matter, but keeps quantum mechanics, gravity and a field with energy. Those rules must already be 'there' for the tunneling to happen. So the theory explains the universe's appearance only given its laws. Vilenkin himself raised this, asking whether laws can exist independently of any universe.
How the link was found
Vilenkin acknowledged it in his book 'Many Worlds in One' (2006); it became the central objection in debates over Krauss's 2012 book.
Is it proven?
This is logic, not measurement: every version of the calculation starts from equations it does not derive. Supporters accept the point but argue laws are not 'things' needing creation.
Open questions and mysteries
Where, or in what sense, were the laws before the universe? Could the laws themselves have arisen with it, as Hawking later suggested?
▸Quantum tunneling is borrowed for A universe tunneling from nothingSpeculative
The relationship
In alpha decay, a particle trapped behind an energy barrier sometimes appears on the other side. Vilenkin applied the same math to the size of the universe. A closed universe of near-zero size faces a barrier before vacuum energy can make it inflate; quantum mechanics gives it a small chance to tunnel through, starting from no size at all.
How the link was found
George Gamow's 1928 tunneling theory of alpha decay supplied the idea. Vilenkin applied it in 1982, then from 1984 recast it with the Wheeler–DeWitt equation, the quantum equation for a whole universe that Bryce DeWitt wrote in 1967.
Is it proven?
The link is mathematical analogy. Tunneling itself is thoroughly tested in labs and electronics; whether it applies to space and time, with no prior state, is untested.
Open questions and mysteries
Ordinary tunneling happens in time; here time begins with it. What does a 'chance' of tunneling mean when there is no before?
▸Alexander Vilenkin proposed A universe tunneling from nothingSpeculative
The relationship
Vilenkin took Tryon's idea further. Instead of a fluctuation in existing space, he described the creation of a small closed universe from 'nothing', meaning no space, time or matter. Once born, its high vacuum energy drives inflation, enlarging it into something like ours. He then argued for a specific quantum starting rule, his 'tunneling wave function'.
How the link was found
Vilenkin, 'Creation of universes from nothing', Physics Letters B, 1982, developed through 1984–88. Andrei Linde, and Yakov Zeldovich with Alexei Starobinsky, published related ideas in 1984.
Is it proven?
Unconfirmed. His rule and Hartle–Hawking's predict opposite things: his favors universes starting with high energy, which inflate a lot; theirs seemed to favor low energy. Data cannot yet separate them.
Open questions and mysteries
Which quantum starting rule, if any, nature uses is unknown. Both rely on equations not yet derived from a full theory of quantum gravity.
▸A universe tunneling from nothing offers an answer to What came before the Big Bang?Speculative
The relationship
Its answer: before the universe there was no before. Time starts with the tunneling event, so there is no earlier moment to ask about. The universe appears at a tiny size, inflates, and then reheats into the hot Big Bang. It describes a birth event, where Hartle and Hawking describe a smooth rounded-off past, though the math is similar.
How the link was found
Vilenkin, 1982. The Borde–Guth–Vilenkin theorem (2003), showing inflation alone cannot extend forever into the past, strengthened the case that some beginning is needed.
Is it proven?
Not proven. The 2003 theorem is accepted math, but it assumes classical spacetime, which quantum gravity could evade. The tunneling event itself leaves no known observable trace.
Open questions and mysteries
Is 'no before' a real answer or a way of stopping the question? Would a working quantum gravity theory keep or remove this beginning?