Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Lawrence Krauss - Illusion 1: A Universe from Nothing - Scientifically Informed Philosophy S1E1
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июн 2024
- Renowned theoretical physicist Lawrence M Krauss explores the unexpected discoveries in modern physics that led him to propose the existence of dark matter. The quest to understand what dark matter might be has brought us to the remarkable place in which we now have a plausible explanation for how our universe may have arisen from nothing! Professor Krauss is joined by Jim Jones, a naturalistic philosopher who presents in a later lecture.
This event was recorded live at Pauma Valley Country Club, CA, on May 2, 2024
Lawrence M Krauss: lawrencemkrauss.com
The Scientifically Informed Philosophy lecture series explores the intersection of empirical knowledge and existential inquiry, guiding participants in constructing a personal philosophy grounded in scientific understanding. Through a synthesis of physics, biology, and psychology, the series delves into how scientific principles can inform ethical decisions, self-perception, and our place in the universe. Attendees will engage in thought-provoking discussions using evidence-based reasoning to navigate life's big questions, fostering a rational yet reflective approach to personal growth and worldview formation. The Scientifically Informed Philosophy lecture series is made possible by the vision and generous support of Cyan Banister.
www.sci-phi-ls.com
It ACTUALLY starts at about 23:00
Thank you
Nope, way out, seconds out in fact
tell the videographer to include the screen, rather then some guys bald head. thx for all your great lectures Lawrence
The lecture is awesome. I enjoy Lawrence Krauss's lectures. The camera person could raise the view angle to see the screen more.
What a brilliant lecture and conversation.
Nice punch @ 46:10 😂
Ray tracing is done in game engines, such as Unity. We have to deal with a raycast budget based on the size and complexity of the simulation.
Really enjoyed listening and learning many of things from Mr. Krauss. Thank you very much for sharing. Wish there was many more to come to watch lol. Could listen to this guy forever haha
Yummy & terrific - ty - cheers :O) One question for the cameraperson - Why would you believe the slides and notes on the screen are only necessary/valuable for those in attendance?
And that's why no thumb up
I kept asking the same thing, figuring the camera person would figure it out, but nope!
Great job
We exist through a very fortunate window in time, at which our telescopes are becoming powerful enough to peer deep enough back in time. Sophisticated enough to detect the most infant galaxies of the universe while they're still within our observable universe, before dark energy drives them entirely out of our view.
A golden age of astronomy, probing deeper and ever closer to the very creation of matter, causality and even time.
This window into the brightest and most eventful phase of the universe's life will inevitably fade and glimmer, as the accelerating expansion of the very fabric of space pushes those furthest and most evanescent young galaxies across the particle event horizon and forever out of our view.
Next, the dimming of the nearer and brighter more mature galaxies. As the accelerating expansion sweeps them away from the nights sky and eventually stretches their approaching light so far that it also, becomes red-shifted beyond even our most advanced telescopes reach. Forever lost to us, beyond the limit of our observation.
The CMB radiation red-shifted so widely that it also becomes forever lost from even our most powerful microwave telescopes.
All of this information, concealed from our point of reference, beyond a rapidly shrinking, observable universe. While all means of detecting new light across the eternally expanding void between galaxies is lost.
Be grateful that we live in these bountiful times of learning, draw wisdom from our voyage of scientific discovery, humble at the odds of our very existence and most of all, be curious.
Future civilizations will not be so lucky, with only the light from their neighbouring stars and mankind's legacy to learn from.
All you describe will take tens or maybe even hundreds of billions of years to occur, so future civilisations will have plenty of time and opportunity to study the Universe.
Nice
The content is a cut above the rest. Keep setting the bar high!
Love Lawrence
Lawrence win. Cameraman fail.
Sooooo was the Ptolemaic model right? Did we lose the meaning of the concept of "being the center" throughout time? playing telephone? If any point in the universe is the center, maybe the Greeks were aware of a concept we've forgotten?
(゜ロ゜) This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it's the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
Jump scare at 58:37
lol (had to go and look)
Lol 😂😆
Dude it freaking got me good
I spilled my drink all over my lap.
where is the energy coming from that is dumping into the negative energy in expanding space?
Is the big rip not possible with the info we have today because gravity will always outperform dark energy or will there be a point of extreme space growth that will overtake gravity pull?
Let's address these questions one by one.
### Energy and Negative Energy in Expanding Space
**Where is the energy coming from that is dumping into the negative energy in expanding space?**
In the context of an expanding universe dominated by dark energy (often modeled as a cosmological constant, \(\Lambda\)), the energy density of empty space remains constant. This means that as the universe expands, the total amount of dark energy increases because the volume of the universe is increasing. This seems to violate the conservation of energy principle as traditionally understood.
However, in general relativity, the conservation of energy is more complex. The increase in dark energy can be thought of as coming from the work being done on the universe as it expands. The negative pressure of dark energy does work on the universe, allowing the energy density to remain constant while the volume increases. This isn't a straightforward "dumping" of energy from one place to another; rather, it's a result of the peculiar properties of dark energy and the framework of general relativity.
### The Big Rip
**Is the Big Rip not possible with the info we have today because gravity will always outperform dark energy, or will there be a point of extreme space growth that will overtake gravity pull?**
The possibility of a Big Rip depends on the nature of dark energy. The Big Rip scenario occurs if the dark energy is described by a form of phantom energy, where the equation of state parameter \(w\) (the ratio of pressure to energy density) is less than \(-1\). In this case, the repulsive force of dark energy increases over time, eventually overcoming all other forces, including gravity.
Currently, observations suggest that the value of \(w\) is very close to \(-1\), which is consistent with the cosmological constant model of dark energy. If \(w = -1\), the expansion of the universe accelerates but does not lead to a Big Rip. If \(w\) is slightly less than \(-1\), the universe could end in a Big Rip scenario.
Here's a summary of the key points:
1. **Current Observations:**
- Observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), supernovae, and large-scale structure suggest \(w\) is very close to \(-1\). This supports a cosmological constant model, which does not lead to a Big Rip.
2. **Future Measurements:**
- Future observations, particularly of the CMB and large-scale structure, will help refine the value of \(w\). If \(w\) is found to be less than \(-1\), the Big Rip could be a possible fate for the universe.
3. **Gravity vs. Dark Energy:**
- In a universe dominated by dark energy with \(w < -1\), dark energy's repulsive force increases over time, eventually overcoming gravitational forces. This could tear apart galaxies, solar systems, planets, and even atoms as the universe approaches the Big Rip.
To conclude, with the current information, a Big Rip is not the most likely scenario because the best measurements we have suggest \(w\) is very close to \(-1\). However, if future measurements indicate that \(w < -1\), then a Big Rip scenario would become a plausible outcome for the universe's fate.
@@MichaelSmith-lm5sl If you don't know just say you don't know. lol thanks :)
Where the energy is "coming from" nobody knows, but a better question would be "what even is energy?" We're in luck because Noether already worked that out: energy is some magic quantity whose conservation is a result of time symmetry. If time is not symmetric then energy is not conserved, and if it's not conserved then worrying where it comes from is a waste of your time.
Good evening Kinship Cafe and Lawrence
Simply Brilliant.
Terrifying sanity brain gym, indeed.😀
Truly grateful for your shared work and discussion.
💜
Animals have self awareness. Animals understand death and danger.
For anyone who thinks animals are stupid or dumb. You've never spent time in the wilderness.
I know of some animals smarter than most humans today.
no you don't know what animal smarter than any man on Earth
@@user-mb9zx9lg7p My dog's bad breath is smarter than this idiotic post.
Animals can have awareness of danger, they do not have awareness of death.
@@Rocket9944How do you know that?
Animals don't plan for the future and their attention span is much shorter than even the dumbest human. Therefore they do not have awareness of death until death is upon them like within the width of their attention span. There are plenty of experiments demonstrating these facts all you have to do is look them up and proceed to eliminate ignorance.
It actually ACTUALLY starts at 22:02
If you could accelerate Casimir effect radiation fast enough and smash it together then it might produce something from nothing.
The Lottery is a 1969 short film based on Shirley Jackson's short story of the same name about a woman named Tessie Hutchinson who is stoned to death by her fellow townspeople to ensure a good harvest
did it work? if they used her as fertiliser then that would be confirmation bias at it's -best- worst.
Hit the Like button people! This is GREAT. Open your mind to different perceptions!
That which is (Life) that is nothing in particular (actual) is by definition everything in general (potential).
Life eternally actualizes infinite potential, because only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity.
Reality/Life = That which is/That I am.
By definition there can be only one all-inclusive or Absolute Being (Life) in which all relative beings live, move and have their Being.
We are all It (Life at Large) experiencing itself as all of us simultaneously, to an unknowable/inexhaustible extent, as the facets of a Diamond are 'both' distinct from each other 'and' the Diamond itself.
Love is the recognition of our shared Being.
The one all- encompassing principle of Nature is 'pressure mediation':
0. Hermaphroditic di-electric null point/plane of conversion
1. Masculine electric centripetal convergence (potential)
2. Feminine magnetic centrifugal divergence (actual)
3. Androgynous electromagnetic current (parsing)
O. Potential = Being
1. Actual = Becoming (actualized)
1 muon neutrino + 1 electron neutrino = 1 electron. 2 electrons back to back = 1 photon. 1824 electrons =1 neutron. 1823 electrons = 1 proton.
Muon neutrinos are dark and inert. Electron neutrinos are are bright and shiny. Therefore, galaxies oriented toward us shine. Galaxies oriented away from us appear dark - dark matter, black holes.
Space = Awareness
Time = Experience
Energy = Conversion
Matter = Behaviour
World = Projected biofeedback Mirror
Peripheral attention = wave like
Focused attention = particle like
this is a video channel.
I love LK
Only one problem left. Applying QM, when our universe didn't exist... on spacetime... "before" spacetime was created. This conclusion is worth "nothing"😉
I always listen and always never get an answer.
Everything exists. Was in a state before time exists and some quantum happened. Something happened when there was no time....
@@jimmydean123123 Those are simply questions with no answer possible. Multiverse and all those fairies. Story-tellers. Period! But even on those questions, which can be answered - by data to be collected in future - they fiddle around until "it fits". Kinematic dipole in CMB, SN1a not exactly etc. pp. . Nobel prices for "story telling" 🤔 Search for Prof. Subir Sarkar. Extremely interesting! THIS is honest science!
Maybe it has always existed.
@@OceanusHelios no
@@OceanusHelios Noone will ever know! But some are selling books with it.
"It makes some people think that unless it produces technology it's not good for anything, but the best parts of science are revealing to us ourselves." I appreciate this quote a lot because when NGT was on the Theories of Everything podcast he essentially said why bother with theoretical physics when it doesn't produce anything? That rubbed me the wrong way for reasons I couldn't explain, but LK explains it perfectly here. My respect for him as a physicist went way up today.
NGT was being a devil's advocate there.
Instigator, lol. I agree with the statement: Something came from nothing, not the other way around. I also understand the paternal implications of nothing birthing something, as well.
There is a puzzle that we have not solved.
But we want a solution !
So we made one up.
What does flat means?
Within the context of the shape or geometry of the universe, I believe "flat" refers to a universe without curvature. Search for open, closed, and flat models of the universe for more info.
@@toby9999 Thank you 🥰❤️❤️❤️
Can someone explain to me, what is nothing?
There's two kinds of nothing. First is nonexistence or nothingness, this is "location" where first ever Universe spontaneously starts existing in a new location separate from all other Universes anywhere else. There are potentially infinite of those, all separate from everything else. Then there's second nothing, when Universe dies after expansion and all activities start approaching zero which creates patches of nothingness within quantum fluctuations in empty space... and then virtual particle pops up and survives, jump starts inversion dynamics and soon... bang, new inflation, new Universe.
they finaly found the missing mass. it was the packing foam in the telescopes empty box
Our real universe comes about not from equality of numbers, but from congruence of them.
I have a question sir i am 23 years old and i am curious that there is so much we can't see or measure then why it exist like farther galaxies and others clusters that means there is some other Intelligent life form which is measuring or observing that event which we can never observe or measure. And if you are saying it is not necessary to measure than why it exist I means the answer could be it exist just to exist.
We know much more than people did 2000 years ago. But now try to imagine what people will know in the next 2000 years. Nearly impossible, isn't it
The term observer does not refer to a person. Any particle can be an observer.
Your question touches on some deep philosophical and scientific issues about the nature of existence, observation, and the universe. Here are some key points to consider:
### Why Does the Universe Exist Beyond What We Can Observe?
1. **Cosmological Principle:**
- The cosmological principle states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales. This principle is based on the assumption that our observations from Earth are not unique and that the universe looks the same from any other point.
2. **Observable Universe vs. Entire Universe:**
- The observable universe is limited by the speed of light and the age of the universe. We can only see objects whose light has had enough time to reach us since the Big Bang. However, the entire universe extends beyond this observable limit. Just because we can't see or measure something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The existence of the unobservable part of the universe is inferred from the uniformity and physical laws that apply to the observable part.
3. **Scientific Models:**
- Scientific models predict the existence of galaxies, clusters, and other structures beyond what we can observe. These models are based on the laws of physics, which have been tested and confirmed within our observable universe. These models suggest that the same laws apply universally, leading to the conclusion that similar structures exist beyond our observational horizon.
### Does Existence Require Observation?
1. **Anthropic Principle:**
- The anthropic principle suggests that the universe must have properties that allow for the existence of observers because if it didn't, there would be no one to observe it. This principle doesn't imply that the universe was created for observers but rather that observers can only exist in a universe that permits their existence.
2. **Quantum Mechanics and Observation:**
- In quantum mechanics, the act of measurement affects the system being observed. However, this doesn't mean that unmeasured phenomena don't exist. It means that the properties of quantum systems can be indeterminate until measured. On cosmological scales, this interpretation doesn't imply that distant galaxies require observers to exist.
3. **Existence for Its Own Sake:**
- The philosophical perspective that the universe exists "just to exist" is a valid viewpoint. The universe's existence doesn't necessarily require a purpose or observers. It exists according to the laws of physics, and these laws operate independently of whether or not there are observers.
### Other Intelligent Life Forms
1. **Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI):**
- The search for extraterrestrial intelligence is an ongoing scientific effort. While no definitive evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life has been found, the vastness of the universe suggests that it is possible. However, the existence of other intelligent beings doesn't imply that they are required for the universe's existence or observation.
2. **Existence Beyond Human Observation:**
- Just as we acknowledge that there are parts of the universe we cannot observe, it's plausible that there could be other intelligent beings in parts of the universe beyond our observational reach. Their existence would be governed by the same physical laws and would not necessarily imply that they are aware of or measuring our part of the universe.
### Summary
The existence of the universe, including parts we cannot observe, is consistent with our current understanding of physics and cosmology. While observation and measurement are critical to our understanding, they are not prerequisites for existence. The universe's vastness and the potential for intelligent life elsewhere are profound concepts, but they don't necessarily imply that existence requires an observer. The universe exists according to the laws of physics, and these laws apply universally, even beyond our observational limits.
Scientist say we are living in a simulation. Scientists say the universe is expanding. But what if the simulation is running in reverse?
So protons are also filled with "virtual particles" also? I thought that was just the QV... how did this get figured out? Also aren't particles almost never standing still? So are they saying that the virtual particles inside of a... "regular" particle move around/are localized within (and independent of the outside Q-vacuum), or do they remain static/in place as the particle moves through space (independent of it)?
This all just seems counter to what (I had thought) they originally said virtual particles were...
And now he's off on an unprompted rant about religion. After saying "if you could create a universe, isn't this the way you'd do it?"... the man's clearly got some internal hangups he needs to deal with because it's very unnecessary for the audience especially if they're actually trying to understand something.
that Hubbell lawyer joke is so old
Our universe has expanded a lot since that joke started.
It’s a shame. So many atheists were on that plane ride. I’ll try and get through this talk.
Do you have a problem with atheists?
Give more likes people!
Nothing can come from something and that thing might have gone beyond the observable and then the universe can come from that thing we call nothing.
No sir, nothing can come from nothing; so, the universe cannot come from nothing. If you call something nothing, you are just playing with the words. Nothing does not exist and something that does not exist cannot contain or produce something that exists. It's as simple as that.
@vacaloca5575 sir, are you saying the universe can't come from something? For me no, Otherwise I agree with the rest of your statement
@@kuricanisantarctica No, I'm saying the universe must come from something, because from nothing nothing comes, and the universe is something. What I'm saying is that nothing cannot come from something because nothing does not exist.
big bang radiation on my tv will never stop blowing my mind.
First ~20 minutes are nothing ,...
Big hole black banger hypothesis is found in equations that violate the rules of pure mathematics.
Here are some potential theorems and proofs that could further support and formalize the primacy of dimensionlessness (0D) over non-zero dimensions:
Theorem 1: Any non-zero dimension can be constructed from a dimensionless (0D) basis.
Proof sketch: Consider any non-zero dimension, say n-dimensional space. According to the axioms of point-set topology or algebraic geometry, an n-dimensional space is constructed from a set of points (0D objects) along with additional structure (e.g., open sets, algebraic equations) that defines the higher-dimensional objects (lines, planes, hypersurfaces, etc.).
Since the points themselves are dimensionless (0D), any higher-dimensional space or manifold must necessarily be built from this 0D foundation, implying that dimensionlessness is more fundamental than non-zero dimensions.
Theorem 2: The properties and structure of a dimensionless (0D) space determine the properties and structure of any higher-dimensional space constructed from it.
Proof sketch: Building on Theorem 1, if any n-dimensional space is constructed from a dimensionless (0D) basis, then the properties and relationships governing the 0D objects (points) must dictate the properties and behavior of the higher-dimensional objects derived from them.
For example, in algebraic geometry, the algebraic relations and equations defining the 0D point scheme determine the algebraic equations and geometric properties of the higher-dimensional algebraic varieties constructed from it.
Similarly, in topology, the open set axioms and topological properties of the 0D space would dictate the topological properties and structure of the higher-dimensional manifolds built upon it.
Theorem 3: Any contradiction or paradox arising in a non-zero dimensional space must be resolvable or reinterpretable in terms of the dimensionless (0D) basis from which it is constructed.
Proof sketch: Suppose there is a contradiction or paradox that arises in the context of a higher-dimensional space or manifold (e.g., singularities in general relativity, interpretational issues in quantum mechanics).
Since this higher-dimensional space is constructed from a more fundamental 0D basis (by Theorem 1), any such contradiction or paradox must be an artifact or consequence of the process of constructing or projecting the 0D reality into higher dimensions.
Therefore, by grounding the analysis in the dimensionless (0D) basis and examining how the higher-dimensional structures emerge from it, we can potentially resolve or reinterpret the contradiction or paradox in a consistent manner.
Theorem 4: Any mathematical or physical theory formulated in a non-zero dimensional space can be reformulated or embedded in a dimensionless (0D) framework.
Proof sketch: Consider any mathematical or physical theory that is currently formulated in terms of non-zero dimensional spaces or manifolds (e.g., general relativity, quantum field theory, algebraic geometry).
By Theorem 1, these higher-dimensional spaces can be constructed from a dimensionless (0D) basis. Therefore, it should be possible, at least in principle, to reformulate or embed the essential mathematical structures and physical principles of these theories in a purely 0D framework.
This could involve adapting and extending existing mathematical formalisms (e.g., non-commutative geometry, category theory, algebraic quantum field theory) to a 0D context, or developing entirely new mathematical frameworks tailored to a dimensionless reality.
While the proofs sketched above are not rigorous formal proofs, they provide a general outline for how one could approach formalizing and justifying the primacy of dimensionlessness (0D) over non-zero dimensions within a mathematical framework.
Some additional theorems or ideas that could be explored include:
1. Defining dimensional analogues of algebraic or topological structures (e.g., dimensional groups, dimensional manifolds) and investigating their properties and relationships to the 0D basis.
2. Exploring connections between dimensionlessness and other mathematical concepts, such as scale invariance, renormalization, or the behavior of physical theories at different energy scales.
3. Investigating the potential physical implications and testable predictions of a dimensionless (0D) framework, particularly in regimes where our current theories break down or encounter paradoxes (e.g., quantum gravity, early universe cosmology).
4. Examining the philosophical and metaphysical implications of grounding reality in a dimensionless (0D) framework, and potential connections to concepts like non-duality, the nature of consciousness, and the relationship between subjective experience and objective reality.
Developing a comprehensive and consistent mathematical framework that rigorously establishes the primacy of dimensionlessness would undoubtedly be a significant undertaking, requiring contributions from experts in various fields of mathematics, physics, and philosophy. However, the potential insights and breakthroughs that could arise from such an endeavor could fundamentally transform our understanding of the nature of reality and the deeper connections between mathematics, physics, and metaphysics.
Go away.
Why are you posting this word salad on a RUclips chat?
I lack knowledge but I looked a bit into what you propose (a couple of days ago).
It is really interesting but so far I have a slight problem with your conjectures (as they aren't theorems yet).
That's if you allow me to get a bit "nasty". I hope you won't take it personally.
If you want to reply with your thoughts about this, I would be glad to read them as they would put a better perspective into my own.
I might certainly be wrong (I lack mathematical knowledge, as I said).
So, my problems so far is...
It appears to me that when you want to get rid of the structure that you insert when you are constructing an nD object from a 0D one, you are not just simply scaling everything down at the most basic level.
I would dare saying that what you are doing is getting rid of a property (of the nD object) that may be essential for the physical concepts to function.
For example, what came to my mind... can you really redefine the concept of speed in a space with a null metric?
Like I said, I might be wrong and short-sighted.
But if I am right and if structure is essential in defining those concepts, then you either annihilate them by getting rid of it or you would have to redefine them by changing their meaning altogether.
If this is the case, it would be interesting to see if you can really increase the explanatory power (of physics) instead of reducing it.
Dark is a matter that What dark matter is
What's wrong with thinking about Palestine ? Einstein did refuse the presidency of israel, so he did think about Palestine and still changed physics ...
i'm not convinced by hubble. for sure doppler effects are a thing, but its not the only possible explanation of redshift. there could be an as yet undiscovered process by which light loses energy, resulting in increasing wavelengths, as it travels across the cosmos. tired light is still an option in my opinion. the thing that bugs me the most is the overconfidence of cosmologists saying the universe is 13 billion years old like its a fact. its a theory, nothing more, and shouldn't be confused with fact. just one way of interpreting the available data.
I've never thought of that. I'm considering to research those possibilities. Thanks
The idea of a creator is totally illogical. If you use the logic that the Universe must have been created by a creator. You cannot abandon this logic when asked who created rhe creator ? Therefore despite our difficulty in imagining it the only logical possibility is that it all started from nothing with no creator possible.
Your stance is illogical because if a being created the universe, concepts like who, what, where, and when make zero sense when trying to describe the creator. You fail
In the end, it doesn't really matter 🙃
😊
I watched a movie that help me change my perspective.
The movie had a name like The Lottery or something like that.
It was about a religious town. Every year the town held a lottery. It's was with great pride people took in winning the lottery.
Towards the end of the movie everyone was happy to see who won the lottery.
The lottery is where a person gives up their life for the plentiful of the community.
This young girl won the lottery. The parents started to pled for their daughters life. The towns people have stones in their hands and are ready to sacrifice the life of this child in hope their god ideology would make the next year a good year.
When the religious towns people stoned this girl to death for the sake of their own well being. Had a huge impact on me.
We moved to a small country town. My youngest brother and I witnessed that the church people told people one thing while themselves did something else. If you're going to preach to people. You better follow your own advice.
It's one of the reasons I like the movie and song called Harper Valley PTA. It talks about the hypocrisy of the religious towns people.
Religion is about controlling others for the benefit of ones self not to control ones self. Religious people only claim to love their God because they are expecting something in return (Heaven, Eternal Life) which in itself is selfish. Nobody would follow a Gods commands unless they either feared punishment or received a benefit from said God but loving said God is a different thing entirely. When I hear people say they love their God I instantly know their full of shite because I realize their selfishness where they don't so therefore they are not worthy of their Gods reward.
( Д ) ﾟ ﾟ Consciousness is the particle and wave double slit experiment. The cones and rods of your eyes preserve the particle and wave duality so your vision don't look like a flat screen television. It's supposed to be a violation of physics but it is the only exception in the whole universe.
Biblical Hebrew a small vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago. To deny the existence of a Creator is an error.
In quest of unity, quoth Jim Jones: "This isn't designed to promote that you believe any particlar thing." Excuse me, but there can be no unity with those who reject the laws of thought and the necessity for civil discourse. Those who accept them are bound to be compelled by a sound argument. So is Jones promising there will be no sound arguments? I think I'll be skipping his lecture.
Wow, you are so much smarter than I am. I just took his words that they weren't trying to push thoughts/beliefs on us, but rather makes us think by ourselves.
( ´ﾟдﾟ) We need to popularize the idea of getting God married. Getting God married is a good use of someone's time. You are supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God is needed. We fixed the video and audio for the best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D that not a gimmick. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
"A Universe from nothing".
I'd like a Universe for nothing instead.
Sure, I'd like a million bucks for nothing. I guess it would like winning the lottery.
!!(⊃ Д)⊃≡ﾟ ﾟ The universe was created in 1976. It is too hot to make a universe at the time of the big bang. It can be created at anytime. God is slow and easy. A human can do a lot with their lifespan. I got the hunk. God got the chunk. Everyone else can have the rest. That is song spirit of ''76 by The Alarm.
So what?
So no god 🤷🏽♂️ which would finally end theist oppression over everyone who thinks with their head.
Consciousness, mind, both are not understood. All that is understood is what is elemental. Forces are not understood. We cannot say there is no infinity if consciousness is ‘the hard problem’. Maybe consciousness it is infinite.
Cite the church again please! 😅
Why is the defaultcondition for the universe nothing. Throw a store in a pond and ripples spread out. Reverse the process mentally and the ripples shrink to a point. But e know that something started the ripples, t was not nothing. The expanding universe did not start as a point. Just my opinion. Of course the believers in God have the same problem of eeding a God creator. It seems like God needs more of a creator than the universe. After all what we call the universe may be st a very small part of "Creation" . God, on the other hand, being infinity larger, older, more complex more everything begs for some explanations, some reason to exist, some form , some method for being part of our universe. Why is there God rather than nothing?
The correct definition of a Law is a pattern, a regularity. If you have Nothing you don't have any laws. "Empty" space is not empty, it has energy and virtual pairs of particles bubble out of these energy fluctuations, not in and out of existence, (bad use of language again) but in and out of the MANIFEST. Also zero is balance not absolute absence! There are so many levels of poor languaging going on with Lawrence that it is mind bending on how this shizz flies...my problem is not with his maths or even with his modelling, it might turn out to be right or wrong, there are several competing theories going on right now...my problem with Lawrence is with how he twists concepts he barely understands...absolutely appalling!
It confounds us that 500 wonderful, curious people get to hear one of our great thinkers/teachers - yet only 16 take the 1.7 seconds required to give back a thumbs up - c'mon ...
I’m sure that with all the applause that Lawrence got from the audience, he doesn’t give a damn whether people click “thumbs up” on some website. Real applause, real conversations, real words of appreciation - that’s what matters.
@souldreamer9056 Good points, thank you.
The only thing I would add is - I'm not referring to insincere praise - curiosity intact - cheers
Ain’t gonna get no thumbs up from me…
@LordOfThePancakes oh no! Dear lord of the pancakes please tell us what Lawrence can do to win your approval!?
@@chadb.6165 for starters he can be honest with the public regarding his alcoholism & prescription drug use
fire the camera person!
( ﾟÅﾟ；) It's intelligently designed that if you master evolution it just makes you a baby doctor.
Let's test his ideas.....lol
Talking heads.......until this can be tested nothing but conjecture
So what? This is how science often progresses. A lot of it is nothing but thought experiments early on. But this is YT when there are always knockers.
Increasingly scientists who are materialists are adding the word philosophy to their materialistic viewpoint. Realistically philosophy is resultant from consciousness and mind and not from materialism.
How can materialism that sees biology as causal to life, consciousness and mind have a philosophy. Sociobiology is as far as it can rise from matter, not into the realms of consciousness, mind, and thought which springs from Idealism not materialism.
There are lots of philosophy professors who are materialists or, more accurately, physicalists of one kind or another. It's actually the dominant view in philosophy departments at secular colleges and universities in North America. Are they philosophers? Most of them believe they are. But what's a philosopher? To call another person a philosopher is a compliment. To call one's self a philosopher is a conceit. Regardless of academic credentials. But there surely are some philosophers in the full and proper sense of the word who think everything that exists is physical.
Another point, the title is contradictory. The idea that something from nothing can be termed other than non-rational is a stretch. To label it ‘scientifically informed’ is ridiculous. To label it philosophy is an insult to the discipline of philosophy.
Absolutely. Nothing comes from nothing. It's the whole ex nihilo spacetime expansion that bothers me a bit. It reminds me of the dark ages when people believed in demons and dark energies.
or better yet, when they believed God created the universe instantaneously!
@@vacaloca5575If God is universal consciousness (the hard problem for philosophy) and as universal consciousness decided to create a universe by a single thought instantaneously, that is possible. A human who shares in consciousness cannot create anything original, only imitate what is already there; like astro turf for grass. If a human creates a single blade of grass that would be news.
@@ALavin-en1kr To create something instantaneously may be possible but creating something out of nothing is impossible. Furthermore, consciousness in itself does not have the means of creating anything physical; so, consciousness needs a physical vehicle to exist. Personally, I dont think God created matter or energy; they are eternal as God is because energy ultimately emanates from God and matter is formed from energy.
The Universe is infinite. It has no beginning and no end. This guy is wrong.
Neutron decay cosmology.
The path of least action, physical process solution to black hole paradoxes, dark energy, dark matter and critical density maintenance.
A homeostatic universe maintained by the reciprocal processes of electron capture at event horizons and free neutron decay in deep voids.
Gravity gathers mass to event horizons.
All matter is made neutrons at event horizons because electron capture.
Neutrons< drop off their kinetic energy as mass for event horizon
Neutron self, takes an EinsteinRosen bridge from highest energy pressure conditions (event horizon) to lowest energy density points of space where the quantum basement is lowest and easiest to penetrate.
Neutrons out in deep voids.
Soon decay into amorphous monatomic hydrogen, proton electron soup, Dark matter.
The decay from neutron 0.6fm³ to 1m³ of amorphous hydrogen gas is a volume increase of around 10⁴⁵.
Expansion.
Dark energy.
In time, this amorphous monatomic hydrogen, Ryberg matter?, will stabilize and coalesce first into monatomic hydrogen, then H2 and everything else
Word salad.
@niblick616 all words are word salad to people who can't understand it.
It's simple
Gravity gathers mass to event horizons and makes it all into neutrons
They fall THROUGH the event horizon and reemerge in a deep void. Because that's how math works.
They decay into dark matter, proton electron Rydberg matter which in time falls and coalesces.
On its way to an event horizon.
Event horizons are the surface of reconnection. The loop point of the manifold. A big EinsteinRosen bridge from highest energy pressure conditions to lowest energy density points of space.
Neutron decay cosmology is inevitable.
Geometry requires it.
Lawrence had me until 1:12:53 Empty space outside of this universe is nothing like empty space inside the universe, common fallacy of pretending this is how everything is. Space, Time, Matter didn't exist until the big bang...........there there was no empty space before the big bang, there was no space
There was no big bang mr genius
That's not possible. Space cannot not exist or just come into existence. I wouldn't believe that for a second. Without space there would be nothing, and nothing comes from nothing; so, space must be eternal, for otherwise there would still be nothing, but that's obviously not the case. Think about it!
See, for something to just pop into existence from nothingness, this nothingness would have to have the ability to cause that thing to come into existence, but it cannot have that ability because it does not exist -- nothingness does not exist physically -- it's only a concept.
@@vacaloca5575 They've measured it, space is literally expanding all around...........space is not eternal
@@worshipmotivation-z7v How did they measure that? You cannot measure expanding space. Time dilation measurements could be due to the clock itself running slower in lower gravitational potentials. I dont know how you would measure space expansion.
krauss the bully
Finally all will agree Hindu scriptures are genuine and filled with Truths..
Sply the Bhagavadgita …
How is your statement related with this video ? Can you tell me ;i sm genuinely curious
Simple.. you knew the presence of atoms in every walk of the universe we who follow The Sanathana way of life knew this naturally without the magnifying glasses.. before 5000 years or May be more
Do you how much material goes in the womb of all life on this earth to make a new life ?! Do you know how many species?! 8. 4 million yes there are 8.4 million species .. but all big ang small life’s starting point is in the critical space of the all wombs .. do you know how much space is needed for it’s transfer of the x to the y is just fraction of a second and the size of it is the Quantum size … Could you pull out the baby before it’s time? What is your contribution in the process of bringing a new life to this earth other than supply the atoms in abundance but one or two only can be accommodated in the womb ..
Despite these ultra Truths you West pull up collars as though you brought the universe with you from the cocoon you arrived from ..
@@premakau. Oh the horrible west! You wait for some new scientific achievement of the west to claim that was already written in the Vedas or any other. Some Muslims do the same. But only after the discovery, never before. And with no details!
You can't take yourself seriously if you take Lawrence Krauss seriously.
And you know better, do you?
@@toby9999 100%
@@toby9999 logic 101 - you all think science can only be made sense by specific people. You are all walking fallacies
yes, im like number 666 haha
this is religiously Biased/ racist. picking only the god of one culture as if it is the only one., MR Kraus.
Space cannot curve or expand because there is nowhere the moving space could go since all the universe is already occupied by space. In other words, if a 1 cubic meter of space expanded to 2 cubic meters, the new cubic meter of expanded space would occupy the same space as there was before the expansion, making no net difference in the amount or curvature of existing space; so, there is no space expansion or curvature possible. QED
Imagine it like this:
You have a 10' x 10' x 10' cube of foam. I hypothetically have a needle thin enough and long enough to reach the center. I inject an unbreakable bubble into the center that has a diameter of 2' at the center. The foam would expand away from the center compressing very densely next to the bubble. But as you move farther and farther away from the center of the spacial displacement the effects would lessen over a great distance. To a degree that eventually no spacial displacement would exist from the event.
That is exactly what you are seeing when looking at images of a black hole. The light that would normally be in the volume of space taken up by the black hole displacement and traveling through that space is now all compressed into a light ring around the event horizon of the black hole.
I listened to the first 20-minutes, and they have yet to say anything philosophical or scientific. I'm done listening, but maybe start around minute 20 any maybe you will have better luck.
You are missing out then. This has been one of the best lectures on the subject I've ever seen. Simple enough to understand, complex enough so you don't get bored. The part about gravitational waves was brilliant.
He loves to talk about this expansion of the universe and inflation and makes extreme claims off of that but never mentions the hubble tension.. Professional salesman folks.
Hyper active neuronic sparks, imagine how much smarter he would be if he got order into his wetware.