Lawrence M. Krauss || A Universe from Nothing || Radcliffe Institute
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 июл 2013
- The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" has been asked for millennia by people who argue for a creator of our universe. Taking a trip back to the beginning of the beginning and the end of the end-and reviewing the remarkable developments in cosmology and particle physics over the past 40 years that have revolutionized our picture of the universe-Lawrence M. Krauss explores the discoveries that have revolutionized our understanding of both nothing and something. It has become clear that not only can our universe naturally arise from nothing, without supernatural shenanigans, but that it probably did.
12:50 The lecture starts
Krauss really didn't like that long introduction. Lol
Thank you.
@@droidnick Right! I don't know how many times I've gone to a lecture and the person doing the introduction just can't shut up. There's something about a hot mic!
I'm like, who are these people talking, not saying anything. I suppose there's a reason I don't know who they are and won't remember them if i see them again.
Thank you for the hint...
I have no education in this field, other than my curiosity and love of all things science related. Yet I feel like I can grasp what he’s saying (I’m most likely not, lol). That’s the mark of an amazing communicator. What a gift to humanity this man, and people like him are.
The joker
@stoyanfurdzhev When he passes, we can put his body in Amber on display.
"Here is the hominid surname Krauss..a primate who believed he had the answers to The Nothing"
Read the gospel of John, Mathew and the Bible, the Holy Spirit is the ultimate communicator,and loves us and want to co- habbitate with us.
@@SuperReznative I will not read your fantasy book, thanks. Stop trying to shove your bullshit down everybody else's throat, religion's time passed a century ago.
@@stoyanfurdzhev stay deluded
12:49 to skip the windbag intros
Never understood the point of these stupid intros.
@@davidchou1675 It's just narcissism. The people that insist on doing long-winded introductions want to have their own moment in the spotlight, even though it contributes nothing. But hey.. we live in the information age, which makes things skip-able. As the good prof says, it's great to live in a very special time.
Very much appreciate this..
There intro was ridicules ;)
What a remarkable character. Love Dr. Krauss.
that kraus want only to talk, he dont know the real thing. The nothing is not in the quantum realm.
@@EraldBuneci Go tell that to your "god" bud.
Have watched this lecture repeatedly each time I understand a bit more-thank you for making this possible....
Could of saved yourself some time and read the book
@@Cuckold_Cockles think this foray works just fine plus it is nice to see different places!
nothing to understand. he re-defines a word to create an ambiguous theory that doesnt hold. Nothing is nothing, he's trying to make it 'something'.
@@dadush4 stop trying to sound smart. U just sound like an idiot...everyone thinks that not just me.
@@dadush4 And all you have is a definition: "if something come from X, then X is not nothing". The point is if you were told 50 years ago that the net mass and energy of the entire Universe may be zero you would have said that's ridiculous.
I have no words to express how beautiful this lecture was! Totally engaging.
1, , I have no words to express how beautiful this lecture was! Totally engaging.
Explain how?
It wasn't compelling
The English language has enough words to describe appreciation
I don't know what is wrong with you guys 😃
@@joyeetabhattacharya5902 sorry I should not have been a smart-ass
@@raysalmon6566
Because Science is awesome!!
I couldn't agree with you more, Science gives us the opportunity to Ask questions, hows instead of why's? Questions shouldn't penalize anyone, it's the only way to drive progress. ' Let's enjoy our brief time in the sun '. Thank you Lawrence Krauss.
:)
It has now been more than a decade since I first heard these remarkable ideas. Since then, it has become clear that these ideas exist within an an enormous realm of unknown unknowns.
The universe is unimaginable vast in its expanse, as well is in the minutiae of its detail. The consequent reality is that there is much that about reality where we cannot even imagine the appropriate questions.
The ideas presented in this video are certainly fascinating speculations. And these ideas give us some ideas of what may possibly be going on…. Similar in some ways to string theory. But ultimately, we must accept that there is much about reality that we will never know. And even that there is likely much about reality about which we will not even begin to meaningfully understand what we do not know. Ie the potential multiverse, or the origin of the Big Bang.
Imo, a singular importance of this lecture is to help us start to comprehend and accept that our ignorance is as vast as the universe itself
Yes ,the Bible is God's living Word for us ,as It speeks to life itself & the soul.which is even deeper than comprending sciece, theory,etc. Ther is power in the name of ( resurrected)Jesus
@@SuperReznative prove the bible is more than an old goat farmer's fairy tale. you can't, because it is.
click on 13:13 to skip the kiss assing
thank you😝😝
Lawrance Krauss documentary
💀💀
The interesting thing that the year is 2022 and i find this lecture and fell in love for this Dr.
The illustration of the universe expanding from no particular center point (it depends on where you're standing) in the 19th minute-ish was really helpful.
I love listening to Lawrence Krauss speak. I learned a lot just listening to this lecture.... fascinating things I never thought to ask.
That's because he's an actual physicist who understands not only the equations but the implications of the mathematics to reality as well.
*for or *on reality
Grandiose claim considering humans know 4% about the universe (probably way less)
In addition to science I loved the punching down humour. He spared no one, philosophers, astronomers, biologist, couple of nobel laureates, experimental physicist, lawyers, graduate students.
And the republican party. He missed the Democrats (:-)
And theists.
@@deancamf That's prolly because general intelligence, scientifically literacy, critical thinking skills, level of education, etc. all positively correlate with liberalism. A dumb person can choose any ideology or party for dumb reasons, so inevitably there will be dumb democrats or republicans. However, smarter people tend to be liberal in a direct relationship that accelerates based on how smart they are.
For example, ~98.7% of all astrophysicists consider themselves liberal. That's not a coincidence or magic.
Republicans who noticed this trend tell themselves that schooling and college are just liberal indoctrination camps (despite there being no federally mandated curriculum, and a lot of control of curriculum coming from individual teachers). Even under that explanation, they fail to recognize many of those fields don't overlap with political issues:
Learning advanced math, special and general relativity, chemistry, quantum mechanics, fluid dynamics, orbital mechanics, spectroscopy, etc. are relevant fields to astrophysics. Gaining the skills to determine the rate that Hawking radiation is evaporating a black hole, or modeling the collapse of electrons into protons to create neutron stars, aren't the kinds of things taught in classes that talk about things like gun control, abortion, immigration, taxes.
Where does religion fit in
Cosmology is where its at! This century will lay the foundation for the star children of the future to travel the universe :)
Watching this lecture is like watching Doctor Who. It's so brilliant. "And that's the first clue nothing is interesting."
Oh please!😅
Except dr who sucks
@@ChillAssTurtle so you didn't give an example of who or what you find interesting. Doing so would give some random twat on the internet a chance to take a shot at you.
Laurence is at 12:43
With humour the concepts were digestible. Enjoyed this lecture.
Starting from nothing can generate platforms and anchors from which to start! THANK YOU!
Identity can easily be turned into a endless subject and can be detailed and used with whichever intentions: to mention this word in French causes passionate debate since the concept 'generation identitaire' is a far right concept which fits between the parameters of a Nation and extreme cultural conservatism. It takes genuine education and nformation to hatch out of this description : individually we may have to realise that to be selfish does not have to be purely self orientated but to value and appreciate the same egoism in others as a great contributor to win win situations. The paternalist colonialist conception of charity where we expect the receiver of donations to have the same tastes as us is old fashioned and ineffective. To encourage foreigners in a coercive 'package' that includes their own Culture, while just expecting respect in return, is more again like mentioning win win situations.
Look at you and your agenda.
what the fuck! .... like WHAT THE FUCK does that have ANYTHING to do with the video you schizophrenic whackjob?
The greatest lecture ever told
Love this. This explanation is of different level.
How about this level?
Fun Fact known 1400 years ago...
We built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺. Quran 51:47
Well, I found this very interesting, but I have 5 main conundrums.
1. He mentioned early in the lecture that according to Einstein's Relativity, energy curves space. I've never heard of that, so I'll have to do some research.
2. He mentioned that if we see far enough we may actually SEE the Big Bang. I'm baffled as to how that's physically possible given that the event occurred some 13.8 billion years ago and it is the past, done and dusted, as with any event of the past.
3. He alluded to multiple universes, but according to Encyclopaedia Britannica, so called multiverses are purely hypothetical, and I'm not aware of any compelling objective evidence that supports them.
4. He mentioned near the end of the lecture that faster than light speed is allowable by General Relativity. The MAJOR issue I have with that is Einstein's PROVEN energy-mass equivalence.
Finally, another major stumbling block for me about something coming from nothing is the KNOWN law of the conservation of energy and matter.
There's a point in the last third or so where he says things popping into existence doesn't violate conservation of energy and matter, because gravitational energy is "negative", and they cancel out
Even more respect for his shout out to Hitchens. Miss him now more than ever.
One of the great minds of our day.
Although, it's not a complete individual being, this person is AMAZING!!!
Who?
He does admit that there are 'things' we still don't understand. He, therefore, is giving his hypothesis on the nature of reality. For me, consciousness is everything. Without it, we wouldn't be able to attempt to solve the phenomemon which seek to extinguish it.
The statement that consciousness is everything is an epistemological nightmare. Justification? Evidence? Faith? It is an absolutist statement. And absolutes about "everything" are non falsifiable. You might as well say everything is god. It carries about the same weight. Or you might want to say that consciousness is god. Either way, it doesn't stand. But it's a nice sleight of hand trick. Everyone's doing it. They are making claims that subjective experience is objective reality. And it's so subjective that we can't know anything about objective reality. Circular argument.
"Any explanation of consciousness in terms of physical processes or algorithms is ultimately doomed. Some people simply don't grasp the problem: you can't explain the subjective via objective means. Physical processes, no matter how complex, have objective properties and that's all. You can't throw a bunch of objective matter, forces, and fields together and declare that the invisible subjective magically emerges. There's no way to get there from here. Subjective properties are just not in the language of our basic physics and I don't see that changing any time soon."
All this is is an argument from incredulity.
Consciousness is tied to the brain. We literally have no evidence to even suggest otherwise.
Consciousness is a process. Its not everything.
Although I didn't understand even 1% of his lecture I very much appreciate that people like Lawrence seem to understand these concepts and can draw conclusion from them. Amazing.
😅
He is a fool . Don't "worship him" .
Lol for him there is something in nothing anyways..
It's hard to understand because you assume he is not a bullshitter. Once you understand he loves the sound of his own voice and will say anything for attention, you begin to see what's nonsense.
Thank-you for uploading this;I don't concur with all of Dr.Krauss's presentations,but I do embrace and appreciate his scholarship.His objectivity is quite impressive!
Ok, but bear in mind that you can only disagree about a conjecture, not about a fact.
There are no facts
+1 for mind blowingness.
My physics suggestions, challenges a lot of present ideas. But they are built on what we know now.
The following is a list of facts about photons, that physicists already accept: but that will still challenge most readers.
The list also contains two items that I suggest are accurate, but are not accepted by physicists.
Read the list and find the two of mine out of the twelve listed.
There are clues at the end to help.
HERE GOES:
Photons can create electrons and positrons in pair conversion (Energy can make mass).
Electrons and positrons annihilate into photons or energy.
(Mass can annihilate into pure energy.)
Photons are outside of space.
Photons are outside of time.
Photons are all in a single point.
Photons may be eternal.
Photons were the singularity that began the Big Bang.
Photons can make all the particles in the standard model.
Virtual Photons pop in and out of a vacuum, and are responsible for the Casimir Effect.
A photon can be in a superposition of two or more states.
Two photons that are entangled remain connected, no matter the distance between them.
Photons, electrons, and positrons are all different versions of the same thing.
CLUES:
One of the things that you really have to realize is the speed of light is very, very special. It's not just simply a speed of something moving through space. As you go faster and faster and closer to the speed of light, time itself begins to slow down. And space begins to contract. As you go close to the speed of light, the entire universe becomes smaller and smaller until it basically just becomes a single point when you're going at the speed of light. And time, as you go closer to the speed of light, gets slower and slower until basically time is a single point at the speed of light.
Light does not experience space or time. It's not just a speed going through something. All of the universe shifts around this constant, the speed of light. Time and space itself stop when you go that speed. Michelle Thaller.
This from Wikipedia article Matter Creation:
It is possible to create all fundamental particles in the standard model, including quarks, leptons and bosons using photons of varying energies above some minimum threshold, whether directly (by pair production), or by decay of the intermediate particle (such as a W− boson decaying to form an electron and an electron-antineutrino).
By studying ancient light radiated shortly after the big bang, a physicist has calculated the minimum lifetime of photons, showing that they must live for at least one billion billion years, if not forever. Scientific American.
The ANSWER
The two items that are not yet accepted by physicists are,
1 Photons were the singularity that began the Big Bang
2 Photons, electrons, and positrons are all different forms of the same thing.
Summary
Here are the key components of all my physics posts.
Photons are eternal and outside of time and distance.
The singularity of photons began the Big Bang.
Photons created electron positron pairs in the Big Bang.
These electrons and positrons made the elementary particles which in turn made the atoms.
Photons, electrons, and positrons, are all different versions of the same thing.
The energy of the universe comes from photons converting to electron positron pairs, or electrons and positrons converting to photons.
The force from the Big Bang singularity was photons, dark energy, or anti gravity.
The force from acceleration is anti gravity, not gravity.
That universe within each us concerns me much more. As Thoreau implored --
"Explore within. That's what requires the eye and the nerve".
He was wrong.
Nice PHILOSOPHY you have there, Son.
It'd be a shame if someone had to test it with physics.
@@AirwavesEnglish science can't prove that anyone else exists, except you. it's not the be all end all
This Krauss guy really takes flat earth to a whole new level. "The whole UNIVERSE is flat!"
I disagree with a good amount of what he says but he might be correct. I don't think the universe is space itself, what we think of as galaxies are actually universe's each with its own singularity/big bang. I think a vacuum means having no depth, our universe/galaxy is a region of space with finte length width and no depth expect at the black hole . I'm writing in short hand.
@@David-wm8jp very cool
@@David-wm8jp
Space is real for it is described by Maths...it explains why Universes evolve etc
@@rationalsceptic7634 space is real yes, where did I say it wasn't?
It is flat though...
00:59 A Universe from Nothing
12:09 The Origins Project
13:50 Why Is There Something Rather than Nothing
15:49 Edwin Hubble
18:33 Two-Dimensional Universe
23:10 Light Bends in a Gravitational Field
28:32 Measure the Curvature of the Earth
29:38 The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
30:01 The Afterglow of the Big Bang
31:19 Baby Picture of the Universe
33:11 The Boomerang Experiment
37:27 Prediction of the Energy of Empty Space
38:51 Determine the Energy of Empty Space
48:52 Three Different Versions of Nothing
48:57 Vast Cosmic Void
55:16 History of the Universe Brief History of Time
56:44 Anthropic Mania
58:30 History of String Theory
58:34 The String Theory
I don't know if he's the best physicist, but he's the funniest.
I don’t know if anyone will ever be the best physicist. Only the most ignorant.
@@evanbarker6168 THAT statement will require a bit of explaining, as on the face of it, it seems ludicrous...
@@toAdmiller I think if you have worked with physicists doing phd or Dphil, you will find a lot of them to be arrogant
@@vishwasshankar3929 Oh I wouldn't doubt that for a moment...increased knowledge does tend to breed increased arrogance in the species, definitely an arguable trend in Homo sapiens sapiens.
Fortunately, science (especially "hard" sciences like physics) has built-in filters for such arrogance when it comes to the actual validity of the findings: peer review, reproducibility, functionality within other science disciplines, etc.
Ultimately, the arrogance of the individual researcher is merely something to be withstood/tolerated while in their presence, rather than something that actually taints the quality of their science.
I asked around at work if they knew what cosmology was. Only 10% knew (cosmetics came up a few times). I was once guilty of thinking that anthropology was the study of bugs when I signed up for it, so I sympathized...
so in the end he clearly mentions that with the passage of time things become UNobservable, therefore I would say that it is possible there are things from the past that can no longer be observable wich could have been used to prove to the expected extent some believes that people now have.
12:50 to skip over the self-adulatory and "I have the mic and won't hand it off" introductory flap...
A universe from something - great
Wrong!.
@@geoden how? He called it nothing but its explanation of nothing was actually something... kindly explain please thankyou
@@David-ys1dt Good question. I think Lawrence would say the definition of ''nothing'' has changed. Nothing is not what we think of it being. Science found that real 'nothing' actually weighs something! Investigation showed that it is a seething mass of sub-atomic particles popping into and out of existence all the time! The physicist Jim Al-Khalili has a video on this subject, I recommend you search RUclips or BBC TV for. Good luck.
@@geoden thankyou for your time to comment. Im just hear to learn. 😀 so basically his choice of word to describe this entity that has properties is nothing. Quite frankly than, this nothing he describes is actually something. Its just how he chose to label it as nothing, not that it really is nothing.
@@geoden sub atomic particules popping in and out is actually something. Exactly what he stated it as, simply: sub atomic particles. Its quite a conundrum to try to label that as nothing. Its exactly like someone forcing a large square peg into a small circle.
can anyone give me a succinct answer: Where did the energy come from to set the thing in motion for the stable universe to emerge by chance? If we know the answer, what was its value (in Joule)? Thanks
There is so much comments like "I believe in God, so you are wrong about everything you said I don't understand, I am so much smarter than you". So stupid.
One thing I can't get over is why the laws of quantum mechanics don't count as something. Where do they come from, how do they form? It's not logical to say they just come into being because there has to be a reason, whether accidental or otherwise, that the universe began. You can't say it arose from nothing and explain it with quantum mechanics but then say the laws aren't necessary.
Yeah, I don't quite get this either. Just because we can't physically detect it right now doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or means it's "nothing", because if it were nothing, it wouldn't be there in the first place. Nothing is absence, which isn't what he was describing.
1000 years ago, we couldn't physically detect atoms, but does that mean they counted as "nothing"? Of course not, and it's the same here. I hope one day we can understand quantum mechanics in the same way we understand atoms. =]
***** You seem to be stumbling on a linguistic hurdle as opposed to a conceptual one. I am confident the title "A Universe from Nothing" is a reference to, (and a slightly sarcastic dig at) the theist's willfully ignorant question; How can the universe come from nothing, for no reason and without a creator?
Krauss is quite explicit in explaining that the colloquial understanding of 'nothing', is actually 'something'! It is from that 'something' (formerly referred to as 'nothing') that he then continues to define the mechanisms involved in the process.
He is also explicit in his unconceited disclaimer, that not everything is fully understood yet and that further research will be ongoing to supplement the unknown with a goal to fully comprehend this complex and fascinating subject.
I hope this clears up some of your confusion :-)
I've read his book and watched numerous lectures and presentations he's given on this subject and assuming my listening skills and reading comprehension are still good, I think I'm hearing him correctly. He does poke a lot of fun at theologians but "something from nothing" is not a sarcastic dig.
Nick B I don't understand where you are getting confused. Perhaps you have just have a blind spot on this subject arising from preconceived definitions or concepts.
I offered Bethany a perfectly reasonable explanation as to the choice of title, that you appear to be referencing in your latest comment. However, despite seeming to provide a collaborating argument... "He does poke a lot of fun at theologians"; you then dismiss the idea of such an act, completely out of hand, for no particular reason stated.
Note, that I did not say with any authority why I was confident of my proposal, but you state outright that... "something from nothing" is not a sarcastic dig. On what grounds (other than assumption) do you make this claim?
On what grounds? Words, maybe? Like I said, which clearly you missed, I've watched numerous interviews, lectures, presentations and have read some of his work. I'm not going to write an essay on "what my grounds are for this claim". He means what he says, it's not a figure of speech. Do you even know anything about physics? And stop trying to sound smart "doctor".
I like how he ascribed emotions and intelligence to the universe. Sounds like a theist to me.
It's just funny
The best way i know how of picturing absolute nothing, is trying to remember the time before you were born. Then i realize the universe came from this and my mind blows a little bit.
only it didnt, there was always something, anyone who thinks the universe came into existence from "not anything" which is the real definition of nothing isnt being honest with themselves/
@@ceceroxy2227 imagine you are born and your consciousness is given to you. your ability to perceive came from literally nothing. so as did the universe in as sense
The best way to imagine "nothing" is to not imagine anything, but if you absolutely must imagine then try imagining 'what rocks dream about'. Krause, and his ilk always equivocate on nothing. They call 'something' 'nothing' from one side of their mouths, all the while proving something isn't nothing out of the other. Without telling you that's what they are doing of course. One wonders if they actually know it themselves, which would be tragic enough, but still worse yet, I shudder to think if they know that's what they are doing and aren't telling you...well that would be diabolical. A little critical thinking wouldn't hurt these science geeks any. But it would be especially useful for the sycophants that sprinkle their paths with flower petals.
Does anyone know what the intro music is?
If "nothing" is unstable, I wonder if there are actual or theoretical parts of the universe that are so empty they may be considered as "nothing". Would such places be prone to burping out matter and anti-matter, a local big bang?
There is nowhere that man has looked where he has found "nothing", even in deep space in the emptiest vacuums imaginable, there's always "something".
Finte and infinite are the extremes of nothing.
The vacuum is never empty
@@albertclarke2826 The concept of nothing in itself is nonsensical. Try to imagine nothing. You can't do this! Because, when you do imagine nothing, you imagine something. Therefore, the concept of nothing of QM is no more false than the common concept of it.
Yes, and no. In eternal inflation, only the parts that are inflating rapidly can "slow down" (ie tunnel to a smaller vacuum energy) and thus form energy/matter into a stable universe. As all the parts in OUR universe are already at a lower vacuum energy, this wouldn't happen anywhere in our universe. In other models, yes it's possible. But really that could happen anywhere, it doesn't actually need to be empty, it's just that its so improbable it likely won't happen in the lifetime of our universe. Luckily, after the end of the universe (ie heat death), it doesn't matter if something takes a second or trillion trillion trillion years, so even though its improbable it could still happen, we just won't be around to see it.
Wait - is it just me or in this presentation, does Krauss kind-of gloss over the theory of the multiverse and assume that it is almost fact, without pointing out flaws? Albeit, he does caveat with saying, "may," "possibly," but his overall tone seems to imply that it's fact (my opinion, obviously). One thing that worries me is that even if we accept as fact that there are an infinite number of universes, that doesn't guarantee one like ours. Take even numbers. There are an infinite number of them. Unless I'm mistaken (I'm no mathematician) you won't ever find a single odd number in an infinite string of even numbers. My caveat: I say this from a position of ignorance, not being a physicist, etc.
Also, the irony is thick: Krauss criticizes what he calls "cosmic hubris" (meaning theists are silly at best) without recognizing the hubris of his own arguments.
Multiverse hypothesis is very popular in Scifi. Its one of those things which is either true or not. A Russian mathematician in the early 1990's published a paper in Physics Today and did the lecture circuit on the probability of 2D windows between universes, which being 2D you could see through but not go through, and had to be viewed from the correct location and angle. He provided math as his proof, but offered no means to test it in reality, not even the basic start of a physical test so I expect it was really just nonsense that got him out of Russia and invited to the better cocktail parties and lunches.
If you buy into how matter is created, the Big Bang may still be happening 13 billion years after it started for us, in quite a few universes between us and them. That's a lot of potential universes to visit, particularly since we have no idea when one universe breaks off from the big bang and another one separately spawns, repeating endlessly. An infinitely expanding number of universes, each of which eventually dies of heat death someday. 20-30 billion years later, probably (also a heavily debated point with very fuzzy inaccuracy).
If we could skip from this one to newer universes, and they have the same physical constants as this one, we might survive there too, however that particular detail is far less likely. The big constants for electromagnetism could have different values and we'd explode or implode or dissolve if we crossed, at the subatomic level. What if the strong force (keeping atoms together) is weaker? That whole universe would be subatomic plasma with no real atoms at all, thus no chemistry.
I know of no provable and repeatable evidence suggesting the popular Schoedingers Cat division of universes next door every instant from quantum variation, so popular in scifi, has any truth to it at all. So going to another universe with all the same people and one tiny difference is pretty much fantasy. A great and verdant fantasy for Scifi authors, but not factual or real science. I spent a decade learning this stuff and figuring out how to differentiate between the Cocktail Party Lecture Circuit scammer physicists from the ones that do actual experiments and always look tired and depressed. I lived near Livermore Labs for 8 years, you see. You end up with some interesting friends there.
I'm really interested in what others have to say.
Tc McCarthy The Multiverse is simply an axiom at this point, much like Einsteins C constant. And yes you are right, having a infinite number of universes doesnt guarantee one like ours, however we are here so we know their is one. However just because the probability is slim in the hypothesis doesnt mean it isnt impossible. No one knows if the multiverse is real for sure, however there are many factors, like our physical constants being so finally tuned and dark matter/energy, etc..., that are directing us to the belief that if the universe is random and our laws of physics are random than it would be highly improbable that if there was one universe, however with the axiom it would be safe to assume that at least 1 in the possible billions of universes would lead to a reality we get to enjoy today. To summarize why it might seem that Krauss presented the multiverse as a "fact" is because it is an axiom, just like some people 100 years ago assumed light traveled at 186kM/s when there was no way to prove that at the time.
Wonderful talk.
12:50 If you want to skip an over-long preamble and get to Krauss's part.
A simple equation can explain creation from Nothingness: if Nothingness = 0, and 0 = +1 and -1, then from Nothingness
can arise a (+1) universe and a (-1) universe. The (+1) universe being the 5% universe we live in, and the (-1) universe representing the other 95% which represents dark energy and dark matter. Or putting it in terms of credits and debits: our universe can only exist if it is paid for by an anti-universe. In nature, there is no free lunch. Think of our universe as a blend of of 2 types of Swiss cheese: all wound around together with the holes representing Worm Holes where there is no energy, matter, and no Higgs field. Completely empty space that separates our universe from its anti-universe component. A place where space craft can exceed Warp 10 and beyond. And thus allow quick traveling time to other galaxies. No Higgs Field = no resistance = unlimited acceleration.
However, in order to drive the nothingness into its something and anti-something component, there must be a slight amount of asymmetry. And over 13.8 billion years this would explain the huge disparity in asymmetry and hence the exaggerated ratio.
Beauty is often perceived as complete symmetry but when it comes to creation there must be asymmetry. Otherwise things will simply neutralize each other. In fact, evolution whether its atoms, biological systems, or the universe itself all depends on slight differences that drive things forward. Without which there would be no change. And all that is needed is just a slight misalignment or push for a process to move forward.
For those that are familiar with the Chaos Theory: can the flapping of a butterfly's wings in Brazil cause a tornado in Texas.
This allegorical representation is found everywhere in nature including quantum mechanics, also known as quantum fluctuations. It is simply randomness. No Gods, Devils, scary Demons needed. Or if you need to believe in a God System,
then why not believe believe in the following Gods:
1. God of Nothingness - which gives rise to a universe and its anti-universe component ( 0 = +1 -1).
2. God of Randomness - Mother Nature (as evident by Brownian motion).
3. God of Time - over time anything can happen ( evident by probability equations that are time dependent).
BTW: in his equation on the force of gravity, it should be divided by "r squared" rather than "r". Obviously a typo.
In reference to: "r squared" rather than "r". It's the formula located at 46:39. Anytime there is gravity and electromagnetism, the inverse square law must be applied. But yet the equation is measuring energy and since force acting over a distance is energy, then distance must be included in the numerator which then cancels out the distance squared in the denominator leaving only "r". So therefore the equation without "r squared" in the denominator is correct as in stands.
The more I see this the more I believe the universe came from something!
That's because you don't understand the physics or don't want to.
@@geoden Keep thinking that! The guy is so boring ... I could sleep like a baby each time.
@@GeDePeU go do something your primate brain believes is interesting then you insignificant any.
@@geoden Something can't come from nothing, you can't imagine nothing because its nothing and the universe had a beginning so it had to have a creator. A house can't build itself can it? Well same thing for the universe
^^^ Typical of people who value intuition-based beliefs more than they value evidence-based beliefs. If they can't understand it, it's easier for them to assume it's not true. Let's ignore what we've discovered about particles and anti-particles constantly popping in an out of existence, or more abstractly, how a "0" can spontaneously split into "-1" and "+1" before recombining an annihilating back into zero (unless some force intervenes to keep matter and anti-matter particles separated).
It's both funny and disheartening to see people make up analogies to describe concepts they don't understand, and then genuinely believe that their analogies are valid. Planks of wood don't pop into and out of existence, and there is no force that pulling those planks into the stable configuration of a house. If it did work that way, it *would* be very plausible for a house to build itself.
for those wondering about the -1/12 thing, numberphile did a video on it.
Take A Moment
Thank you for work
University's speaks truth
Stay Free
"the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable" is the premise. That is the nothing. It is a testable hypothesis. Albert's book review mostly "quote mines" Krauss' own caveats to his own theories. Brilliant! Sure, other physicists have competing theories. As it turns out, that how science works. The data is fit to models that then compete for primacy based on empirical fitness. You just do not understand how science is performed.
Nobody has to understand how science is performed, science has to learn to define their terms better. How about a better word for the equivocated "nothing" then? If we all want to be on the same page with what's being discussed, how about we use something other than the word nothing? The way quantum this particular science tends to use it doesn't fit the classical definition or common understanding of the word...so quit putting the word out there like everyone is talking about the same thing. Aristotle said 'Nothing...', for the purpose of classically defining and representative of the common comprehension ... is what rocks dream about". Y'all can have your little lab chats and use whatever words you like to use, but if you are going to convey ideas that matter to the general population you're going to have to make smarter word choices.
@@markboyce8081 So, you think that somewhere there is linguistic governance over misuse of scientific terminology by the public? A kind of 'semantics board'? I am guessing that, from the extreme cluelessness of your response, you really know nothing about quantum mechanics? Well, according to the Dunning-Kruger Effect, you are an expert in this field.
@@garbledstoic you presume too much…if it were necessary to be a quantum physics expert, or any other kind of expert for that matter, to logically detect inconsistency in an argument and enter into a discussion about it, then no one could have a discussion. You see, the main reason this platform, and others like it, have a bad name is that people, such as you have demonstrated here, can’t keep from personal attacks. You know nothing of me or what I know, yet you presume you know why I engaged in the first place, and in the second that I think I know more than I actually know. Isn’t this in and of itself Dunning-Kruger in action? A I’ve done is call into question (first clue I don’t understand something) conclusions drawn from what appear to be preconceived notions that don’t consider all the evidence, and then get personally attacked. What use is that to anyone but you? There is in fact a semantics board, it’s called ‘Dictionary’ and it’s intellectually dishonest to equivocate on ‘nothing’ then hide behind amusing quips and academic credentials. Do you think any of that supersedes logic? It doesn’t. Yet trafficking in the illogical and trying to convince folks their ignorant by telling them “trust me, I’ve got a PhD” expecting everyone to fall in line is a ruse. All PhD means is piled higher and deeper. I won’t learn anything from you that I can’t read in a book or find on-line. And I maintain that if you (the royal you) use the word ‘nothing’ that carries a lot of ‘something’ with it, you ought to be honest about it, not trying to hide under semantic rocks. Why would you (the royal you) do that if you were trying to be scientific? Why dodge the question? Why attack rather than engage? Is that scientific? Far from it.
If you (you) want to engage in honest discussion I’m all for it…if you want to engage in personal attacks I pass.
How can you quantify nothing?
Vincent Eugenio it seems like a real nothing does not exist. Space is not empty.
PhantomBlank so in the beginning there is something that don't have a name so they call it nothing? You can't tell a story of things that don't have a name. Title should be "a universe from something".
***** it is just a theory they didnt create another species out of non living things.. Theologian are more convincing because you can't start something if you have a beginning you are just gonna trace it further and further which science cannot explain. That is why god is omnipotent no beginning no end so the question stops when tracing the origin to god..
***** name a species or animals or life form that is a product of abiogenesis where can we see it?
***** we have different god.. Your god is weak and you said our species surpassed god because we can do what your god cannot do.. You tell me who is your god?
In The Beginning GOD Made The Heaven and The Earth Within his heart a fool says there is no GOD Thank You All Powerful Lord Jesus Christ for Paying for All my Sins Thank You Jesus For Shedding Every Last Drop of Your Perfect Redeeming Innocent Blood For The Forgiveness Full Remission of All my Sins Thank You Jesus For Dying in my place on The Cross ✝️ ❤To Pay for All my Sins as The Perfect Sacrifice because You Have No Sin Thank You for Being Buried Thank You Jesus For COMING BACK ALIVE 3 Days After Your Death because You Are The Son of God and God At The Same Time!!! I LOVE You Heavenly Father ABBA I LOVE You Jesus I LOVE You Holy Spirit Not 3 Different Gods But The 1 The Only True Living GOD Most High Revealed to us in 3 Ways ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤she who is Forgiven Much LOVES Much!!!!! God Is Love
Q. Why is there something instead of nothing?
A. Why not?
That which is nothing in particular (actual), is by definition everything in general (potential).
What appears as expansion/gravity is in Reality dielectric acceleration toward the mutual null point of inertia.
3 Principles of Nature:
1. Centrifugal divergence
2. Centripetal convergence
3. Pressure mediation
The nature of the Absolute is all-inclusive, to 'serve' as the Infinite, Eternal Continuum of Being that functions as a diversified unity of potential (Creative Intelligence), actualizing as a unified diversity or Uni-verse, and thus, is the one Absolute Being in which all relative beings live, move and have their Being, the Whole that is ever greater than the sum of it's constituents, the center of which is everywhere and the circumference of which is nowhere, the All in One in All. We are all It, to an unknowable/inexhaustible extent, as the facets of a Diamond are 'both' distinct from each other 'and' the Diamond itself.
Each thing in the Universe is an epicenter of the Universe. We are, to that extent at least, significant.
Love is the recognition of our shared Being.
Namaste'.
That's the most philosophically nonsensical BS I've ever read...there is no such thing as a something that is 'nothing in particular'. If there is 'something', it is by definition 'something in particular', otherwise it would be nothing (meaning it doesn't exist). The only thing nothing is, is nothing. Even a "mutual null point of inertia" is not nothing. That is, it's observable and has been given a label to describe its characteristics. Wouldn't be able to label it otherwise. You can't observe nothing. And you can only label nothing as nothing, nothing more. The premise "the nature of (A)bsolute is all-inclusive" is a philosophical error. You capitalize absolute like it's a proper name, a personality. But it's just another example of someone commandeering a word and changing its meaning to suit a philosophy. Just like Dr. Krauss does by equivocating the word 'nothing'. Other secular materialists have called him out on that point.
@@markboyce8081 Let those with the eyes to see and ears to hear do so.
Nothing sure is something.
***** It is nice to see that someone has a clue about the real logic flaws in this lecture. Krauss no doubt is making lots of money off of this fallacy of equivocation. How is this possible? Only by the audience's ignorance or more probably simply their emotional desire to believe that there isn't God, so they relax their standards of logical standards to believe what they want to believe. Your critique is right on. Be Blessed
***** What has this got to do with something coming out of nothing? If something can come out of nothing, then we don't need amino acids from space to create life - in fact all we need is nothing! Because creation doesn't need anything! So science is dead if you believe that something comes from nothing because it just happens. So Abiogenesis didn't happen, nothing happened! And nothing is all we need. It is obvious you don't even grasp the argument of this video. But, then again nothing produces thought so I guess you prove this point.
Is that the best you got? Not much to you is there? How about an intelligent statement from your mouth?
Once again that has nothing (pun intended) to do with this video. This video says that something comes from nothing. So you aren't even commenting on the discussion in this video. But, I guess we can go off on a wild goose chase that is totally off the subject -You are implying that because amino acids are a fundamental chemical constituent for organic life that the fact that it is found in space "proves" that life came from non-life. Not really sure how that is relevant to this video. In fact it isn't. Now if something can come from nothing, then your logical need for amino acids is misplaced. We don't need a logical scientific connection of any kind, because life came from nothing - not amino acids or anything else. So in fact you disagree with this video since you believe that there should be a logical scientific link between non-life and life, but this video says there doesn't have to be a logical link between anything because nothing creates because it is nothing. This is what this video is about.
The nothing isn’t nothing actually, it’s vaccum energy and quantum fluctuations
Rabeet. Tell that to evangelics!
HoldTheEarth idk how that relates to evangelics (jbtw if you’re considering I’m one, I’m not.)
Rabeet. It’s related to evangelics in a negative way. They simply deny your statement about the “nothing”.
@@desiderata8811 yeah I've come to find that myself that it's okay for God to just always have existed but everything else needs creator
yeah but i think he's explaining how matter can appear from nothing.
I doubt I will ever have the time to devote to understanding much of the math and observation behind his speech, but when he said around 1hr mark that you have "no laws" doesn't he rather mean that you have every possible law (in different universes)? And given that observation what does possible even mean outside of laws? So...
In shorts term.. if you wait long enuff.. anything will happen..i like this so much better than the consept of a creator.
The Bible has outraced people to the logical evidence that says that the universe has a creator, and a plan for mankind. PS 14 states that The fool has said in his heart that there is no GOD. They are corrupt, They have done abominable works. There is none that does good. No not one!!
oh my god how many freakeb intros does he need, get on with the program already
It’s to disengage your brain for the 💩 tsunami
So there are 400 billion galaxies and each galaxy may have up to 100 billion stars and 200 billion planets.... Leave it to creationists to say invisible sky dady put me in this tiny place in the middle of nowhere and asked me to multiply and be happy.... LMAO...
Can you try saying something with substance?
@@rubiks6 Can you ask an interesting question?
@@schmetterling4477 - I am not responsible for what you may or may not find interesting. You'll just have to entertain yourself.
@@rubiks6 That was not an interesting question. Fail.
Moreover, sky daddy still wants to know who are you sleeping with and what you do in the bed ;)
Omg that was Genius i agree there is a factor faster than light but you already knew that good to know I'm not alone
I thought she’d never stop.
Lawrence Krauss is like the prepubescent child of a much more intelligent lifeform... getting somewhere though..
Thanks for demonstrating there is nothing valid or relevant you can say.
In Infinity things like our Universe will pop in and out of existence and so will everything else. No limits and endless variations of objects ,dimensions, planes ,events, beings etc .. Over and over again as it always has and always will in an uncreated infinite loop .
Totally agree 👍🏻
amazing!
Before starting a nonsensical lecture, try and crack a joke about interfaith dialogue
Don't forget to litter the rest of it with loads of condescending other jokes
@@codythomas5059 I think the only one being condescending is the speaker who initiates the lecture with a preposterous premise!
100 years of development in physics is nonsense?
@@ROGUESPIRIT_ I love physics... but he's not talking physics, he's talking nonsense
A universe from absolutely nothing,how quaint,but oh how insane.The atheist asks,"Just allow us one free miracle and we can figure out the rest on our own."God has made it so He can not be ignored,He will remain a thorn in the atheists flesh until they meet Him face to face.
I thought I had a handle on everything he said until about minute 58. I think what he said toward the end is that because we have virtual particles emerging and disappearing in empty space, we could have universes appearing and disappearing as well due to the nature of quantum fluctuations. If one of these universes gets energy added it will expand and exist long enough for life to perhaps emerge, and this could happen more than once, in fact it could happen over and over - some of these could last longer than others, but each would have its own laws of physics as well. And THAT is the reason that not only is it likely that our universe emerged from "nothing," but that the laws of physics we rely on are accidental rather than designed.
Am I getting this about right?
Excellent!
Save yourself time, Krauss's nothing isn't an actual "nothing". Fail.
It seems like a fail because our idea of "nothing" is outdated.
AmbiFMA Not at all, Krauss's idea is just an equivocation. Krauss is scared of philosophers because he knows he get's pwned by them thats why he talks shit about them. The idea of nothing is eternal and is unchangeable truth. Your idea of nothing is simply false trying to equivocate.
Thachosen1nee If we're defining "nothing" as: the complete absence of anything, you're grossly in error if you think you know anything about "nothing". Outside the mathematical "zero", nothing, like infinity has no meaning whatsoever in reality. As far as we know, here are no examples of "nothing" in the physical universe, and we cannot even imagine "nothing". So, saying "nothing is eternal and is unchangeable truth" may be fine in poetry, but is nonsense in any discussion of science or philosophy.
Stew Taylor That was a very philosophically naive statement, nothing in our universe is nothing and it very well may be relevant to scientific discussion.
Thachosen1nee Writing "nothing is nothing" may sound deeply philosophical to you, but it's inane. And you call me naïve!
Great post !
I am in awe
Out of all these scientists I heard, he seems to be just right..
gravity distortions caused by dark matter/energy it could possibly be just ‘crumpled space-time’ from the big bang. Imagine if the big bang was like a giant piece of cloth packed into the smallest ball you can make, then let it go. The cloth would expand, but there would still be ‘creases’ here and there. Stuff could easily fall and get stuck in these creases. And we might think, these little stuff aren’t supposed to make these kinds of creases (its not heavy enough), or maybe something else is making the crease we don’t know of (dark matter), but it just might possibly be only ‘crumpled’ space-time, yet to ‘straighten-out’ as the universe expands.
A little known theoretical physicist named Dr Tangerlini predicted that the universe was flat way back in 1979 by a unusual method. He graphed the amount of matter in he universe found by man as a function of time. The amount was getting bigger and bigger. He could then predict approximately when mankind would say that the universe was flat by seeing when his curve predicted humans would have found the required amount.
Are you referring to multiverse? If yes, you can look up ' Kruass on multiverse'. He talks about multiverse in various forum and recordings are uploaded on RUclips.
LMK's faith is astounding!
In which book does he bring up infinity?
Very good video, I would also recommend his debates in Australia with Dr William Lane Craig. Very passionate, quite intense in parts but very entertaining and intriguing.
Craig is dishonest and his arguments are ridden with fallacies.
Is the introduction long enough? Jesus let’s get the show on the road Beavis!!
Real question: the universe is expanding but how do we know that it’s not still in the beginning phases of the expansion? Like an explosion initially expands, I will be sure that it will be better to slow down and contract?
1) It is in a _relatively_ early phase, as the mathematics suggest it will expand for trillions of years.
2) The idea of "better" is a value judgement outside of science. Unless humanity can spread throughout the galaxy, our planet is toast when the sun flames out in 4½ billion years, but it is doubtful our civilization will be around then. Way too much can happen to make the planet inhabitable long before then.
Thus, as Dr. Krauss and so many others say, make the best use of our own personal time without fouling things for our descendents. The distant future is not in our control and not worth worrying about. Life today is worth worrying about.
Another real question for you.
Fun Fact known 1400 years ago...
We built the universe with ˹great˺ might, and We are certainly expanding ˹it˺. Quran 51:47
The universe is a two-way system... humanity deserves better than a one-way death spiral!!!!
I can say that this ball came from over there and upon investigation conclude that it came from another room. I don't know if it's a kitchen, or a bathroom and I may never know. Me not knowing that is not a problem for my earlier conclusion.
Unless you want your ears to fall off, I'd suggest jumping straight to 12:30
Search RUclips for "ASTOUNDING: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5" to find a video discussing the -1/12 thing that was discussed at the end.
I'm just glad to know that not all cosmologysist agree with the inflation theory
Lawrence Krauss and Randell Mills are both graduates of Harvard and both at the top of their field. Can Krauss check on the work of Mills(Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics) to see if Mills did or did not study under Hermann Haus at MIT in 1987-1988? Mills claims that he was a sit in, in Haus' courses of graduate electronic engineering and is why there is no record of Mills registered at MIT. Does one have to look into MIT archives of Haus' papers to find out?
Love anything on astronomy!
It is mentioned that in 2 trillion years time a technically advanced civilization may see their local galaxy and gravitationally bound galaxies, but no other things in the sky. It is true mostly. You will see the CMBR with a perfect Planck curve at those times. The temperature of CMBR will be much lower. The CMBR is constantly reaching us from ever growing distance.
There’s a heck of a lot we don’t understand. Likely far more than we think we understand.
I have a question, if anyone can answer it for me I'd greatly appreciate it. With regards to the expansion of the universe, if we know that distance is equal to velocity, and the visable universe is nearly 14b light years across, then surely we reach a point where expansion is greater than the speed of light? What happens then? Im obviously not an expert on anything, so im sure there is an easy answer, im just interested in cosmology and this has been bugging me. Thanks.
+Lee Dawkins what happens is you reach what they call the cosmic horizon , thats simililar to our own horizon at seas and land, of sorts.
+Lee Dawkins Hi Lee, the fact is that the circumstances 'there' are the same as here. Expansion is everywhere, in every cubic feet or mile, there is no central point from which everything is expanding. At every position in the universe everything is expanding 'away' from you. Hope this helps...
Ok so I'm not an expert by any means, however I am a physics major and currently taking a cosmology course with a professor who I trust greatly, and I have thought same question and asked him to specify. From what I understand, the universe is not only expanding--it is accelerating. The acceleration IS greater than the speed of light in a vacuum. They say the speed of light is the cosmic speed limit but the speed of light is really the speed of causality. What this means that information cannot travel faster than the speed of light. However with an accelerating universe no information is being transferred, therefore no laws are being broken by expanding faster than the speed of light. One other reason is space time is actually expanding. And by general relativity there is no speed limit for space time expansion. Therefore it is accelerating faster than the speed of light and eventually all galaxies will move outside the observable universe relative to our observation point.
This means eventually even our closest galaxy will be out of view. Please let me know if this specified it for you, Lee. If you have any other questions let me know I'll see if I can help.
+Aaron Weymouth had a few replys about this on various sites. Thanks for your help, think im up to speed now! (Excuse the pun)
This was amazing
"You are far more insignificant as you think" Only if significance means energy which is to be doubted. I'd say it in another way: Most of the universe is insignificant to our lives.
14:40 - Update, June 2023:- The current estimated total is around 2 trillion galaxies in the observable Universe, each with an average star count in the order of 200 - 400 billion. Have fun multiplying those two and then multiple again by 9 to give the estimated total number of planets. (Hint: Around 5 followed by seventeen zeroes)
David Albert is a professor of philosophy at Columbia and the author of “Quantum Mechanics and Experience.” He reviewed Krauss's book in The New York Times saying, " all there is to say about this, as far as I can see, is that Krauss is dead wrong and his religious and philosophical critics are absolutely right."
Albert is NOT saying, Krauss is wrong about theism, Albert shares Krauss's view on that point. Instead Albert laments the use of subterfuge and name calling in place of arguments against the recalcitrant facts of theism.
philo hey?! ... could not come up with anything/anyone scientific ... useless verbiage from days/ages gone by ... here is one for you: if the ultimate manifestation of a thought is action ... then why the fuck are they still talking about the falling tree making a noise ... about the chicken and the egg ... risible ... very first thing to do to validate your/one's point is to deeply reflect upon it and try your hardest to disprove it ... deep introspection should have shown the uselessness of their verbiage to any and all 'talkers' of bull caca of the philo persuasion ... why the fuck do we let these philosophizing idiots make a grandstand and talk about something that is antithetical to their very being: SCIENCE!! .... it is just talk for the uselessness of talking ... like the tree they are making noises to think themselves useful ... to validate an insipid cul de sac existence ... all talk and nowhere to go ...
Yes, you are right about being hired. Money can buy opinions even from professors of prestigious universities. Fox "News" is a prime example of this fact, which can sway the average mindless voter and buy an election.
And as a result we are headed back to the Dark Ages where Gods, Devils, and Demons rule with impunity. It's what Neil deGrasse Tyson has warned about. Religion is just one more way for the King and Ruling Class to rule over the serfs and peasants. And now, King Donald the Crazy, with his cohorts in crime the Republican Party, is in complete control.
so philosophy professors only have valid opinions if they are liberals? Hmm... and CNN and MSNBC are of coarse also unbiased.
You are every bit as good a philosopher it seems as Larry Krauss. He also doesn't realize why ad hominems are not rational.
A philosophy 101 class at any jr. college should remedy both your and Larry's challenge. Best of luck.
Yes, I agree, ad hominems are not rational or make any positive contributions for any given argument (pro or con). However, they are quite common in politics. But politics is not science, so anything goes, let the mud fly. It's the American Way....., unfortunately.
And unfortunately all too common in these discussion blogs, complete with 4 letter words.
David Albert has a Ph.D in physics and is world renowned philosopher of science, amazing how any criticism now is being dismissed as corruption, if we're heading toward the dark ages it will be because of Krauss fan boys who shut down dissent and debate.
The galaxies that are farther away look like they are traveling faster because the light from those galaxies takes longer to reach the observer. So, by definition, they have been traveling longer in time than the closer galaxies and therefor have traveled farther in the same observable amount of time. This doesn't mean that the rate of expansion of the Universe is accelerating.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I have never seen anything that explains this when talking about the accelerating expansion of the Universe. Post a link... (smile)
About to get into the main bit. Intro dreary