Lawrence Krauss: A Universe From Nothing

This is the "Universe From Nothing" talk given by Lawrence Krauss in 2009 on the accelerating expansion of the universe and how we know its fate.

[MelkorHimself]

Frank Walton I noticed you've disabled replies to your comments. Dissenting opinions are welcomed, but you must be willing to accept criticisms of your comments. If you don't enable replies within the next 48 hours, your comments will be removed. It is intellectually dishonest to not permit others to reply to you when you're already posting on someone else's channel. There is no getting away with a "hit and run" here.

[PaulOMalleyDublin]

Watching this again, still brilliant!

[anythgofnthg]

99.99% of the people watching this (which includes me), if they are honest, are thinking, "I kinda follow what this guy is saying, but wow, fuck me, there are some smart people in the world."

[MadScientist]

“There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.

There is another theory which states that this has already happened.”

[GeoffTaucer]

I ask again: what makes you think there IS a "why?"

If you're asking in the strict physical/causal sense, Krauss explains it in this very video: if you start with nothing, quantum fluctuations can result in "something" arising from the aforementioned "nothing."

[artofnick]

He is able to speak to such complex concepts with amazing clarity.  One of the best lectures I've heard in a long time, which was this lecture a few months ago.

[GeoffTaucer]

What makes you think there IS a "why?" I mean, sure, it would make us all feel a lot warmer and fuzzier if there was some underlying reason and our existence was planned for that reason, but the universe is not obligated to conform to what makes us feel warm and fuzzy.

[martinasenov]

Deniz1923 There is a theory about that, called "white hole" check it out in wikipedia, basically it says that black holes can be big bangs on the other end

[eddiee]

The problem is semantic. 'Nothing' and 'something' are not scientific terms with precise definitions - they are general terms for everyday use and do not therefore require precise definitions. The problem is getting 'matter' from 'non-matter' or even 'stuff' form 'non-stuff' - both of which are scientific and therefore precisely defined terms. But Einstein's equation shows that getting matter from non-matter is eminently doable.

[SmittyWerbenjagermanjensen]

Is it okay to not bring all this crap in the comments section.Please have an intelligent discussion.

[EpFiDude]

I agree with the theory of a multiverse, but I think Lawrence Krauss is not answering the question people ask. He is talking about how the universe came from nothing. That's irrelevant to the question of how reality (or everything) came from nothing. For a universe to emerge from nothing it needs natural laws that allow it. Even though there was no space and time, there had to be laws of some kind for anything to happen.

It doesn't mean that what he said is wrong, it just states that there is the question of how the laws of nature came from nothing. How came quantum physics from nothing?
To him, it will seem like a ridicilous questions, like the question where the big bang came from was ridicilous before those obvervations were made. It was just a given, something that was accepted because it was thought to be unprovable. Well, there is a theory that would describe laws of nature emerging from nothing. The theory is obviously speculative (the theory of an ultimate multiverse, an interpretation of string theory), but it states that there are not only all the possible universes that may exist, but there are also all the possible laws of physics that may exists. Basicly, everything that is possible just exists. Where did it came from? Well, coming from is no question because everything exists, even nothing. Why does the universe exist? Well, it does, but it also doesn't. All possiblities of reality do exists due to infinity. 

It's mind blowing, because every limit anyone will set is unvalid. If you ask why our universe looks like how it does, the answere is it does because everything exists. If you ask why the laws of nature are constructed as they are, they are because everything exists. It is logical, it is actually the only logical explanation of the existance of reality. Why does reality exist? Because everything exists? Why is there nothing? There is, in another reality. Why do realities exist? They do and they don't, there is a multireality that contains no reality and there is a multireality that contains every possible reality. There are infinite multirealities, which exist within a multi-multireality. There are also multi--multirealities that contain nothing... and so on, into infinity. There is basicly everything, including nothing.

Those theories are to vague to be proven or disproven, but they are possible. And I myself cannot believe that there is any limitation to existance. Why would there be if there is nothing that could set any limitation?

[honestengineer]

He's getting more into philosophy than math and science here - at the end of defining infinity.

[benjicrapo]

"If you have nothing you have to have something"
-Lawrence Kraus

-how did the properties of the nothing originate or come into being

[Dillinger]

If you have nothing in quantum mechanics you'll always get something 

[MelkorHimself]

Einstein's reply letter to Joseph Dispentiere 24MAR1954:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

You were saying?

[Jane]

why does krauss choose to play the part of the court jester in the universe while he glides through it on the space fabric of time?

[honestengineer]

Quite true - with the finite amount of particles - & so with a finite amount of particles that originate with the big bang itself - & with no boundary limiting the extent to which these particles expand to -as Sagan describes - while these particles are radiating outwards from the big bang point of origin towards infinity - they cannot ever reach infinity itself (otherwise Sagan's 'unbounded' becomes bounded) - & therefore the universe itself cannot be infinite if it is expanding - by definition

[xxXthetruthseekerXxx]

If nothingness is the absence of everything, then it is also absent of the ability to create a universe or anything else.

[seligmiller]

Lawrence Krauss is brilliant and never fails to inform and entertain.

[bobxx]

"Scientists love not knowing" which is the exact opposite of the way religious people think.