Lawrence Krauss "An Universe from Nothing"

[Jesusbrea]

Please, I need help with this… today I was chatting with a friend and he sent me a video of this guy named Lawrence Krauss (he’s a theoretical physicist) and he was arguing about an universe that can come from nothing… now he uses too many mouthfuls but I get the impression that he doesn’t understand what we mean by nothingness. in any case anyone who’s interested in watching it and giving some insights on this matter is welcome.

Here’s the video: youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

 

[inocente]

I like listening to Krauss and watched the lecture some months back. He knows what physicists mean by empty space, which is a long way from nothing. The idea of a zero-sum universe seems reasonable, although a little light on evidence, and if that’s how God did it then good for God.

At the end of the lecture Krauss happily admits he can’t explain why this miraculous event led to the particular physics and nature of our universe. His atheist audience might choose to think he said something profound about the existence of God, but he knows full well he didn’t. As he says from 11:00 to 12:15 – what we take from science depends on our religious and metaphysical beliefs but at the end of the day “the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not”.

 

[Jesusbrea]

I like listening to Krauss and watched the lecture some months back. He knows what physicists mean by empty space, which is a long way from nothing. The idea of a zero-sum universe seems reasonable, although a little light on evidence, and if that’s how God did it then good for God.

At the end of the lecture Krauss happily admits he can’t explain why this miraculous event led to the particular physics and nature of our universe. His atheist audience might choose to think he said something profound about the existence of God, but he knows full well he didn’t. As he says from 11:00 to 12:15 – what we take from science depends on our religious and metaphysical beliefs but at the end of the day “the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not”.

Ok… but is zero-sum equal to nothing?, zero-sum means absolute non-existance? I’m sorry I ain’t a scientist of any sort but this really bugs me because there is a principle that ex-nihilo comes nothing, only nothing can come from nothing, now this guy tells me that something came from nothing and he talks to me about how energy spontaneously flourish from empty space, but I see no other reference to another kind of “nothingness” in his speech other than that and absolute zero (which I translate into zero energy). I beg you excuse my utter ignorance on this scientific subject.

 

[ronnie_bonigli]

Please, I need help with this… today I was chatting with a friend and he sent me a video of this guy named Lawrence Krauss (he’s a theoretical physicist) and he was arguing about an universe that can come from nothing… now he uses too many mouthfuls but I get the impression that he doesn’t understand what we mean by nothingness. in any case anyone who’s interested in watching it and giving some insights on this matter is welcome.

Here’s the video: youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

I didn’t bother to watch (as soon as I saw Dawkins I had no desire to) it so forgive me if I’m talking about something they weren’t discussing, but if they are talking about a “quantum vacuum fluctuation” creation of the universe, I’ll say I’ve never understood how they ignore what seems a pretty big flaw in that theory. In regular quantum vacuum fluctuations opposite quantum particles such as electrons and positrons can be created out of a quantum vacuum. Since an electron and a positron are matter and anti-matter when they come together they annihilate into a burst of electromagnetic radiation, you can think of the electron as a +1 and the positron as a -1 and when you add them together you get a Zero. In a quantum vacuum fluctuation the reverse happens, you start from a Zero state and a +1 and -1 come out of it, kind of a “creation” of two particles from “nothing”.

But the problem with expending this idea of “creation” of quantum particle to a “creation” of an entire universe out of “nothing” is that in the quantum vacuum fluctuation of quantum particles the creation happens in an existing energy field, be it a gravitational field or an electromagmetic field, and it happens in an existing space-time, it needs the existing universe with it’s space-time and energy to occur, it’s NOT the true “nothing” that we talk about as being “before” the universe. Space-Time is a part of the universe, it would have come into existence along with the matter and energy of the universe.

The big question when someone talks about a “quantum vacuum fluctuation” creation of the universe is; “quantum vacuum fluctuation IN WHAT?” There was no space-time or energy for it to happen in, not to mention that a true nothing wouldn’t even have pre-existing ***Laws of physics ***that include quantum vacuum fluctuations.

 

[Jesusbrea]

I like listening to Krauss and watched the lecture some months back. He knows what physicists mean by empty space, which is a long way from nothing. The idea of a zero-sum universe seems reasonable, although a little light on evidence, and if that’s how God did it then good for God.

At the end of the lecture Krauss happily admits he can’t explain why this miraculous event led to the particular physics and nature of our universe. His atheist audience might choose to think he said something profound about the existence of God, but he knows full well he didn’t. As he says from 11:00 to 12:15 – what we take from science depends on our religious and metaphysical beliefs but at the end of the day “the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not”.

I didn’t bother to watch (as soon as I saw Dawkins I had no desire to) it so forgive me if I’m talking about something they weren’t discussing, but if they are talking about a “quantum vacuum fluctuation” creation of the universe, I’ll say I’ve never understood how they ignore what seems a pretty big flaw in that theory. In regular quantum vacuum fluctuations opposite quantum particles such as electrons and positrons can be created out of a quantum vacuum. Since an electron and a positron are matter and anti-matter when they come together they annihilate into a burst of electromagnetic radiation, you can think of the electron as a +1 and the positron as a -1 and when you add them together you get a Zero. In a quantum vacuum fluctuation the reverse happens, you start from a Zero state and a +1 and -1 come out of it, kind of a “creation” of two particles from “nothing”.

But the problem with expending this idea of “creation” of quantum particle to a “creation” of an entire universe out of “nothing” is that in the quantum vacuum fluctuation of quantum particles the creation happens in an existing energy field, be it a gravitational field or an electromagmetic field, and it happens in an existing space-time, it needs the existing universe with it’s space-time and energy to occur, it’s NOT the true “nothing” that we talk about as being “before” the universe. Space-Time is a part of the universe, it would have come into existence along with the matter and energy of the universe.

The big question when someone talks about a “quantum vacuum fluctuation” creation of the universe is; “quantum vacuum fluctuation IN WHAT?” There was no space-time or energy for it to happen in, not to mention that a true nothing wouldn’t even have pre-existing ***Laws of physics ***that include quantum vacuum fluctuations.

This guy says something like this… he quoted einstein saying “what really interests me is whether God (sic) had any choice in the creation of the universe” then he says “are the laws of physics fixed so that if you change one parameter you couldn’t have the universe OR could you have infinite numbers of different laws of physics that ALL worked and it just happens to be the way it is?” then he says “if this anthropic picture is right then physics is an enviromental science”… “there are no fundamental laws of physics, we are just here by accident”… “that I might find repugnant but it MAY BE TRUE”… should we REALLY take this seriously?.. then what’s the purpose of science? I mean we know laws of physics are there regardless of their formulation by scientists, but to claim that there are infinite numbers of laws of physics that ALL worked it’s somewhat awkward, based on that you can create whatever theory you want that fits your vision of the universe, as logically lacking as this “something from nothing” theory. When you don’t believe in God, you end up believing ANYTHING.

 

[edwest2]

It’s OK to speculate but I don’t think there’s much value in a scientist giving a long lecture followed by a, but I could be wrong moment or just vagueness. I think scientists should just say, “At this point we don’t know, but here’s a few of our ideas.” That would be good.

Nothing means nothing. No electromagnetic radiation - nothing. Hard to picture? You bet. Quantum fluctuations is an interesting idea, but I still wonder how an electron can orbit an atom’s nucleus and just not run out of energy after doing it for thousands or millions of years. Where does the orbital energy come from?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Jesusbrea]

I like listening to Krauss and watched the lecture some months back. He knows what physicists mean by empty space, which is a long way from nothing. The idea of a zero-sum universe seems reasonable, although a little light on evidence, and if that’s how God did it then good for God.

At the end of the lecture Krauss happily admits he can’t explain why this miraculous event led to the particular physics and nature of our universe. His atheist audience might choose to think he said something profound about the existence of God, but he knows full well he didn’t. As he says from 11:00 to 12:15 – what we take from science depends on our religious and metaphysical beliefs but at the end of the day “the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not”.

I didn’t bother to watch (as soon as I saw Dawkins I had no desire to) it so forgive me if I’m talking about something they weren’t discussing, but if they are talking about a “quantum vacuum fluctuation” creation of the universe, I’ll say I’ve never understood how they ignore what seems a pretty big flaw in that theory. In regular quantum vacuum fluctuations opposite quantum particles such as electrons and positrons can be created out of a quantum vacuum. Since an electron and a positron are matter and anti-matter when they come together they annihilate into a burst of electromagnetic radiation, you can think of the electron as a +1 and the positron as a -1 and when you add them together you get a Zero. In a quantum vacuum fluctuation the reverse happens, you start from a Zero state and a +1 and -1 come out of it, kind of a “creation” of two particles from “nothing”.

But the problem with expending this idea of “creation” of quantum particle to a “creation” of an entire universe out of “nothing” is that in the quantum vacuum fluctuation of quantum particles the creation happens in an existing energy field, be it a gravitational field or an electromagmetic field, and it happens in an existing space-time, it needs the existing universe with it’s space-time and energy to occur, it’s NOT the true “nothing” that we talk about as being “before” the universe. Space-Time is a part of the universe, it would have come into existence along with the matter and energy of the universe.

The big question when someone talks about a “quantum vacuum fluctuation” creation of the universe is; “quantum vacuum fluctuation IN WHAT?” There was no space-time or energy for it to happen in, not to mention that a true nothing wouldn’t even have pre-existing ***Laws of physics ***that include quantum vacuum fluctuations.

This guy says something like this… he quoted einstein saying “what really interests me is whether God (sic) had any choice in the creation of the universe” then he says “are the laws of physics fixed so that if you change one parameter you couldn’t have the universe OR could you have infinite numbers of different laws of physics that ALL worked and it just happens to be the way it is?” then he says “if this anthropic picture is right then physics is an enviromental science”… “there are no fundamental laws of physics, we are just here by accident”… “that I might find repugnant but it MAY BE TRUE”… should we REALLY take this seriously?.. then what’s the purpose of science? I mean we know laws of physics are there regardless of their formulation by scientists, but to claim that there are infinite numbers of laws of physics that ALL worked it’s somewhat awkward, based on that you can create whatever theory you want that fits your vision of the universe, as logically lacking as this “something from nothing” theory. When you don’t believe in God, you end up believing ANYTHING.

 

[Jesusbrea]

Now read this… he says “nothing is really a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence at timescales so short that you can’t see them”… HUH?.. he insists on popping nothing into existence… how can nothing exists? nothing doesn’t exists, it is not something in nature, nothing is a philosophical concept that doesn’t present in nature… every time I listen more and more to this guy I get the feeling that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about… he may be a good scientist but he is “infinitely” failing to use the philosophical concept of nothingness correctly.

 

[The_Exodus]

This can be answered easily.

There are two senses the word “nothing” can be used in. Ask your friend to define which he means. They are a) true metaphysical nothing; and b) the “nothing” of the physicists.

In the case of a). If he says that the universe came “from nothing” it should be pointed out that “from nothing” is a meaningless phrase, since the word “from” denotes some sort of generative relationship with what is being spoken of. Hence I say I come “from” tennessee. The word here is used to mean that I am actually from – it is difficult to use a more simple word than from! – tennessee. If, however, true metaphysical nothing or nothingness is meant, then “from” has no referent and the phrase is meaningless. It would be equivalent to saying “the where I am from is no where” or “the from where I am from is not a from.” From indicates reference or generation, while nothing indicates a negation or nihilation. Thus, the phrase “from nothing” posits an absurdity, and simultaneously affirms what it denies.

In the case of b). This phrase “nothing” does not truly mean nothing, but only “a fluctuating vaccum” or something of the sort. So long as there are properties given to this “nothing,” then it is not a true nothing, and therefore says nothing new about cause and effect. And, if nothing new is said about cause and effect, the Thomistic proofs for God’s existence are still valid.

 

[inocente]

I didn’t bother to watch (as soon as I saw Dawkins I had no desire to) it so forgive me if I’m talking about something they weren’t discussing, but if they are talking about a “quantum vacuum fluctuation” creation of the universe, I’ll say I’ve never understood how they ignore what seems a pretty big flaw in that theory.

He doesn’t ignore the flaw, and it’s entertaining if you skip Dawkin’s intro. Krauss doesn’t say anything new, it’s a lecture for generalists. He gives a rundown on the current state of cosmology, in which it’s thought that the energy of visible + dark matter = dark energy, and hence the total energy of the universe is zero. He gives the standard line about something being far more likely than nothing. He thinks string theory and multiverses are ugly ideas, theories of anything that are not real science.

Along the way he makes his usual jibes at experimentalists, religionists, biologists, etc. One I remember is that due to expansion and red-shift, in the far future we won’t be able to detect any other galaxies. We will be lonely and ignorant but dominant, just like the USA.

I’d summarize him as thinking that a quantum vacuum fluctuation could have been a snappy answer if only we had a clue how/where/why it came about, which is one really big mystery, but that’s OK as he likes mysteries and scientists should show humility.

 

[inocente]

then he says “are the laws of physics fixed so that if you change one parameter you couldn’t have the universe OR could you have infinite numbers of different laws of physics that ALL worked and it just happens to be the way it is?” then he says “if this anthropic picture is right then physics is an enviromental science”… “there are no fundamental laws of physics, we are just here by accident”… “that I might find repugnant but it MAY BE TRUE”… should we REALLY take this seriously?

He’s just saying that he can’t disprove it but it sounds kooky.

Now read this… he says “nothing is really a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence at timescales so short that you can’t see them”… HUH?.. he insists on popping nothing into existence… how can nothing exists?

He’s well respected and what he says here is well founded. Krauss is talking to generalists, so every time he says “nothing” you should read him as saying “quantum vacuum, a.k.a. empty space”. Quantum theory is mind boggling, but it all hangs together or your computer wouldn’t work. For example, the three quarks that make up a proton only account for 1% of its mass, the other 99% coming from the fluctuations (known as gluons) that hold it together. The scale is so different from ours that common sense flies out the window – the number of protons in your body is around 10 followed by 28-ish zeros. (see table 3-1 here).

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Now read this… he says “nothing is really a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that are popping in and out of existence at timescales so short that you can’t see them”… HUH?.. he insists on popping nothing into existence… how can nothing exists? nothing doesn’t exists, it is not something in nature, nothing is a philosophical concept that doesn’t present in nature… every time I listen more and more to this guy I get the feeling that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about… he may be a good scientist but he is “infinitely” failing to use the philosophical concept of nothingness correctly.

The scientists are using a different sense of nothing which can be misleading and perhaps purposely so depending on the intention of the scientist. The metaphysical sense of nothing as it applies to ontology is different, and is the understanding that you have. Obviously, when it comes to ontological nothingness, science cannot make an inference that goes beyond “physical existence”, since science is intrinsically the study of physical existence. To say that the universe came out of nothing is to include an extra metaphysical inference that goes beyond physical knowledge. It is impossible to determine through physics that the universe came out of something that is not physics. “Nothing” is not “physics”, and therefore it is not an object of scientific knowledge. If an apple popped into existence in front of a scientist and it couldn’t be explained by a prior physical cause, then all that a scientist can say about the matter is that the apple did not come from anything physical; which is to say that it was not caused by physics as we know and understand it. If the scientist then goes on to say that the apple came out of nothing, then that scientist is no-longer doing science and is instead making a philosophical inference based on his or her belief in Philosophical Naturalism.

 

[Jesusbrea]

The scientists are using a different sense of nothing which can be misleading and perhaps purposely so depending on the intention of the scientist. The metaphysical sense of nothing as it applies to ontology is different, and is the understanding that you have. Obviously, when it comes to ontological nothingness, science cannot make an inference that goes beyond “physical existence”, since science is intrinsically the study of physical existence. To say that the universe came out of nothing is to include an extra metaphysical inference that goes beyond physical knowledge. It is impossible to determine through physics that the universe came out of something that is not physics. “Nothing” is not “physics”, and therefore it is not an object of scientific knowledge. If an apple popped into existence in front of a scientist and it couldn’t be explained by a prior physical cause, then all that a scientist can say about the matter is that the apple did not come from anything physical; which is to say that it was not caused by physics as we know and understand it. If the scientist then goes on to say that the apple came out of nothing, then that scientist is no-longer doing science and is instead making a philosophical inference based on his or her belief in Philosophical Naturalism.

wasn’t that the case with that crazy ‘spontaneous generation’ hypothesis? speaking of which, shouldn’t that also be applied to this whole ‘creation’ in quantum vacuum? isn’t that just another case of spontaneous generation sindrome?. Now, we’re clear on the fact that emptiness is not nothingness, just curious about how this whole creatíon from zero energy makes sense.