12:50 The lecture starts

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.

12:49 to skip the windbag intros

Have watched this lecture repeatedly each time I understand a bit more-thank you for making this possible....

What a remarkable character. Love Dr. Krauss.

click on 13:13 to skip the kiss assing

Brilliant absolutely brilliant. Krauss is one of the best science communicators of all time.

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

I have no words to express how beautiful this lecture was! Totally engaging.

The interesting thing that the year is 2022 and i find this lecture and fell in love for this Dr.

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.

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.

Watching this lecture is like watching Doctor Who. It's so brilliant. "And that's the first clue nothing is interesting."

Laurence is at 12:43

Cosmology is where its at! This century will lay the foundation for the star children of the future to travel the universe :)

With humour the concepts were digestible. Enjoyed this lecture.

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.

The greatest lecture ever told

Love this. This explanation is of different level.

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.

One of the great minds of our day.

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

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.

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!

Even more respect for his shout out to Hitchens. Miss him now more than ever.

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.

This Krauss guy really takes flat earth to a whole new level. "The whole UNIVERSE is flat!"

+1 for mind blowingness.

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.

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...

Although, it's not a complete individual being, this person is AMAZING!!!

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

This was amazing

Love anything on astronomy!

12:50 to skip over the self-adulatory and "I have the mic and won't hand it off" introductory flap...

I don't know if he's the best physicist, but he's the funniest.

SUPER GENIUS

How can today have gotten here if there’s an infinite number of days before today I mean The universe must’ve had a beginning because there has to be something that transcends the physical world why does everything physical change but the laws that govern physical things don’t change it appears to be a product of a mind

A universe from something - great

The more I see this the more I believe the universe came from something!

LMK's faith is astounding!

That universe within each us concerns me much more. As Thoreau implored -- "Explore within. That's what requires the eye and the nerve".

The nothing isn’t nothing actually, it’s vaccum energy and quantum fluctuations

I like how he ascribed emotions and intelligence to the universe. Sounds like a theist to me.

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.

Great post !

How can you quantify nothing?

Nothing sure is something.

Is the introduction long enough? Jesus let’s get the show on the road Beavis!!

I don't get it. Ok the universe was created from "nothing" which is in fact full of virtual particles coming to life thanks to gravity but then it's not really nothing. Therefore it doesn't try to answer the question. I'm confused..

oh my god how many freakeb intros does he need, get on with the program already

"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.

12:50 If you want to skip an over-long preamble and get to Krauss's part.

Take A Moment Thank you for work University's speaks truth Stay Free

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...

Lawrence Krauss is like the prepubescent child of a much more intelligent lifeform... getting somewhere though..

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?

Wonderful talk.

Thanks for demonstrating there is nothing valid or relevant you can say.

Before starting a nonsensical lecture, try and crack a joke about interfaith dialogue

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.

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)

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.

Save yourself time, Krauss's nothing isn't an actual "nothing". Fail.

There’s a heck of a lot we don’t understand. Likely far more than we think we understand.

the fantastic Professor Krauss

Excellent!

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

Unless you want your ears to fall off, I'd suggest jumping straight to 12:30

@32:00 I couldn't help but sing to myself "my lumps. My lumps. My lovely massive lumps"... I'll let myself out.

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'.

15:22 "The universe doesn't exist so that we can be happy." --Lawrence Krauss That's quite a claim. I'm curious to know the method by which he acquired this knowledge.

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.

I thought she’d never stop.

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...

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)

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

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.

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?

The concept of "Nothing" represented by the number "0" (zero) did not exist in the beginning. The number "0" (zero) is a relatively recent human innovation in mathematics. But, there has always been "1" (one). The fact that one (1) exists and can generate the position/concept of "nothing" (0) shows that there first exists one (1). Thus, nothing (0) does not truly exist alone: One (1) must first exist that can generate the position/concept of nothing (0). Mathematically, Absolute nothing "could be" expressed as 0 to the power of 0, which can equal 1. "Nothing" IS "Something"; because, it comes from "Something". Moreover, since Nothing (perceived) is not Nothing (actual), then it is possible for Something to come from Nothing (actual). Because, Something (1) is inherently pre-existing within Nothing (actual), hence, 0 to the power of 0 can equal 1. Simply put, Something (1) exists before Nothing (0) can exist.

In shorts term.. if you wait long enuff.. anything will happen..i like this so much better than the consept of a creator.

B.S. ends at 12:49.

Is it possible that the universe was never created and has always existed but humans can’t comprehend that? Why do we think we have to know everything? Just a thought. How many times do we get it wrong in the present day? Yet somehow we think we can get it right 13 billion years ago? 👌

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.

Out of all these scientists I heard, he seems to be just right..

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?

Apparently, quantum mechanics is showing that both everything & nothing are not only possible simultaneously, but our reality?

for those wondering about the -1/12 thing, numberphile did a video on it.

Bologna, freshly packed snow. Applesauce. Science Fiction.

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.

The universe is a two-way system... humanity deserves better than a one-way death spiral!!!!

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.

Noting actually weighs something , therefore empty space has more energy than the entire expanding universe and the expansion moves faster than the speed of light but darkness moves and the same speed as light . IM so confused

How many intros do we need??