Krauss - A universe from nothing

[syeve]

Mods...feel free to move this.

I found this a great video that summarized all the books I have been reading over the past few years...including, Stephen Hawking (Universe in a Nutshell), Richard Dawkins, Krauss etc. Covers some amazing topics, I just found it to be a great vid overall. It’s just over an hour long but worth it; answers some questions I have long been asking.


EDIT: I would like to note- Please watch the whole thing, he makes his point at about 40 minutes...the universe can begin from nothing, or in other words, the universe is energy neutral and flat. Thanks!

7ImvlS8PLIo

Enjoy!

[93VR6]

Reminding myself to watch this later today.

[B20EF]

He's an exellent speaker, that was really entertaining.

[4lti]

Would you be able to post up what some of those questions you had, that the video answered. It might help spark my interest lol.

I wanna watch it, but I dunno how interested I would be during the 1Hr without any background information on this kind of stuff.

[syeve]

Originally posted by 4lti
Would you be able to post up what some of those questions you had, that the video answered. It might help spark my interest lol.

I wanna watch it, but I dunno how interested I would be during the 1Hr without any background information on this kind of stuff.

Hmm..."even with the big bang theory, there had to be something to trigger it, some form of energy, substance beforehand (or the religious shotgun approach of "something had to start even the big bang blah blah"). He obviously words it much better :D

He believes this to be untrue, that his theory suggests our universe is energy neutral, it is possible to have something form from nothing.

So basically, no deity.

It does briefly cover Newton -> Einstein -> Quantum very clearly. He is a cosmetologist so his angle is slightly different than a physicist.

If you are interested in time, space, physics, big-bang, how the universe will end, why is the universe expanding and will it eventually collapse (big crunch) etc. I think it would be worth your time.

I should also note, that this isn't some whackjob theorist...he is highly educated and holds a very pretigious role within the science community.

[mazdavirgin]

He also doesn't believe in string theory so ill take his opinion with a large grain of salt. Frankly the only reason he is getting press time is because it fits in with the atheist movement. As a counter point Hawkings is a big proponent of string theory.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
He also doesn't believe in string theory so ill take his opinion with a large grain of salt...

:werd: And string theory is mathematically sound.

[eg_eric]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
He also doesn't believe in string theory so ill take his opinion with a large grain of salt. Frankly the only reason he is getting press time is because it fits in with the atheist movement. As a counter point Hawkings is a big proponent of string theory.

exactly what i was thinking

[syeve]

Did you guys watch the video? He doesn't like the string theory because there is no way to test it.

"String theory (1969-present). String theory proposes a solution that reconciles relativity and quantum mechanics. To get there, it requires two radical changes in our view of the universe. The first is easy: What we've presumed are subatomic particles are actually tiny vibrating strings of energy, each 100 billion billion times smaller than the protons at the nucleus of an atom.

That's easy to accept. But for the math to work, there also must be more physical dimensions to reality than the three of space and one of time that we can perceive. The most popular string models require 10 or 11 dimensions. What we perceive as solid matter is mathematically explainable as the three-dimensional manifestation of "strings" of elementary particles vibrating and dancing through multiple dimensions of reality, like shadows on a wall. In theory, these extra dimensions surround us and contain myriad parallel universes. Nova's "The Elegant Universe" used Matrix-like computer animation to convincingly visualize these hidden dimensions.

Sounds neat, huh—almost too neat? Krauss' book is subtitled The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions as a polite way of saying String Theory Is for Suckers. String theory, he explains, has a catch: Unlike relativity and quantum mechanics, it can't be tested. That is, no one has been able to devise a feasible experiment for which string theory predicts measurable results any different from what the current wisdom already says would happen. Scientific Method 101 says that if you can't run a test that might disprove your theory, you can't claim it as fact. When I asked physicists like Nobel Prize-winner Frank Wilczek and string theory superstar Edward Witten for ideas about how to prove string theory, they typically began with scenarios like, "Let's say we had a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way …" Wilczek said strings aren't a theory, but rather a search for a theory. Witten bluntly added, "We don't yet understand the core idea."

[syeve]

Originally posted by mazdavirgin
He also doesn't believe in string theory so ill take his opinion with a large grain of salt. Frankly the only reason he is getting press time is because it fits in with the atheist movement. As a counter point Hawkings is a big proponent of string theory.

His opinion is backed by some pretty solid math. He is getting press time because people are tired of being insulted by religion.

That's the great thing about science isn't it. You can question it, furthermore, you are suppose to question it. He theories may be proven wrong or prove to be 100% accurate, at least some people are able to open their mind.

[Cos]

What was the Krauss book you read? I have read all the other books and am looking for something else.

Ever read reinventing gravity? Pretty good but can be a little techie for late night bed reading.

[01RedDX]

.

[syeve]

Originally posted by Cos
What was the Krauss book you read? I have read all the other books and am looking for something else.

Ever read reinventing gravity? Pretty good but can be a little techie for late night bed reading.

I read "hiding in the mirror"...it was good, to be honest I wasn't a huge Krauss fan...but I really like this video. I have not read reinventing gravity...I will look into it..thanks! I love new books!



Originally posted by 01RedDX


So does this open up the possibility of alternate universes and parallel dimensions, or am I out to lunch?

I guess the point I took from it was it is possible that there was nothing before our universe as we know it...it opens up the possibility that the big bang was in fact the "beginning"

OR you could argue that there was something before OUR big bang, some combination of events triggered OUR big bang. Maybe someone in a parallel universe created a hadron collider lol .

I didn't post this video to start a religious argument...it is just a cool video that talks about our universe.

I am going to watch it closer tonight...

[euphoria]

Thanks for posting up this amazing video. I wish the speaker could have gone into those topics which he had to skip due to the lack of time. His explanations are thorough and easy to comprehend.

[Hakkola]

Originally posted by syeve

Maybe someone in a parallel universe created a hadron collider lol .



Would that person be a god then? ;)

[syeve]

Originally posted by Hakkola


Would that person be a god then? ;)

lol...very good point. :D Not a very smart god...but yah

[01RedDX]

.

[mushi_mushi]

Originally posted by syeve
Did you guys watch the video? He doesn't like the string theory because there is no way to test it.

"String theory (1969-present). String theory proposes a solution that reconciles relativity and quantum mechanics. To get there, it requires two radical changes in our view of the universe. The first is easy: What we've presumed are subatomic particles are actually tiny vibrating strings of energy, each 100 billion billion times smaller than the protons at the nucleus of an atom.

That's easy to accept. But for the math to work, there also must be more physical dimensions to reality than the three of space and one of time that we can perceive. The most popular string models require 10 or 11 dimensions. What we perceive as solid matter is mathematically explainable as the three-dimensional manifestation of "strings" of elementary particles vibrating and dancing through multiple dimensions of reality, like shadows on a wall. In theory, these extra dimensions surround us and contain myriad parallel universes. Nova's "The Elegant Universe" used Matrix-like computer animation to convincingly visualize these hidden dimensions.

Sounds neat, huh—almost too neat? Krauss' book is subtitled The Mysterious Allure of Extra Dimensions as a polite way of saying String Theory Is for Suckers. String theory, he explains, has a catch: Unlike relativity and quantum mechanics, it can't be tested. That is, no one has been able to devise a feasible experiment for which string theory predicts measurable results any different from what the current wisdom already says would happen. Scientific Method 101 says that if you can't run a test that might disprove your theory, you can't claim it as fact. When I asked physicists like Nobel Prize-winner Frank Wilczek and string theory superstar Edward Witten for ideas about how to prove string theory, they typically began with scenarios like, "Let's say we had a particle accelerator the size of the Milky Way …" Wilczek said strings aren't a theory, but rather a search for a theory. Witten bluntly added, "We don't yet understand the core idea."

Thanks for posting this video. That is a valid point, this kind of stuff has also been an interest of mine, and I have read several books and watched videos on the subject. Im no expert, high level math/physics is not something I have a good understanding of, but it seems to me the scientific community is divided on string theory, because there is no empirical evidence to prove/disprove if strings/multi-universes exist.

I dont think that people should discount the speakers positions just because they have/or have not accepted a certain principle. Any time science makes a leap, the old guard are the first to object, at one time or another people didnt take Einstein or Schrodinger seriously, but time has proven them right.

[KandabashiDevil]

Krauss is merely presenting a hypothesis.
Nothing more :zzz:

Sure, it's interesting to speculate ... But this proves nothing!

I want my time back for all of the hypothetical debating I was forced to endure in University physics courses. The last thing I'll do is waste an hour of my time on more of the same rhetoric!

[syeve]

^^No, he is presenting a theory..that is science. He has some pretty significant data IMO. I bet you would like the video, he is pretty entertaining. If you took physics in university this would be pretty refreshing in comparison.

[v2kai]

thanks for the video post. interesting and good speaker

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by Hakkola


:werd: And string theory is mathematically sound.

Yes and no. String theory is more or less a catch-all theory to explain a lot of things that don't seem to make sense. The unfortunate part about it is that for the most part it isn't testable empirically, which sets it apart from "normal" theories in that it relies upon explanations that are near impossible to test. Hence why things like the LHC are so important, in that they finally may be able to create empirical evidence one way or another.


That was a very interesting video, thanks for posting it!

[Cos]

i need more of these to watch. I have watched lots of the Nova ones and a few Hawkins ones. Anyone help?

[syeve]

Stephen Hawkins has some on Discover Channel right now called Into the Universe with Stephen Hawkins...they are OK. One on time travel and one on Aliens are Meh. The best one he has is the third episode which for some reason is not on Discovery called The Story of Everything (found it on Vuze). It is worth watching.

The best one I have seen lately is the "How the Universe works" series. they are readily downloadable and worth the watch.

One of the issues I have come across is new things are being learned basically weekly so I have started reading more than watching. Check out Phil Plait's astronomy's blog on the discovery page...he is pretty good and appears in a lot of the tv shows about Hubble and theoretical physics.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/

Other than that I just try to find random ones like the Kruass Vid through other websites like reddit. Wow, I sound like a nerd right now.

[B20EF]

Stephen Hawking. He deserves to have his name spelled correctly. Into the Universe was a good series, well worth downloading.

[syeve]

Originally posted by B20EF
He deserves to have his name spelt correctly.

:rofl:

Anyways, I re-watched the time travel and alien one and they are actually pretty good. I initially watched them with a girl and couldn't concentrate.

[01RedDX]

.

[syeve]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
Amazing to think that our own universe could just be the inside of an event horizon (black hole) with the big bang being the inverse of the birth of a black hole basically a white hole.

Don't think like that too much...your head will explode.

The distinction between the past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion. - Einstein

[Neil4Speed]

syeve Thanks for the post, great speaker for real.

[syeve]

I saw this on bad astonomy today and thought it was pretty cool.

That is the Space Shuttle Discovery launching the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit!

Anyways...two things I love, photography and astronomy. This day should be noted as our view of the universe around us would never be the same.

Arpil 24, 1990

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/files/2010/06/ShuttleJump_clean_610.jpg

[syeve]

Another theft from bad astronomy

A great vid, 17 minutes long but well worth it.

HdwOlk6HIVc

[Cos]

^^ I love brian cox. Thanks for the post!

[BigMass]

The physics world currently is like a wild west shoot out. Watching lectures on quantum theory is almost pointless. I prefer a round table discussion between people with differing viewpoints of which there is to a great extent. There are physicists that have disproven certain things Hawking has said but don’t hold his celebrity status so they don’t get the spotlight. It almost seems like true debate is dead. Which is a great shame.

[broken_legs]

This guy sounds dangerous to me.


Forget Jesus. The Stars died so you could be here today.

[DRKM]

Why does he sound dangerous?

[syeve]

Originally posted by BigMass
The physics world currently is like a wild west shoot out. Watching lectures on quantum theory is almost pointless. I prefer a round table discussion between people with differing viewpoints of which there is to a great extent. There are physicists that have disproven certain things Hawking has said but don’t hold his celebrity status so they don’t get the spotlight. It almost seems like true debate is dead. Which is a great shame.

Then don't watch them.



Originally posted by broken_legs
This guy sounds dangerous to me.



It's the other way around that's scary to me.