As if this dumbass questions what he gives as facts when they are impossibilities. Krauss, "The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life." Just past 18:00 here: th-cam.com/video/7ImvlS8PLIo/w-d-xo.html That's not based on science but only Krauss farting that out of his dumb ass. th-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/w-d-xo.html Life takes information to proceed on. But to atheists/agnostics, chaos through time gave us information. Although it's even hard to write such a ridiculous statement, they believe it. All one can do is laugh at such stupidity. th-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/w-d-xo.html creation.com/laws-of-information-1 creation.com/laws-of-information-2 To this dumbass, it's ok to say that space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, ALL being there ALREADY with NO explanation of how, is OK to call "nothing". There, by that alone, Krauss excused himself of all of that. You simply come up with a childish snot-nosed brat excuse to call it "nothing". But it gets worse, space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, called nothing, created more space, matter, and time. The laws of physics were broken to create more space, matter, and time. Keep in mind (for those that have a working mind), that this "nothing" was eternal, and just by chance about 13 billion years ago according to Krauss, then did its magic. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics were asleep then. *Krauss' attempt to dispell the need of God, just confirms the need.* "A vacuum, to us, is a space with no matter in it. As a practical matter though, it's really a space with very little matter in it. You might already know that it's REALLY hard to get all the matter out of any space" from: education.jlab.org/qa/vacuum_02.html "Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states - no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems - are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff."- from: www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0 "That makes Matter = Energy; Energy = Space; Space = Time. Therefore matter, energy, space and time are all interchangeable characteristics, which implies strongly that they are all forms of one thing." from: medium.com/@alasdairf/are-matter-energy-time-space-all-interchangeable-e2dbf7d411e5 And this "nothing" from chaos gave us the fine-tuning. www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe I like starting from the beginning because it shows how we got something to begin with. Not just that, it shows from the start who gave up their logic and who did not. From all we know, creation HAD to be a supernatural event. The first logical and honest step is to admit that. The second step is to seek who or what did the supernatural event and the proof for that. Fools jump to 'who created god', 'god of the gaps', 'science does not deal with supernatural' and whatever excuse they can use to prevent them from seeing the truth. All they can do is fart smoke screens to avoid the issue at hand. Those that deny it was a supernatural event, such a Krauss, Dawkins and a whole host of other fools, live in their fairytale of just making things up with nothing to back them. They say things so outrageous that they ask you to give up your common sense for science. Krauss and Dawkins go back and forth calling it "literally nothing" knowing it is something, and even their something can't produce what we have. th-cam.com/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/w-d-xo.html Krauss admits he does not give a damn what nothing means and he then says he wants to be honest with his readers. He is full of doublespeak. He is WRONG and all he has is pride to continue saying such stupid things. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1 "One unsolved mystery is why there is an excess of mater in our universe; this is the Matter/antimatter problem. Why is the universe only made of matter? Matter/antimatter particles annihilate each other to produce radiation. Radiation coverts to equal amounts of matter and anti matter. Krauss says that the CMB suggests the photon-to-proton ratio was a billion to one. He says that by ‘plausible quantum processes’ the universe started out with 1 part per billion more matter than antimatter. Most of the matter and antimatter combined to make photons. Later he admits we still don’t really know how this asymmetry between matter and antimatter began." "The energy calculated for empty space assuming virtual particles is 10 to the 120 times greater than that observed. This is a long-standing unsolved problem." "Krauss also says that this proves you can get something from nothing given the energetics of empty space and the law of gravity. So he says you can get a universe from nothing if you can start with empty space with non-zero energy and the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics. He admits empty space with non-zero energy is something!" Quotes from another review of Krauss' book here: creation.com/review-krauss-universe-from-nothing You can read Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins, and others who praise their gravity but they just made it up and have no idea where it could have come from. And the list goes on. All they have comes down to nothing. From the start, fools gave up their logic and that does not bother them. When it does not bother someone from the start, they continue giving up their logic with what follows.
Re “nothing short of completely delightful”: - Ain’t it though, I first watched this lecture ohhhh.. prolly four or five years ago &’ve returned this morning (been feeling somewhat nostalgic, fancied something both formative and familiar) for what is likely my fourth or fifth view.
Physics IS a very enjoyable experience. Just a short story. As a student, i had a big need for cash and not much useful time nor abilities to get it. So as most of students i did tutoring. There was that girl, failing her math and physics classes in the primary school. And i was hired to help her pass. I had a couple months, so it was not that difficult. She passed, but my best paycheck was her last words before the summer holidays: "You know... i think i don't hate physics that much anymore" Just simple understanding made this whole subject so much more pallatable. And as much as i love maths, it's after all that universal language... I much preffer physics. It's like describing you how does it taste to have an icecream to actually have one and enjoy it :)
I love Lawrence Krauss. He's like an overly enthusiastic puppy about science, walking up and down, shouting, waving his hands...*"Isn't science awesome you guys!!!?"*
*Inside* its *domain*, yup, Science is fucking awesome! *Outside* its domain _it is completely useless_ but that is to be expected as Logic is *incomplete*. (Scientists haven't yet advanced their understanding to grok the 2 polar opposite paradigms.) Science: The subtraction of falsehood. Intuition: The addition of truth. Same goal, just different paths on the edge of a circle on how to get there. :-)
Michael Pohoreski I'm afraid i don't believe that. 'Intuition' is simply a word we use to describe certain preprogrammed information that humans are born with, such as a newborn baby intuitively holding it's breath under water without having to be taught to do so. This is studied by the field of evolutionary psychology. 'Truth' is simply a word we use to describe a certain relationship between a statement and reality, namely that the statement reflects reality accurately. Someone makes a statement about reality. We then observe or study reality to see if it conforms to the statement. If the statement describes reality accurately, we call the statement 'true'. If it doesn't, we call it false. It is reality that defines what is 'true'. Science is the first, best method we have for discerning fact from fiction, reality from fantasy, and it is the only reliable method humanity knows of for studying reality to find out the 'truth' of a statement. You can't use preprogrammed information that humans are born with(intuition) to add 'truth' to anything. In fact how can you add 'accuracy to a statement'(truth)? The only way is to change the statement. How would you even know if the statement needs altering in order to reflect reality more accurately? By studying reality. What do you need in order to study reality? Science. Anything else is just wishful thinking, not truth.
RileyKaiSeeker Your fallacy about intuition is based on assuming it is preprogrammed human information. That is an incomplete definition. Intuition is a non-linear "process" (sic.) that is not confined to time. You also are assuming information is confined to the human domain. Information and Knowledge are not a respecter of species. i.e. They are not limited to just humans. **You don't understand intuition because you don't understand marriage.** A good analogy would be to understand the additive color model and subtractive color model. Both produce the same colors but in completely (complementary) different ways. Likewise your fallacy about truth based on reality is incorrect as any paradox will show. e.g. A particle is not a wave, and a wave is not a particle. Yet light behaves both _like_ a wave AND a particle. One truth does not negate another truth. Truth is dependent on the _starting_ assumptions. i.e. Euclidean Geometry and Non-Euclidean Geometry come to radically different conclusions. Likewise, I can define 1+1=2, or 1+1=1, etc. Within a given _context_ we can say something is true. Yet we can interpret that _exact_ same context differently and declare _that_ to be false. Truth is not only a word, and not only a logical mathematical state; at its highest level it is a state of being. Ergo, Subjective. ALL objective truth is built upon the subjective experience. Science, a linear process _confined_ by time, is only _one_ way to understand Truth. i.e. There is no experiment one can do to determine what happened before the Big Bang. Does that mean we can never know? Of course we can know. Just not by Science. To say Science is the "best way" is the height of ignorance. First, define "best"? Second, how did you _measure_ this? Third, how did you _prove_ this? Fourth, what _other_ system(s) did you try? Science _might_ be the "best and only reliable" way for _you_ but to assume it is the "best" way for everyone _else_ is just plain presumptuous and arrogant. Science has ZERO ways of measuring Consciousness and Love. Prove that you love your spouse? There is **no experiment** you can do, yet you **know** this to be true. There are many things Science will never know until **after** they have happened. i.e. First Contact in ~10 years, the 2 missing fundamental forces (the strong galactic force and weak galactic force), how white holes are always paired with black holes, etc. Intuition is A Way to know things outside of the space/time domain. It is only unreliable to those that don't know how to use it properly. It is like a musician attempting to play an instrument, At first he just makes noise. As they continue to practice they slowly start to make beautiful music. If you want to study reality -- FIRST, one needs consciousness / mind, SECOND you need OBSERVATION. THEN comes Science, which is only one TOOL that we have available. Is it a good tool? Absolutely! Is it the only tool? No, not by a long shot. The nice thing about Science is that is not mutually exclusive with other system(s). You can use it to _augment_ the search for truth. To use it solely means you will forever never grasp the deeper non-linear realities.
Michael Pohoreski The OED defines intuition as *1.) **_The ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning._* *2.) **_A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning._* I think both of these are perfectly acceptable to describe intuition and neither of them limit intuition to humans. Describing intuition as 'non-linear' sounds like woo-woo to me. If it is 'non-linear', (whatever that means), then provide the scientific evidence that demonstrates that. If there isn't any, then i can't tell if you're just making it up or not, and it would be irrational for me to accept such a claim, or indeed, any claim for which there is no evidence. If someone makes the statement _"Light behaves like a wave and a particle"_ , we then must check reality to see if this is the case. If the statement defines reality accurately, which it does, then we call the statement 'true'. It's still reality that defines the truth, otherwise, anything could be true. If someone said "Light behaves like a particle.", that statement is still true, but it is an incomplete truth. Mathematics and geometry are conceptual. There are a certain number of planets in our solar system, and we call that number '9', and even if humans, and therefore mathematics, didn't exist, the number of planets in our solar system would remain the same, and it is the physical reality that defines the 'truth' of that fact, but with mathematical systems, they still have a reality, but because they're conceptual by nature, it is the reality of the rules of the system that define what is 'true' Truth actually wouldn't exist if no intelligent life existed, as there would be no one to make statements about reality, and no one to observe reality to see if the statement described reality accurately. Although all humans experience the universe subjectively, we can test our subjective experience to see if it's reliable. If i see a 9 foot dragon standing in front of me, i can test that by asking others if they see it, or i can film it or take a photo of it. If all of our subjective experiences correspond with one another and there's photographic evidence, we call that 'objectively true' It may very well be the case that there are some things about the universe we may never know. Or, maybe it is possible that we're capable of learning everything, but to say "Of course we can know!" is presumptuous and has a wiff of the arrogance that religions display. Religions seems to have this belief that humans somehow have the 'right' to know everything, and get angry at the idea that it may not be possible. By 'best', i mean science makes planes fly, computers compute, satellites orbit the earth, kill viruses and treats diseases. It can make predictions. It works. Nothing else can do any of these things. If it could, we could use science to demonstrate that. So far, nothing has been shown to. Love is a profound feeling that can inspire poetry, art and music, but it's still various neuro-chemicals. Right now, we don't understand love scientifically, and even if one day we understand it fully, it will still never explain our feelings. That's what art is for. But having feelings doesn't tell us anything other than how we feel. It's profoundly arrogant to assume that, because one feels something, this somehow tells you something about the world outside of your own brain, or somehow describes an aspect of the universe. It doesn't. And if it does, well then, you should be able to use science to test whether that is the case and demonstrate it to others. If you can't, then all you have is a 'feeling', nothing more. To be honest, what you're saying sounds like the same kind of woo-woo that Deepak Chopra comes out with. I'm all for music, art, poetry and moments of 'transcendence' that make me feel wonderful, but i wouldn't presume for a moment that these feelings can somehow tell me something reliable about the universe or existence outside of my own mind. How would i know i'm right? I'd need some sort of experiment that could demonstrate that, and then it would become science. When it comes to the universe, i'm only interested in what generates reliable, predicable, repeatable results that can be shown to others. Logic, reason, rationality, critical thinking, skepticism and evidence. Religion, spirituality and 'new age' stuff may make us feel good, but they tell us nothing demonstrable. It's just wishful thinking.
RileyKaiSeeker You're too busying worshiping the god of Science, Logic, that you have _completely_ failed to pay attention to the messengers: * _"The only real valuable thing is intuition."_ -- Albert Einstein * _"There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."_ -- Albert Einstein * _"It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover."_ -- Henri Poincare * _"The two operations of our understanding, intuition and deduction, on which alone we have said we must rely in the acquisition of knowledge."_ -- Rene Descartes * _"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition."_ -- Steve Jobs * _“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”_ -- Carl Sagan To say Intuition doesn't work, or is useless is the height of ignorance about history full of people who _proved_ otherwise. Calling something you don't understand as "woo-woo" just makes you look ignorant. As a mystic, I again repeat what I said early: _You have no clue about intuition because you fail to understand marriage._ If you **truly** want to understand intuition ask your wife to teach you. Just remember you can't use Logic to understand it. Intuition is non-logical, by definition. Dismissing 50% of how the mind works only limits your own understanding. Since you mention you don't have a frame of reference to understand what non-linear is, here is an analogy. * Logic is linear. That is, it goes from A, to B, to C. * Intuition is non-linear, the jump from A directly to C. It is MUCH more then that but you'll have to discover that for yourself. Instead of tossing the baby out with the bathwater, it would behoove you to listen to the wisdom of even those you disagree with: * _"Many scientists think that philosophy has no place, so for me it's a sad time because the role of reflection, contemplation, meditation, self inquiry, insight, intuition, imagination, creativity, free will, is in a way not given any importance, which is the domain of philosophers."_ -- Deepak Chopra
Just watched this video and loved it! Very engaging, witty, intellectual and amazing. Lawrence Krauss is amongst my favourite scientists of all time. In one word AWESOME
lol, top 10 funniest physics lectures for this week? how many damn physics lectures have you seen let alone lectures in general. Also for this week? how many do you watch to have a list of top 10 funniest physics specific lectures each week.
I couldn't help myself imagining Pro. Krauss teaching high school physics. I didn't do physics when I was in high school because I was afraid of it so I did chemistry instead. But if I had Professor Krauss as my physics teacher, man! I would have become a theoretical physicist by now -*-
thank you ( whoever you are ) for publishing this lecture. and thank you prof. krauss for allowing everyone to see this. it definately motivates me to pursue a career in science instead of media or management :)
To all of the open minded, logical, inquisitive,rational,pure,unaffected people (like me) :this man is a modern day genius. If people don't get this man and his knowledge..then who are they?.who raised them?...what is their sense?
You're just a typical dumbass following dumbass Krauss. YOU are affected. You live your life to be a dumbass. Get off your high horse and realize what a fool you are. Krauss, "The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life." Just past 18:00 here: th-cam.com/video/7ImvlS8PLIo/w-d-xo.html That's not based on science but only Krauss farting that out of his dumb ass. th-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/w-d-xo.html Life takes information to proceed on. But to atheists/agnostics, chaos through time gave us information. Although it's even hard to write such a ridiculous statement, they believe it. All one can do is laugh at such stupidity. th-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/w-d-xo.html creation.com/laws-of-information-1 creation.com/laws-of-information-2 To this dumbass, it's ok to say that space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, ALL being there ALREADY with NO explanation of how, is OK to call "nothing". There, by that alone, Krauss excused himself of all of that. You simply come up with a childish snot-nosed brat excuse to call it "nothing". But it gets worse, space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, called nothing, created more space, matter, and time. The laws of physics were broken to create more space, matter, and time. Keep in mind (for those that have a working mind), that this "nothing" was eternal, and just by chance about 13 billion years ago according to Krauss, then did its magic. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics were asleep then. *Krauss' attempt to dispell the need of God, just confirms the need.* "A vacuum, to us, is a space with no matter in it. As a practical matter though, it's really a space with very little matter in it. You might already know that it's REALLY hard to get all the matter out of any space" from: education.jlab.org/qa/vacuum_02.html "Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states - no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems - are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff."- from: www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0 "That makes Matter = Energy; Energy = Space; Space = Time. Therefore matter, energy, space and time are all interchangeable characteristics, which implies strongly that they are all forms of one thing." from: medium.com/@alasdairf/are-matter-energy-time-space-all-interchangeable-e2dbf7d411e5 And this "nothing" from chaos gave us the fine-tuning. www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe I like starting from the beginning because it shows how we got something to begin with. Not just that, it shows from the start who gave up their logic and who did not. From all we know, creation HAD to be a supernatural event. The first logical and honest step is to admit that. The second step is to seek who or what did the supernatural event and the proof for that. Fools jump to 'who created god', 'god of the gaps', 'science does not deal with supernatural' and whatever excuse they can use to prevent them from seeing the truth. All they can do is fart smoke screens to avoid the issue at hand. Those that deny it was a supernatural event, such a Krauss, Dawkins and a whole host of other fools, live in their fairytale of just making things up with nothing to back them. They say things so outrageous that they ask you to give up your common sense for science. Krauss and Dawkins go back and forth calling it "literally nothing" knowing it is something, and even their something can't produce what we have. th-cam.com/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/w-d-xo.html Krauss admits he does not give a damn what nothing means and he then says he wants to be honest with his readers. He is full of doublespeak. He is WRONG and all he has is pride to continue saying such stupid things. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1 "One unsolved mystery is why there is an excess of mater in our universe; this is the Matter/antimatter problem. Why is the universe only made of matter? Matter/antimatter particles annihilate each other to produce radiation. Radiation coverts to equal amounts of matter and anti matter. Krauss says that the CMB suggests the photon-to-proton ratio was a billion to one. He says that by ‘plausible quantum processes’ the universe started out with 1 part per billion more matter than antimatter. Most of the matter and antimatter combined to make photons. Later he admits we still don’t really know how this asymmetry between matter and antimatter began." "The energy calculated for empty space assuming virtual particles is 10 to the 120 times greater than that observed. This is a long-standing unsolved problem." "Krauss also says that this proves you can get something from nothing given the energetics of empty space and the law of gravity. So he says you can get a universe from nothing if you can start with empty space with non-zero energy and the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics. He admits empty space with non-zero energy is something!" Quotes from another review of Krauss' book here: creation.com/review-krauss-universe-from-nothing You can read Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins, and others who praise their gravity but they just made it up and have no idea where it could have come from. And the list goes on. All they have comes down to nothing. From the start, fools gave up their logic and that does not bother them. When it does not bother someone from the start, they continue giving up their logic with what follows.
Wow, what a talk, very educational. very inspiring as well. its even funny in parts. Everyone and their dog should watch this. It nails it in 1 hour (approximation), that is your gym hour, your lunch hour, an hour of your life to develop clarity.
To be impressed by Krauss is to be impressed by a lying dumbass. Oh, which makes you a dumbass. Krauss, "The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life." Just past 18:00 here: th-cam.com/video/7ImvlS8PLIo/w-d-xo.html That's not based on science but only Krauss farting that out of his dumb ass. th-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/w-d-xo.html Life takes information to proceed on. But to atheists/agnostics, chaos through time gave us information. Although it's even hard to write such a ridiculous statement, they believe it. All one can do is laugh at such stupidity. th-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/w-d-xo.html creation.com/laws-of-information-1 creation.com/laws-of-information-2 To this dumbass, it's ok to say that space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, ALL being there ALREADY with NO explanation of how, is OK to call "nothing". There, by that alone, Krauss excused himself of all of that. You simply come up with a childish snot-nosed brat excuse to call it "nothing". But it gets worse, space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, called nothing, created more space, matter, and time. The laws of physics were broken to create more space, matter, and time. Keep in mind (for those that have a working mind), that this "nothing" was eternal, and just by chance about 13 billion years ago according to Krauss, then did its magic. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics were asleep then. *Krauss' attempt to dispell the need of God, just confirms the need.* "A vacuum, to us, is a space with no matter in it. As a practical matter though, it's really a space with very little matter in it. You might already know that it's REALLY hard to get all the matter out of any space" from: education.jlab.org/qa/vacuum_02.html "Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states - no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems - are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff."- from: www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0 "That makes Matter = Energy; Energy = Space; Space = Time. Therefore matter, energy, space and time are all interchangeable characteristics, which implies strongly that they are all forms of one thing." from: medium.com/@alasdairf/are-matter-energy-time-space-all-interchangeable-e2dbf7d411e5 And this "nothing" from chaos gave us the fine-tuning. www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe I like starting from the beginning because it shows how we got something to begin with. Not just that, it shows from the start who gave up their logic and who did not. From all we know, creation HAD to be a supernatural event. The first logical and honest step is to admit that. The second step is to seek who or what did the supernatural event and the proof for that. Fools jump to 'who created god', 'god of the gaps', 'science does not deal with supernatural' and whatever excuse they can use to prevent them from seeing the truth. All they can do is fart smoke screens to avoid the issue at hand. Those that deny it was a supernatural event, such a Krauss, Dawkins and a whole host of other fools, live in their fairytale of just making things up with nothing to back them. They say things so outrageous that they ask you to give up your common sense for science. Krauss and Dawkins go back and forth calling it "literally nothing" knowing it is something, and even their something can't produce what we have. th-cam.com/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/w-d-xo.html Krauss admits he does not give a damn what nothing means and he then says he wants to be honest with his readers. He is full of doublespeak. He is WRONG and all he has is pride to continue saying such stupid things. www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1 "One unsolved mystery is why there is an excess of mater in our universe; this is the Matter/antimatter problem. Why is the universe only made of matter? Matter/antimatter particles annihilate each other to produce radiation. Radiation coverts to equal amounts of matter and anti matter. Krauss says that the CMB suggests the photon-to-proton ratio was a billion to one. He says that by ‘plausible quantum processes’ the universe started out with 1 part per billion more matter than antimatter. Most of the matter and antimatter combined to make photons. Later he admits we still don’t really know how this asymmetry between matter and antimatter began." "The energy calculated for empty space assuming virtual particles is 10 to the 120 times greater than that observed. This is a long-standing unsolved problem." "Krauss also says that this proves you can get something from nothing given the energetics of empty space and the law of gravity. So he says you can get a universe from nothing if you can start with empty space with non-zero energy and the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics. He admits empty space with non-zero energy is something!" Quotes from another review of Krauss' book here: creation.com/review-krauss-universe-from-nothing You can read Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins, and others who praise their gravity but they just made it up and have no idea where it could have come from. And the list goes on. All they have comes down to nothing. From the start, fools gave up their logic and that does not bother them. When it does not bother someone from the start, they continue giving up their logic with what follows.
@@lepidoptera9337 God made an intentional mistake that TH-cam song "it's a mistake",. The mistake is monuments. Planets and stars are monuments. He had the problem of making a room comfortable starting with nothing.
@@lepidoptera9337 the imagination of the universe is anarchy poems. I had temporary ability to make them and made enough to study. Naming artifacts with pattern recognition intelligence is how to learn about the universe. That where the intelligent design is. It's not in the biology.
@@lepidoptera9337 an education gave everyone brain damage. They think only a dead universe is grammatically correct All I get is drug jokes from uncreative people.
For anyone who liked the cow-as-circle bit, and how the proportions of animals scale differently and impose logical limits on how animals can exist, the subject is called Allometry.
*****: my take on the joke is this, if you are interested: A lot of physics (especially Krauss's specialty) is particle pshysics. Think atoms, protons, subatomic particles, etc. We cannot actually see atoms or protons, but through experiments and inference we know they are there. However, since we cannot see them, how do we represent them on paper when talking about them and modeling them? We use spheres. A big circle for a proton and a little circle for an electron, for example. BUT, electrons aren't little circles neatly orbiting protons/atomic nuclei. They exhibit properties of both waves and particles. They exist in regions around the nucleus (called orbitals) but you cannot know precisely where in the orbital the electron actually exists. So even though our diagram of circles is not correct, it still helps us understand the atoms and allows us to move forward with whatever theory/experiment/lecture we're conducting. And the reason why that's funny in my opinion is that it shows a great paradox in our reality, whereby we can use an incorrect assumption - that the electron or cow is a sphere - to make accurate predictions about their behavior, as the physicist in the joke clearly was about to start doing. The reason why most people don't get it is that it's not a funny joke in the everyday world of ha ha funny jokes. You have to have an understanding of physics to get it, and since (sadly) most people don't have that understanding these days (at least in the US, where our ranking in science in math is well below the OECD average and falling), that means most people will not get the joke. I hope you found this interesting. I'm glad I was able to write this while waiting on hold on the phone for the next available representative.
***** I certainly don't claim to have a deep understanding of it myself, but isn't that a wonderful thing to admit? To be able to say - "I don't know the answer." The reason why I think it's wonderful is that, in a sane person who hasn't already accepted dogma as fact, that admission of ignorance provides a reason to learn about the topic and to further their understanding. It's only when we realize how little we actually know that we can begin to learn anything new. I know too many people who, once they graduated college and became adults, lead their lives as if there was no reason for them to learn anything new. That's what gets you stuck in a rut and I refuse to end up that way. I make it a point to learn at least one new thing a day. If I didn't I would consider that day as an opportunity lost.
30:17 I guess it is not good to use money as an example. Most people care a lot if they earn 10,000 $ or 20,000 $ per year. But physicists use a computer or calculator to do the actual calculations, these estimates are mainly used to see if you have done a wrong input.
I usually get a kick out of asking people how old they are. When they come back with some number, I remind them that they are actually a bit older than that, 13.7 billion years to be sort of exact. Every atom in their being was created in the big Bang, even the ones that are not hydrogen started there, they just morphed into something else in a few supernovas along the way. So are actually eternal all ready, and we didn't need religion to get that.
"I remind them that they are actually a bit older than that, 13.7 billion years" Wow, do you also tell them how then there can still be Carbon 14 in diamonds? "Every atom in their being was created in the big Bang" And you have scientific proof of this. Please give it. "So are actually eternal all ready, and we didn't need religion to get that." Please share your science how we are "eternal all ready". Oh, eternal is more than a bit older than 13.7 billion years. So which is it? You can't have both.
@Dirk Knight and what you consider an answer to all the above things I wrote.... "What's your problem? Did you fail science class in high school? Of course you did. :-): Says the dumbass who thinks it was not noticed you could not give me science to show me wrong by explaining how.
+Wen Chu Yup I am a physics student. And there are seven of them. I deliberately left out the name of "amount of substance". I was only puzzled because Prof. Krauss asserted that every quantity can be expressed in terms of mass, length and time.
+Liz R Yes but Mechanics is not everything in life. I mean we do charge our mobile and cook food using heat everyday. Though I appreciate the gist of what he is trying to point out but this was a small factual error which needs to be pointed out. I mean his point about awe and wonder of physics would still hold even if he says that there are only 7 base quantities and everything else can be expressed in terms of these quantities. We teach this thing to students in ninth year of the school. And before anybody misunderstands, I am almost a fan of Prof. Krauss.
4/3*pi*r^3 ...hes completely off...and ADDs the earths volume to the volume of the atmosphere... earths volume should be subtracted from the volume of the atmosphere...
I had you tuned to the frequency of my brain. Plus, Kermit, Coaster, and Many. Very Many...... Obviously, I’m Right, and Remain Correct! Duane A. Gruber DDS. derdag The ☝️ The derdagian1 All must cede to this point. Ultimately, I Own the Universe for the rest of my life, because I’m the Troll of Trolls. Hahahaha I’m just waiting! lol I can tell that you’ve developed a career on what happened back in the day, as your videos have clued me in. Our old discussions about the laws of Science and who is Currently Correct, FIRST! ☝️
Here's some things NOT to throw out.:HUMAN brains are the largest brains.Cows milk is meant for baby cows not humans (the saturated fat in cows' milk can clog the arteries to your heart and give you a heart attack) and the farmer should retire the cows and grow almonds (or soy) for almond milk or soy milk.Both almond milk and soy milk have no saturated fat and because of this they"re heart healthy and lactose free.
"Your drinking the sweat from your parents when they were....." and "Kids are too worried about getting jobs"..... This guy is completely disassociated from reality.
Your username is wydopnthrtl, and you're saying a physicist who's dedicated his life to accurately understanding the nature of reality as it is, and helping others do so, is dissociated from reality? Which god do you believe in fella?
@@Bytrl He is a *theoretical* physicist. And I revere the "one God" he still wants to bury. Hum --> www.philanthropydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Epstein-11.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.2x.jpg
He also says the lifespan of the sun was calculated at 10x, when it was actually calculated at 9.5x. I think he might be trying to fudge some calculations for the sake of simplicity. It takes more effort to calculate 12.566 than 10. He sort of talks about this at 25:00 or so.
+rog944 You missed the point. That's what he said about the main difference between the thought process of a physicist and a mathematician. 4pi is 12.5663..... Which is simply 1.2 X 10 (in scientific notation). So for our approximate estimations, its just 10, Its just easier to work with. But at around 27 minutes, the 10^15 factor is clearly wrong.
Good approach, however, he uses engineering approaches and associates them to physics/physicists. Dimensional analysis is a standard subject in engineering.
If you love the universe the birds will make you mentally ill so you fight with the environment to make it intelligent. Your supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God needed. God has been liberated and he is fully capable of evolving himself without any help. God don't want your worship he just wants to get married. Royal weddings is most watched thing on television. We fixed the video and audio for best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.
Bravo... you are the best Lawrence...
This is nothing short of completely delightful. I love watching this man.
Because science!
Alex Feldstein "Science. It works, bitches."
As if this dumbass questions what he gives as facts when they are impossibilities.
Krauss, "The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life."
Just past 18:00 here: th-cam.com/video/7ImvlS8PLIo/w-d-xo.html
That's not based on science but only Krauss farting that out of his dumb ass.
th-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/w-d-xo.html
Life takes information to proceed on. But to atheists/agnostics, chaos through time gave us information. Although it's even hard to write such a ridiculous statement, they believe it. All one can do is laugh at such stupidity.
th-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/w-d-xo.html
creation.com/laws-of-information-1
creation.com/laws-of-information-2
To this dumbass, it's ok to say that space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, ALL being there ALREADY with NO explanation of how, is OK to call "nothing". There, by that alone, Krauss excused himself of all of that. You simply come up with a childish snot-nosed brat excuse to call it "nothing".
But it gets worse, space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, called nothing, created more space, matter, and time. The laws of physics were broken to create more space, matter, and time. Keep in mind (for those that have a working mind), that this "nothing" was eternal, and just by chance about 13 billion years ago according to Krauss, then did its magic. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics were asleep then.
*Krauss' attempt to dispell the need of God, just confirms the need.*
"A vacuum, to us, is a space with no matter in it. As a practical matter though, it's really a space with very little matter in it. You might already know that it's REALLY hard to get all the matter out of any space"
from: education.jlab.org/qa/vacuum_02.html
"Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states - no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems - are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff."-
from: www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0
"That makes Matter = Energy; Energy = Space; Space = Time. Therefore matter, energy, space and time are all interchangeable characteristics, which implies strongly that they are all forms of one thing."
from: medium.com/@alasdairf/are-matter-energy-time-space-all-interchangeable-e2dbf7d411e5
And this "nothing" from chaos gave us the fine-tuning.
www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html
kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
I like starting from the beginning because it shows how we got something to begin with. Not just that, it shows from the start who gave up their logic and who did not.
From all we know, creation HAD to be a supernatural event. The first logical and honest step is to admit that. The second step is to seek who or what did the supernatural event and the proof for that. Fools jump to 'who created god', 'god of the gaps', 'science does not deal with supernatural' and whatever excuse they can use to prevent them from seeing the truth. All they can do is fart smoke screens to avoid the issue at hand.
Those that deny it was a supernatural event, such a Krauss, Dawkins and a whole host of other fools, live in their fairytale of just making things up with nothing to back them. They say things so outrageous that they ask you to give up your common sense for science. Krauss and Dawkins go back and forth calling it "literally nothing" knowing it is something, and even their something can't produce what we have.
th-cam.com/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/w-d-xo.html
Krauss admits he does not give a damn what nothing means and he then says he wants to be honest with his readers. He is full of doublespeak. He is WRONG and all he has is pride to continue saying such stupid things.
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1
"One unsolved mystery is why there is an excess of mater in our universe; this is the Matter/antimatter problem. Why is the universe only made of matter? Matter/antimatter particles annihilate each other to produce radiation. Radiation coverts to equal amounts of matter and anti matter. Krauss says that the CMB suggests the photon-to-proton ratio was a billion to one. He says that by ‘plausible quantum processes’ the universe started out with 1 part per billion more matter than antimatter. Most of the matter and antimatter combined to make photons. Later he admits we still don’t really know how this asymmetry between matter and antimatter began."
"The energy calculated for empty space assuming virtual particles is 10 to the 120 times greater than that observed. This is a long-standing unsolved problem."
"Krauss also says that this proves you can get something from nothing given the energetics of empty space and the law of gravity. So he says you can get a universe from nothing if you can start with empty space with non-zero energy and the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics. He admits empty space with non-zero energy is something!"
Quotes from another review of Krauss' book here: creation.com/review-krauss-universe-from-nothing
You can read Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins, and others who praise their gravity but they just made it up and have no idea where it could have come from. And the list goes on. All they have comes down to nothing.
From the start, fools gave up their logic and that does not bother them. When it does not bother someone from the start, they continue giving up their logic with what follows.
Re “nothing short of completely delightful”:
-
Ain’t it though, I first watched this lecture ohhhh.. prolly four or five years ago &’ve returned this morning (been feeling somewhat nostalgic, fancied something both formative and familiar) for what is likely my fourth or fifth view.
This is by far Lawrence's greatest and most engaging lecture, way better than the powerpoint presentations.
I love Lawrence Krauss, he really makes physics looks like a complete enjoyable experience.
Physics IS a very enjoyable experience.
Just a short story. As a student, i had a big need for cash and not much useful time nor abilities to get it. So as most of students i did tutoring.
There was that girl, failing her math and physics classes in the primary school. And i was hired to help her pass.
I had a couple months, so it was not that difficult. She passed, but my best paycheck was her last words before the summer holidays: "You know... i think i don't hate physics that much anymore"
Just simple understanding made this whole subject so much more pallatable. And as much as i love maths, it's after all that universal language... I much preffer physics. It's like describing you how does it taste to have an icecream to actually have one and enjoy it :)
This was outstanding. His lectures are even more engaging than his PowerPoint speeches.
I love Krauss. Been watching all his lectures again! Thanks for posting this!
Great lecture, great speaker. Worth a watch.
I love Lawrence Krauss. He's like an overly enthusiastic puppy about science, walking up and down, shouting, waving his hands...*"Isn't science awesome you guys!!!?"*
*Inside* its *domain*, yup, Science is fucking awesome!
*Outside* its domain _it is completely useless_ but that is to be expected as Logic is *incomplete*. (Scientists haven't yet advanced their understanding to grok the 2 polar opposite paradigms.)
Science: The subtraction of falsehood.
Intuition: The addition of truth.
Same goal, just different paths on the edge of a circle on how to get there. :-)
Michael Pohoreski
I'm afraid i don't believe that.
'Intuition' is simply a word we use to describe certain preprogrammed information that humans are born with, such as a newborn baby intuitively holding it's breath under water without having to be taught to do so. This is studied by the field of evolutionary psychology.
'Truth' is simply a word we use to describe a certain relationship between a statement and reality, namely that the statement reflects reality accurately. Someone makes a statement about reality. We then observe or study reality to see if it conforms to the statement. If the statement describes reality accurately, we call the statement 'true'. If it doesn't, we call it false. It is reality that defines what is 'true'.
Science is the first, best method we have for discerning fact from fiction, reality from fantasy, and it is the only reliable method humanity knows of for studying reality to find out the 'truth' of a statement.
You can't use preprogrammed information that humans are born with(intuition) to add 'truth' to anything. In fact how can you add 'accuracy to a statement'(truth)? The only way is to change the statement. How would you even know if the statement needs altering in order to reflect reality more accurately? By studying reality. What do you need in order to study reality? Science. Anything else is just wishful thinking, not truth.
RileyKaiSeeker Your fallacy about intuition is based on assuming it is preprogrammed human information. That is an incomplete definition. Intuition is a non-linear "process" (sic.) that is not confined to time. You also are assuming information is confined to the human domain. Information and Knowledge are not a respecter of species. i.e. They are not limited to just humans.
**You don't understand intuition because you don't understand marriage.** A good analogy would be to understand the additive color model and subtractive color model. Both produce the same colors but in completely (complementary) different ways.
Likewise your fallacy about truth based on reality is incorrect as any paradox will show. e.g. A particle is not a wave, and a wave is not a particle. Yet light behaves both _like_ a wave AND a particle. One truth does not negate another truth.
Truth is dependent on the _starting_ assumptions. i.e. Euclidean Geometry and Non-Euclidean Geometry come to radically different conclusions. Likewise, I can define 1+1=2, or 1+1=1, etc. Within a given _context_ we can say something is true. Yet we can interpret that _exact_ same context differently and declare _that_ to be false. Truth is not only a word, and not only a logical mathematical state; at its highest level it is a state of being. Ergo, Subjective. ALL objective truth is built upon the subjective experience.
Science, a linear process _confined_ by time, is only _one_ way to understand Truth. i.e. There is no experiment one can do to determine what happened before the Big Bang. Does that mean we can never know? Of course we can know. Just not by Science.
To say Science is the "best way" is the height of ignorance. First, define "best"? Second, how did you _measure_ this? Third, how did you _prove_ this? Fourth, what _other_ system(s) did you try? Science _might_ be the "best and only reliable" way for _you_ but to assume it is the "best" way for everyone _else_ is just plain presumptuous and arrogant.
Science has ZERO ways of measuring Consciousness and Love. Prove that you love your spouse? There is **no experiment** you can do, yet you **know** this to be true.
There are many things Science will never know until **after** they have happened. i.e. First Contact in ~10 years, the 2 missing fundamental forces (the strong galactic force and weak galactic force), how white holes are always paired with black holes, etc. Intuition is A Way to know things outside of the space/time domain. It is only unreliable to those that don't know how to use it properly. It is like a musician attempting to play an instrument, At first he just makes noise. As they continue to practice they slowly start to make beautiful music.
If you want to study reality -- FIRST, one needs consciousness / mind, SECOND you need OBSERVATION. THEN comes Science, which is only one TOOL that we have available.
Is it a good tool? Absolutely!
Is it the only tool? No, not by a long shot.
The nice thing about Science is that is not mutually exclusive with other system(s). You can use it to _augment_ the search for truth.
To use it solely means you will forever never grasp the deeper non-linear realities.
Michael Pohoreski
The OED defines intuition as
*1.) **_The ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning._*
*2.) **_A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning._*
I think both of these are perfectly acceptable to describe intuition and neither of them limit intuition to humans. Describing intuition as 'non-linear' sounds like woo-woo to me. If it is 'non-linear', (whatever that means), then provide the scientific evidence that demonstrates that. If there isn't any, then i can't tell if you're just making it up or not, and it would be irrational for me to accept such a claim, or indeed, any claim for which there is no evidence.
If someone makes the statement _"Light behaves like a wave and a particle"_ , we then must check reality to see if this is the case. If the statement defines reality accurately, which it does, then we call the statement 'true'. It's still reality that defines the truth, otherwise, anything could be true. If someone said "Light behaves like a particle.", that statement is still true, but it is an incomplete truth.
Mathematics and geometry are conceptual. There are a certain number of planets in our solar system, and we call that number '9', and even if humans, and therefore mathematics, didn't exist, the number of planets in our solar system would remain the same, and it is the physical reality that defines the 'truth' of that fact, but with mathematical systems, they still have a reality, but because they're conceptual by nature, it is the reality of the rules of the system that define what is 'true'
Truth actually wouldn't exist if no intelligent life existed, as there would be no one to make statements about reality, and no one to observe reality to see if the statement described reality accurately.
Although all humans experience the universe subjectively, we can test our subjective experience to see if it's reliable. If i see a 9 foot dragon standing in front of me, i can test that by asking others if they see it, or i can film it or take a photo of it. If all of our subjective experiences correspond with one another and there's photographic evidence, we call that 'objectively true'
It may very well be the case that there are some things about the universe we may never know. Or, maybe it is possible that we're capable of learning everything, but to say "Of course we can know!" is presumptuous and has a wiff of the arrogance that religions display. Religions seems to have this belief that humans somehow have the 'right' to know everything, and get angry at the idea that it may not be possible.
By 'best', i mean science makes planes fly, computers compute, satellites orbit the earth, kill viruses and treats diseases. It can make predictions. It works. Nothing else can do any of these things. If it could, we could use science to demonstrate that. So far, nothing has been shown to.
Love is a profound feeling that can inspire poetry, art and music, but it's still various neuro-chemicals. Right now, we don't understand love scientifically, and even if one day we understand it fully, it will still never explain our feelings. That's what art is for. But having feelings doesn't tell us anything other than how we feel. It's profoundly arrogant to assume that, because one feels something, this somehow tells you something about the world outside of your own brain, or somehow describes an aspect of the universe. It doesn't. And if it does, well then, you should be able to use science to test whether that is the case and demonstrate it to others. If you can't, then all you have is a 'feeling', nothing more.
To be honest, what you're saying sounds like the same kind of woo-woo that Deepak Chopra comes out with. I'm all for music, art, poetry and moments of 'transcendence' that make me feel wonderful, but i wouldn't presume for a moment that these feelings can somehow tell me something reliable about the universe or existence outside of my own mind. How would i know i'm right? I'd need some sort of experiment that could demonstrate that, and then it would become science.
When it comes to the universe, i'm only interested in what generates reliable, predicable, repeatable results that can be shown to others. Logic, reason, rationality, critical thinking, skepticism and evidence. Religion, spirituality and 'new age' stuff may make us feel good, but they tell us nothing demonstrable. It's just wishful thinking.
RileyKaiSeeker You're too busying worshiping the god of Science, Logic, that you have _completely_ failed to pay attention to the messengers:
* _"The only real valuable thing is intuition."_ -- Albert Einstein
* _"There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance."_ -- Albert Einstein
* _"It is through science that we prove, but through intuition that we discover."_ -- Henri Poincare
* _"The two operations of our understanding, intuition and deduction, on which alone we have said we must rely in the acquisition of knowledge."_ -- Rene Descartes
* _"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition."_ -- Steve Jobs
* _“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”_ -- Carl Sagan
To say Intuition doesn't work, or is useless is the height of ignorance about history full of people who _proved_ otherwise.
Calling something you don't understand as "woo-woo" just makes you look ignorant.
As a mystic, I again repeat what I said early: _You have no clue about intuition because you fail to understand marriage._
If you **truly** want to understand intuition ask your wife to teach you. Just remember you can't use Logic to understand it. Intuition is non-logical, by definition. Dismissing 50% of how the mind works only limits your own understanding.
Since you mention you don't have a frame of reference to understand what non-linear is, here is an analogy.
* Logic is linear. That is, it goes from A, to B, to C.
* Intuition is non-linear, the jump from A directly to C.
It is MUCH more then that but you'll have to discover that for yourself.
Instead of tossing the baby out with the bathwater, it would behoove you to listen to the wisdom of even those you disagree with:
* _"Many scientists think that philosophy has no place, so for me it's a sad time because the role of reflection, contemplation, meditation, self inquiry, insight, intuition, imagination, creativity, free will, is in a way not given any importance, which is the domain of philosophers."_ -- Deepak Chopra
Man, this lecture was so GREAT!!! I think I could see the spirit of Feynman alive in Lawrence's lecture
All great physicists and teachers have same thing in common -- the Holy Spirit of Physics
Loved the lecture!
Even his erasing of the board was an approximation!
Brilliant!!! No one is better. Watch it and be awed.
Just watched this video and loved it! Very engaging, witty, intellectual and amazing. Lawrence Krauss is amongst my favourite scientists of all time. In one word AWESOME
this is probably in the top 10 funniest physics lectures ive seen this week
lol, top 10 funniest physics lectures for this week? how many damn physics lectures have you seen let alone lectures in general. Also for this week? how many do you watch to have a list of top 10 funniest physics specific lectures each week.
Living Universe I work from home 5/6 days a week
Entera Namehere
give me your last weeks top 10 most interesting. lol
lol top 10 funniest comment i've seen all week
57:44 "Gravity must be a quantum theory."-Bravo!
I love listening to Professor Lawrence Krauss lectures.. Keep up the push for science discipline!
I couldn't help myself imagining Pro. Krauss teaching high school physics. I didn't do physics when I was in high school because I was afraid of it so I did chemistry instead. But if I had Professor Krauss as my physics teacher, man! I would have become a theoretical physicist by now -*-
thank you ( whoever you are ) for publishing this lecture. and thank you prof. krauss for allowing everyone to see this. it definately motivates me to pursue a career in science instead of media or management :)
the best part about him is his humility
Thank you for sharing this talk.
I've learned a lot about cows, suns, sweat and multiplying. Guess Im on my way to get my Nobel prize. Thanks :)
To all of the open minded, logical, inquisitive,rational,pure,unaffected people (like me) :this man is a modern day genius. If people don't get this man and his knowledge..then who are they?.who raised them?...what is their sense?
You're just a typical dumbass following dumbass Krauss. YOU are affected. You live your life to be a dumbass. Get off your high horse and realize what a fool you are.
Krauss, "The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life."
Just past 18:00 here: th-cam.com/video/7ImvlS8PLIo/w-d-xo.html
That's not based on science but only Krauss farting that out of his dumb ass.
th-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/w-d-xo.html
Life takes information to proceed on. But to atheists/agnostics, chaos through time gave us information. Although it's even hard to write such a ridiculous statement, they believe it. All one can do is laugh at such stupidity.
th-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/w-d-xo.html
creation.com/laws-of-information-1
creation.com/laws-of-information-2
To this dumbass, it's ok to say that space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, ALL being there ALREADY with NO explanation of how, is OK to call "nothing". There, by that alone, Krauss excused himself of all of that. You simply come up with a childish snot-nosed brat excuse to call it "nothing".
But it gets worse, space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, called nothing, created more space, matter, and time. The laws of physics were broken to create more space, matter, and time. Keep in mind (for those that have a working mind), that this "nothing" was eternal, and just by chance about 13 billion years ago according to Krauss, then did its magic. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics were asleep then.
*Krauss' attempt to dispell the need of God, just confirms the need.*
"A vacuum, to us, is a space with no matter in it. As a practical matter though, it's really a space with very little matter in it. You might already know that it's REALLY hard to get all the matter out of any space"
from: education.jlab.org/qa/vacuum_02.html
"Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states - no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems - are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff."-
from: www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0
"That makes Matter = Energy; Energy = Space; Space = Time. Therefore matter, energy, space and time are all interchangeable characteristics, which implies strongly that they are all forms of one thing."
from: medium.com/@alasdairf/are-matter-energy-time-space-all-interchangeable-e2dbf7d411e5
And this "nothing" from chaos gave us the fine-tuning.
www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html
kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
I like starting from the beginning because it shows how we got something to begin with. Not just that, it shows from the start who gave up their logic and who did not.
From all we know, creation HAD to be a supernatural event. The first logical and honest step is to admit that. The second step is to seek who or what did the supernatural event and the proof for that. Fools jump to 'who created god', 'god of the gaps', 'science does not deal with supernatural' and whatever excuse they can use to prevent them from seeing the truth. All they can do is fart smoke screens to avoid the issue at hand.
Those that deny it was a supernatural event, such a Krauss, Dawkins and a whole host of other fools, live in their fairytale of just making things up with nothing to back them. They say things so outrageous that they ask you to give up your common sense for science. Krauss and Dawkins go back and forth calling it "literally nothing" knowing it is something, and even their something can't produce what we have.
th-cam.com/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/w-d-xo.html
Krauss admits he does not give a damn what nothing means and he then says he wants to be honest with his readers. He is full of doublespeak. He is WRONG and all he has is pride to continue saying such stupid things.
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1
"One unsolved mystery is why there is an excess of mater in our universe; this is the Matter/antimatter problem. Why is the universe only made of matter? Matter/antimatter particles annihilate each other to produce radiation. Radiation coverts to equal amounts of matter and anti matter. Krauss says that the CMB suggests the photon-to-proton ratio was a billion to one. He says that by ‘plausible quantum processes’ the universe started out with 1 part per billion more matter than antimatter. Most of the matter and antimatter combined to make photons. Later he admits we still don’t really know how this asymmetry between matter and antimatter began."
"The energy calculated for empty space assuming virtual particles is 10 to the 120 times greater than that observed. This is a long-standing unsolved problem."
"Krauss also says that this proves you can get something from nothing given the energetics of empty space and the law of gravity. So he says you can get a universe from nothing if you can start with empty space with non-zero energy and the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics. He admits empty space with non-zero energy is something!"
Quotes from another review of Krauss' book here: creation.com/review-krauss-universe-from-nothing
You can read Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins, and others who praise their gravity but they just made it up and have no idea where it could have come from. And the list goes on. All they have comes down to nothing.
From the start, fools gave up their logic and that does not bother them. When it does not bother someone from the start, they continue giving up their logic with what follows.
Brilliant lecture.
Fantastic talk
Well, from this lecture, I learned two things:
Everything can be expressed as a sphere, and math is suddenly easier than I thought :)
And what about triangle!?
For me every problem in society or economy could be represented by a triangle
I love Dr. Lowerence Krauss
He's so interesting
Wonderful video of the good professor. Entertaining and instructional too.
One of the best lectures ever? So funny and educating:)
I really enjoyed this lecture... !!!
education + comedy = dope.
Physics is very much important and is very simple! Do approximations
Good to see you
sometimes i come back to this video just to remind me. :)
Wow, what a talk, very educational. very inspiring as well. its even funny in parts. Everyone and their dog should watch this. It nails it in 1 hour (approximation), that is your gym hour, your lunch hour, an hour of your life to develop clarity.
To be impressed by Krauss is to be impressed by a lying dumbass. Oh, which makes you a dumbass.
Krauss, "The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life."
Just past 18:00 here: th-cam.com/video/7ImvlS8PLIo/w-d-xo.html
That's not based on science but only Krauss farting that out of his dumb ass.
th-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/w-d-xo.html
Life takes information to proceed on. But to atheists/agnostics, chaos through time gave us information. Although it's even hard to write such a ridiculous statement, they believe it. All one can do is laugh at such stupidity.
th-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/w-d-xo.html
creation.com/laws-of-information-1
creation.com/laws-of-information-2
To this dumbass, it's ok to say that space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, ALL being there ALREADY with NO explanation of how, is OK to call "nothing". There, by that alone, Krauss excused himself of all of that. You simply come up with a childish snot-nosed brat excuse to call it "nothing".
But it gets worse, space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, called nothing, created more space, matter, and time. The laws of physics were broken to create more space, matter, and time. Keep in mind (for those that have a working mind), that this "nothing" was eternal, and just by chance about 13 billion years ago according to Krauss, then did its magic. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics were asleep then.
*Krauss' attempt to dispell the need of God, just confirms the need.*
"A vacuum, to us, is a space with no matter in it. As a practical matter though, it's really a space with very little matter in it. You might already know that it's REALLY hard to get all the matter out of any space"
from: education.jlab.org/qa/vacuum_02.html
"Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states - no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems - are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff."-
from: www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0
"That makes Matter = Energy; Energy = Space; Space = Time. Therefore matter, energy, space and time are all interchangeable characteristics, which implies strongly that they are all forms of one thing."
from: medium.com/@alasdairf/are-matter-energy-time-space-all-interchangeable-e2dbf7d411e5
And this "nothing" from chaos gave us the fine-tuning.
www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html
kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
I like starting from the beginning because it shows how we got something to begin with. Not just that, it shows from the start who gave up their logic and who did not.
From all we know, creation HAD to be a supernatural event. The first logical and honest step is to admit that. The second step is to seek who or what did the supernatural event and the proof for that. Fools jump to 'who created god', 'god of the gaps', 'science does not deal with supernatural' and whatever excuse they can use to prevent them from seeing the truth. All they can do is fart smoke screens to avoid the issue at hand.
Those that deny it was a supernatural event, such a Krauss, Dawkins and a whole host of other fools, live in their fairytale of just making things up with nothing to back them. They say things so outrageous that they ask you to give up your common sense for science. Krauss and Dawkins go back and forth calling it "literally nothing" knowing it is something, and even their something can't produce what we have.
th-cam.com/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/w-d-xo.html
Krauss admits he does not give a damn what nothing means and he then says he wants to be honest with his readers. He is full of doublespeak. He is WRONG and all he has is pride to continue saying such stupid things.
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1
"One unsolved mystery is why there is an excess of mater in our universe; this is the Matter/antimatter problem. Why is the universe only made of matter? Matter/antimatter particles annihilate each other to produce radiation. Radiation coverts to equal amounts of matter and anti matter. Krauss says that the CMB suggests the photon-to-proton ratio was a billion to one. He says that by ‘plausible quantum processes’ the universe started out with 1 part per billion more matter than antimatter. Most of the matter and antimatter combined to make photons. Later he admits we still don’t really know how this asymmetry between matter and antimatter began."
"The energy calculated for empty space assuming virtual particles is 10 to the 120 times greater than that observed. This is a long-standing unsolved problem."
"Krauss also says that this proves you can get something from nothing given the energetics of empty space and the law of gravity. So he says you can get a universe from nothing if you can start with empty space with non-zero energy and the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics. He admits empty space with non-zero energy is something!"
Quotes from another review of Krauss' book here: creation.com/review-krauss-universe-from-nothing
You can read Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins, and others who praise their gravity but they just made it up and have no idea where it could have come from. And the list goes on. All they have comes down to nothing.
From the start, fools gave up their logic and that does not bother them. When it does not bother someone from the start, they continue giving up their logic with what follows.
Great talk. Thanx!
That was amazing!!!!! Awesome!!!
great lecture :D
I was there.
:-)
great hour!
Lawrence should come one to my program and have the staff and clients meet him for the first time
Physics = Order of Magnitude calculations + Dimensional Analysis
Brilliant!
Everytime an artist make something social and intelligent it has artistic integrity. That only possible in a created universe.
@@lepidoptera9337 God made an intentional mistake that TH-cam song "it's a mistake",. The mistake is monuments. Planets and stars are monuments. He had the problem of making a room comfortable starting with nothing.
@@lepidoptera9337 the imagination of the universe is anarchy poems. I had temporary ability to make them and made enough to study. Naming artifacts with pattern recognition intelligence is how to learn about the universe. That where the intelligent design is. It's not in the biology.
@@lepidoptera9337 an education gave everyone brain damage. They think only a dead universe is grammatically correct All I get is drug jokes from uncreative people.
My second fave Phys. Prof. After Prof. Feynman.
Bob Lazar's alter ego.
For anyone who liked the cow-as-circle bit, and how the proportions of animals scale differently and impose logical limits on how animals can exist, the subject is called Allometry.
Excellent presentation for a dullard like me.
Injecting common sense by physics - great.
ahhh this is so great
he's so good
What a legend!
*****: my take on the joke is this, if you are interested:
A lot of physics (especially Krauss's specialty) is particle pshysics. Think atoms, protons, subatomic particles, etc.
We cannot actually see atoms or protons, but through experiments and inference we know they are there. However, since we cannot see them, how do we represent them on paper when talking about them and modeling them? We use spheres. A big circle for a proton and a little circle for an electron, for example.
BUT, electrons aren't little circles neatly orbiting protons/atomic nuclei. They exhibit properties of both waves and particles. They exist in regions around the nucleus (called orbitals) but you cannot know precisely where in the orbital the electron actually exists. So even though our diagram of circles is not correct, it still helps us understand the atoms and allows us to move forward with whatever theory/experiment/lecture we're conducting.
And the reason why that's funny in my opinion is that it shows a great paradox in our reality, whereby we can use an incorrect assumption - that the electron or cow is a sphere - to make accurate predictions about their behavior, as the physicist in the joke clearly was about to start doing.
The reason why most people don't get it is that it's not a funny joke in the everyday world of ha ha funny jokes. You have to have an understanding of physics to get it, and since (sadly) most people don't have that understanding these days (at least in the US, where our ranking in science in math is well below the OECD average and falling), that means most people will not get the joke.
I hope you found this interesting. I'm glad I was able to write this while waiting on hold on the phone for the next available representative.
*****
I certainly don't claim to have a deep understanding of it myself, but isn't that a wonderful thing to admit? To be able to say - "I don't know the answer." The reason why I think it's wonderful is that, in a sane person who hasn't already accepted dogma as fact, that admission of ignorance provides a reason to learn about the topic and to further their understanding.
It's only when we realize how little we actually know that we can begin to learn anything new. I know too many people who, once they graduated college and became adults, lead their lives as if there was no reason for them to learn anything new. That's what gets you stuck in a rut and I refuse to end up that way. I make it a point to learn at least one new thing a day. If I didn't I would consider that day as an opportunity lost.
haha i get it now.. i think. thankyou
Most people won’t get the joke but more people who watch this will
In retrospect, that's a portentous video title.
You should find good questions, and then find the suitable answers, and made the others to think about the subject , this is called unity of science.
I like pulleys and inclined planes...
*****
You are the only one making random unprovoked insults...
Pretty simple minded thing to do eh?
hey the doors on trek were on pulleys, or at least bits of string, so chill out guys
... and cube sections and cone sections...
***** Man you're dumb
That's a real shame. Physics is so much more exciting than pulleys and inclined planes.
All we should know is that how to think , that’s possible if you gets consciousness
Definitely.
Do what you enjoy.
Nowt else works as well.
You da man Lawrence!!
Kids, diss your religion classes and spend your time on watching Krauss' lectures.
What Krauss is preaching is a religion...Religion is very diverse obviously!
@@benjaminfalzon4622 it's untested
@@AndrewMellor-darkphoton Lawrence Krause is just a big joke.
@@benjaminfalzon4622 cult
About the "drinking the sweat released by your parents' coupling": That was sick.
To mathematicians, let a be an element of a group G, then a is a number.
43:22 "And the sharks know that" LMAO
Awesome scientist 💞
AWESOME!
This was so cool :)
30:17 I guess it is not good to use money as an example. Most people care a lot if they earn 10,000 $ or 20,000 $ per year. But physicists use a computer or calculator to do the actual calculations, these estimates are mainly used to see if you have done a wrong input.
Best talk ever
"...but it only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum."
Camera operator needs xp but otherwise another awse lecture from Krauss
thanks for sharing NECSSConference
Glad Lawrence brought up some of those inane things in some Physics 101 courses that can turn kids off of physics.
respect
We need more people to open their minds and stop believing in gods, you dont need something made up to give your life meaning. Grow up
SWEET mother! a new one!
Secret life indeed!
I usually get a kick out of asking people how old they are. When they come back with some number, I remind them that they are actually a bit older than that, 13.7 billion years to be sort of exact. Every atom in their being was created in the big Bang, even the ones that are not hydrogen started there, they just morphed into something else in a few supernovas along the way. So are actually eternal all ready, and we didn't need religion to get that.
"I remind them that they are actually a bit older than that, 13.7 billion years"
Wow, do you also tell them how then there can still be Carbon 14 in diamonds?
"Every atom in their being was created in the big Bang"
And you have scientific proof of this. Please give it.
"So are actually eternal all ready, and we didn't need religion to get that."
Please share your science how we are "eternal all ready".
Oh, eternal is more than a bit older than 13.7 billion years. So which is it? You can't have both.
@Dirk Knight and what you consider an answer to all the above things I wrote....
"What's your problem? Did you fail science class in high school? Of course you did. :-):
Says the dumbass who thinks it was not noticed you could not give me science to show me wrong by explaining how.
The cleaver people asking a good questions? And genius finding an answer for that questions.
What brand glasses frames is he wearing
2:17 as he was preparing to erase the board, haha, I was wondering: "Is it one of *those* boards?"...
...not as bas as some boards get, haha...I remember a particular one that was just horrible, haha...
Yeah, haha...4:40-ish...I didn't like memorization either...and I felt similarly about chemistry...
9:05 oh my...never thought about that...buoyancy...
Haha...21:29 "you titter", I hardly remembered how to spell that...I'm not sure I ever heard someone use that word in a talk like that, haha...
45:49 I suspect he would understand but wouldn't want to admit it, haha...
Lawrence Krause is Canadian as far as I know.He might be from PEI
50:20
How did he work that out? Not enough information. I thought it was going to be a trick question.
How long does it take for entropy to distribute atoms from a single humans breath into the whole atmosphere?
Badass.
Actually, MacBeth was written in early modern English, not old English.
I thought there are seven independent quantities. How is it only three? What about current, heat or luminous intensity?
+Wen Chu Yup I am a physics student. And there are seven of them. I deliberately left out the name of "amount of substance". I was only puzzled because Prof. Krauss asserted that every quantity can be expressed in terms of mass, length and time.
Length, mass and time are the quantities used in mechanics and properties of matter.
+Liz R Yes but Mechanics is not everything in life. I mean we do charge our mobile and cook food using heat everyday. Though I appreciate the gist of what he is trying to point out but this was a small factual error which needs to be pointed out.
I mean his point about awe and wonder of physics would still hold even if he says that there are only 7 base quantities and everything else can be expressed in terms of these quantities. We teach this thing to students in ninth year of the school.
And before anybody misunderstands, I am almost a fan of Prof. Krauss.
***** Sure :)
please give the timeframe next time
Lawrence, bro, how you don't know you are supposed to spray the sponge you erase the ink with, not directly the whiteboard ? :P
3x3=10
Lov you Krauss hehe
37:00 isn'ty volume of the sphere 4/3xr to the power of 3x π??
4/3*pi*r^3 ...hes completely off...and ADDs the earths volume to the volume of the atmosphere... earths volume should be subtracted from the volume of the atmosphere...
I had you tuned to the frequency of my brain. Plus, Kermit, Coaster, and Many. Very Many......
Obviously, I’m Right, and Remain Correct! Duane A. Gruber DDS.
derdag
The ☝️
The derdagian1
All must cede to this point.
Ultimately, I Own the Universe for the rest of my life, because I’m the Troll of Trolls.
Hahahaha
I’m just waiting! lol
I can tell that you’ve developed a career on what happened back in the day, as your videos have clued me in. Our old discussions about the laws of Science and who is Currently Correct, FIRST! ☝️
Why do we complicate maths?
profess Krauss would be the right person to act the joker in batman.
Here's some things NOT to throw out.:HUMAN brains are the largest brains.Cows milk is meant for baby cows not humans (the saturated fat in cows' milk can clog the arteries to your heart and give you a heart attack) and the farmer should retire the cows and grow almonds (or soy) for almond milk or soy milk.Both almond milk and soy milk have no saturated fat and because of this they"re heart healthy and lactose free.
82k people like science.
"Your drinking the sweat from your parents when they were....." and "Kids are too worried about getting jobs"..... This guy is completely disassociated from reality.
Your username is wydopnthrtl, and you're saying a physicist who's dedicated his life to accurately understanding the nature of reality as it is, and helping others do so, is dissociated from reality? Which god do you believe in fella?
@@Bytrl He is a *theoretical* physicist. And I revere the "one God" he still wants to bury.
Hum --> www.philanthropydaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Epstein-11.nocrop.w710.h2147483647.2x.jpg
BOLLOCKS Lawrence,,,It was the Baby Jesus,,,
1 liter? the average is about 3
At 27:20, the power of 10 should be 11 and no one points it out!
+Aditya Manuwal Good eye. Also, att 37:57 he says 4 pi is 10, and that everbody knows that. I think this guy is a good BS artist.
He also says the lifespan of the sun was calculated at 10x, when it was actually calculated at 9.5x. I think he might be trying to fudge some calculations for the sake of simplicity. It takes more effort to calculate 12.566 than 10. He sort of talks about this at 25:00 or so.
+rog944 You missed the point. That's what he said about the main difference between the thought process of a physicist and a mathematician. 4pi is 12.5663..... Which is simply 1.2 X 10 (in scientific notation). So for our approximate estimations, its just 10, Its just easier to work with. But at around 27 minutes, the 10^15 factor is clearly wrong.
+Aditya Manuwal 10 raised to 10 is a 1 with 10 zeroes which is 10 billion as he says
+vic alexis what r u talking about? I am referring to the 8.76 X 10^(15) which he wrote to explain scientific notation.
sound mix on this is horribly echoy
Making super cows is unnatural. Also,now that I've seen Lawrence Krauss and Richard Feynman draw I know why real scientists don't become artists.
Good approach, however, he uses engineering approaches and associates them to physics/physicists. Dimensional analysis is a standard subject in engineering.
If you love the universe the birds will make you mentally ill so you fight with the environment to make it intelligent. Your supposed to make the environment intelligent so no God needed. God has been liberated and he is fully capable of evolving himself without any help. God don't want your worship he just wants to get married. Royal weddings is most watched thing on television. We fixed the video and audio for best experience possible. Cameras are supernatural and all of them captured 3D. The audio loud don't make violence so has depth. Nobody has to buy anything for it to work.