3 ms·

A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9urEFoaI1iY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9urEFoaI1iY

• mmazing 6y ago
  Great book :D sitting in my bathroom right now as I re-read it!
• jedimind 6y ago
  This is what Krauss is often mocked for, because he sneakily redefines "nothing" to include quantum fields, which is not nothing. Even the first comment under the YT video you posted puts it quite well: "Literally " nothing " by definition, should be one devoid of " quantum fields ". And, the question should be where did " quantum fields " come from?"
  • pavs 6y ago
    Which is answered in the video - which is we don't know. What we know is that there is no "nothing" as we understand or define it. At the end of the video he says "We can't prove that we came from nothing, But it's plausible." from our limited understanding of whats going on in empty space. I don't know why you think "Krauss is often mocked for" this - because this is not unique to Krauss personal interpretation but there is scientific consensus within the community. We can't tell where quantum fields came from the same way we can't tell for sure what happened before the big bang - other than the fact that we know it happened.
    • jedimind 6y ago
      > I don't know why you think "Krauss is often mocked for" this Exactly for the reason I wrote above, because his definition of "nothing" is NOT nothing. Quantum fields are something. To make a pompous proclamation like " UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING", then admit that 1. nothing was deceptively redefined 2. that you don't even know for sure. That seems to be more than enough valid reasons for people to mock him, I personally don't care about Krauss either way, if he can make money using such tactics, good on him. Also "scientific consensus" doesn't mean much when it comes to cosmology, since there was "scientific consensus" on many false theories like the steady state theory. Making such an argument is often nothing but an appeal to authority in disguise, in order to validate fragile ideas.
      • pavs 6y ago
        I am not entirely sure what are you arguing against. - We don't know or its not possible to know what came before something. - After Big bang, nothing (as you define it), doesn't exist to the best of our understanding. We both seems to agree on this two key point. So what are you exactly arguing against? "We don't know yet." is really the answer to whatever you are mad about. Krauss or pick-your-favorite-scientists doesn't really shy away from this fact. Are you mad because of the wording "UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING", then you just judging the book by its cover.
        • jedimind 6y ago
          Sorry it's pointless to have a dialogue with you, since you are unable to retain the information after you tried to consume it. >"We don't know yet." is really the answer to whatever you are mad about. . I explained it perfectly well above, why people are mocking him, I also said the following: "I personally don't care about Krauss either way, if he can make money using such tactics, good on him." so your accusation of being mad is nonsense. >Are you mad because of the wording "UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING", then you just judging the book by its cover. I am making clear arguments devoid of any emotions, you seem to be hallucinating. I argued against the deceptive nature of Krauss' formulation of "nothing" which is not nothing, which is not "judging a book by it's cover" it's judging the deceptive nature of his rhetoric, which he has also demonstrated in many appearances on TV. And again, I don't care about Krauss either way, if he can make good money by that, good on him.
          • dang 6y ago
            Religious flamewar will get you banned on HN. Please don't post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        • dang 6y ago
          Religious flamewar will get you banned on HN. Please don't post like this. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html