A Universe From Nothing (Lecture)

A Universe From Nothing (Lecture)

2009, Science  -   192 Comments
Ratings: 8.59/10 from 277 users.

Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing.

Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek."

If you've ever wanted to answer that annoying question, "how could the Universe have formed from nothing", then watch this video.

Lawrence Krauss is funny, informative, and if you watch the entire video (it's over an hour long, so you might need to pause it a few times), he will blow your mind. Lawrence seems like a pretty cool guy.

More great documentaries

192 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Why is there something rather than nothing, and he answers with sarcasm, but then he has praise for evolution which has been debunked every day. The running argument of most secular cosmologists is precisely that God could not have created the universe from nothing, and he tries to jump ahead of the question by admitting that this is the normal state.

  2. The libs are ruining Murica!!

  3. Absolutely nothing happened to me today...
    ...but I posted all the details on Facebook.

  4. The devil wants you to think that science has all the answers, that's why he manipulates the lights in the skies and the bones in the ground that got stirred up from the Flood.

  5. The same old tired non answer to their dilemma. First there was "nothing"and then it EXPLODED!

  6. Hay bobby...everything has its own place.

  7. Do 'scientists' imagine that they have no need to study religion because they alone possess all the knowledge necessary?
    And here is yet ANOTHER one who imagines that his learned knowledge is greater than the God whose creation is that which he is a part of. Another easy dismissal of unstudied truth somehow inherent to the lecturer. A lack of knowledge which he mocks as supposedly being a part of a religious person's attitude; whereupon he turns and displays the same lack of knowledge that he mocks.
    Sir, if we truly want to know ANYTHING we must be WILLING to put in the time to study the question at hand. (Cue the scoffing) It will not be forced on us. If we want to know about God, religion or religious people, rest assure it will not be gotten from a person who has, without a study of religion, drawn a perfectly prejudiced conclusion BUILT on the pride of scientific learning or self-imposed blindness. Although there is plenty of superstition to be found in religious people, there is, for those sincerely going beyond a rudimentary study, a reality which does not oppose science but rather gives us a path to the truest beauty of all creation......and sometimes a door to further science itself.

    1. essentially we must all make a choice between evidence and superstition. You have chosen the later. That makes you immune to reason and hence your comments are simply non-sense from the perspective of those who have chosen the former. Yours is the way of the Dark Ages, i.e. enslavement to dogma. Lucky for you there are many who share your perspective, and they are in power. Trump is the curse your cult has given us in these times, the latest is a long list that includes the Inquisition.

    2. I trust science over "faith"

  8. There was nothing here I didn't hear before, so maybe I am more up to date than I thought? I don't like the way he insults religious people, calling them nutters and looking down upon them. There are some extremists, but not all. I love science and believe in it. I also feel there is a higher being that created all this. Let's say the universe is my idea of a God. Some call it God, some call it the Universe, some call it Energy, some call it Karma. The two are not irreconcilable.

    1. You trust science over faith ? Who gave you the ability to reason , to utilize common sense ? Our Creator , and Creator of all that is , and ever shall be. Nothing comes from nothing. You see a building , you know someone created it. The same with mankind and the universe. Nothing comes from nothing , a complete falsehood. Almighty God has always existed , He is the Great I Am. All creation stems from an all powerful , all knowing , omni present God , which our finite brains can't comprehend , but The Lord Jesus Christ made all , and one day we shall stand before Him , the One True Judge of the Universe. May you come to know , the One who died for your sins. God Bless.

    2. In your reply to anne: I presume you are referring to:
      "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all Fiction: Jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully!"
      "Richard Dawkins"

      Or is it one of the millions of other MAN-MADE Deities!

  9. This is the best lecture/documentary I've seen in a long time, a must watch! =)

  10. I do not doubt the validity of any of the theories discussed here, and theoretical physics is without question one of the major lights shining on the path of human understanding at this point in our existence. However I think it is such a shame that certain scientific commentators still feel it necessary to fight this war against religion and fuel one of the least constructive social conflicts ever to exist! The existence of religion holds as many clues as to the origin and purpose of life on earth as any far-reaching scientific theories, not necessarily because they hold any absolute truth, but because they have been inspired by human experiences of something 'extra-terrestrial', spiritual, or otherwise other-dimensional.

    Theoretical physics is continually suggesting that the nature of reality is in fact far more unusual and 'illogical' than anything science fiction, ancient mythology, or religious theology has ever supposed. So why this mocking of religious belief? These are people that are looking for meaning, as human beings have the unique and irremovable characteristic of doing, and the systems of faith that have survived over millenia have done so off of the back of some serious core inspiration followed up with key spiritual events, that may well be evidence of actual multi-dimensional experiences. Few scientists would argue with the necessity of learning from the past, and yet leaders in their fields are making exactly the same mistake as so many of the pioneers did- dismissing evidence that sits outside of their comfortable models because it's too outlandish. In a scientific world of increasingly outlandish theories, some of these 'crazy' ideas might in fact be clues pointing towards the truth. The point is that we don't know, so why continually act like we do. Science only remains alive and progressive by continually being proven mistaken.

    1. Doogleman , What a well thought out , lucid , intelligent response. I agree with you 100 %. Thank you.

  11. I think we should all watch it again.

  12. God is nothing much! ...... As its supposed to have created everything, then were left with a lot of nothing. In the beginning God created itself and said it was good and bad and everything in between. Wonderful; now what did you think about the lecture.

  13. I have to honestly say my enjoyment of this lecture was lessoned by the distraction of a (pointless) constant onslaught of snide remarks about religion. I'm not religious and I found it tasteless. One can only imagine how a religious person, who might be considering giving science a go, might feel. I have recently witnessed many scientists doing this. It isn't helpful for scientists to resort to the same ridiculous tactics that religion has used against scientists. It's beneath a scientists to do so and does nothing to open the doors of enlightened thinking to those entrenched in religious dogmas and, in fact, only further entrenches them in the "us against them" mentality.

  14. Lol, physics could use a whole lot of philosophy. So many of the conclusions that are popular today are so incredibly illogical. And what has become a beaten path started with the Quantum Revolution. What sounds more reasonable? 1) That an idea such as uncertainty was born out of religion? As in you could use it to say that you can't trace destiny, thereby protecting your faith. Or if you're an atheist, to use math as a religion. As in there is no need for God because of Quantum Physics? OR 2) That there is no certainty. Magic is real!? And that Einstein's idea of a "hidden variable" is stoopit hed? Again, philosophy in physics is badly needed right now. In other words, an emphasis on logic instead of a blind faith in mathematics.

    If you'd like to hear a physicist that uses logic, look up John Moffat. He got a Cambridge education out of his correspondence with Einstein, for those looking for some type of credibility. You can find him on Youtube.

    1. The maths and measurements are correct, but sometimes the problem is interpreting all that math.

    2. The measurements may be. Although, without a unified theory, I wouldn't bet the farm. The math, particularly Quantum Mechanics, is almost certainly wrong (and certainly ugly). It's based on a fudge factor (Planck's constant). It may work well enough, but it doesn't mean it's correct. And the emphasis should be on interpreting the facts, not the math, hence philosophy. Math is simply a tool.

    3. You do realize that mathematics is founded on logical axioms, right?

    4. Mathematics was founded on logical axioms? I hope you are kidding. Let's look at Quantum Mechanics.... Planck fudged the math to match the results of black body radiation. Where's the logic behind that math? Planck spent years looking for it before throwing his hands up. Look at General Relativity, It made some bold predictions that were proven correct, but it can't explain the effects attributed to dark matter (Ugh, Ether theory 2.0), or explain the Pioneer Anomaly, or Dark Energy. So do you have faith in the math? Or do you have faith in the evidence? I'll take the evidence. Personally, I think Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation will be proven wrong, which means General Relativity is wrong and will need to be retooled. Nonetheless, it has become clear that GR, as logical as it's founding axioms SEEM to have been, has major issues. As I said before, math is simply a tool. It's a tool to help us find evidence so we can create theories from that evidence.

    5. You seem to not have the slightest clue of what an axiom is.
      1=1 is an axiom. In logic they call it the first principle of identity; an example would be: "a dog is a dog".

      I honestly think you will benefit from searching "crank physics" on youtube.

    6. Lol, I know exactly what an axiom is. Perhaps you need to reread what I'm saying. For some people, the concepts of their organized religions are as plain as day. They believe unambiguously that it's the truth, but it doesn't make their supposed axioms correct. Don't treat math like a religion, it will only make you look foolish.

    7. Religion is not an ideology because we differentiate ideology from fact thanks to our ability to test our theories. So let's see: maths says 1+2=3, I have 2 apples and I pick another one from a tree. Yup, now I have 3 apples. Test it yourself if you don't believe me.

    8. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are just a tad bit more complicated. And to make another point, is the number 3 the evidence? Or are the apples the evidence? Math is a tool, not the evidence.

    9. And when some starts talking "ideology" the first thing I think is "atheist". Trying to separate ideology and religion is a farce. Religious, or more accurately, anti-religious (traditional religions) views seems to be the cornerstone of the physics world for the last 100 years of so. And, no, I am not religious. At least not in any traditional sense.

    10. ooh ooh your not religious and all ideologies are religious by your reasoning. So you don't have any system of ideas or ideas in general. Because that is the definition of an ideology. How are you typing on that computer Dave? On top of that how can you have any thoughts Dave if you lump all ideology into religion? Good job Dave, I'll take your word for it. You don't have any ideas

    11. Lol, If you had read Chip's "Religion is not an ideology" comment you might not have made yourself look like a total jackass....then again.

  15. The things we are in the dark about grows faster than the amount of things we have shed light on. Agntology.

  16. It seems to me that the presently unanswered questions remain, It should be remembered the in fact all the religious leaders all were delivering their ideas on how others should conduct themselves, their aims have been manipulated to comply with others desires. I can only agree that the answer to our existence is still beyond our understanding. Question does the entry side of a black hole balance by the exit side (black and white?) natures balance.

    1. The existence of black holes as they are currently thought of (a singularity) is highly speculative (And, in my opinion, almost certainly wrong). Without a grand unified theory, any answer couldn't be taken seriously.

  17. great lecture! but isn't it obvious that the search for dark matter particles is a wild goose chase? surely the best explanation for the mass observed in a vacuum is its interaction with an adjacent energy field? so that the mass of the vacuum inside the atom is the result of its interaction with the surrounding energy fields that make up the quantum particles within the atom, and the dark energy masses of the vacuum pools out in deep space are the result of their interaction with the energy fields of adjacent astral bodies. nature abhors a vacuum; always trying to weave it's spindly little threads through the emptiness.

  18. Seems like philosophy is not so useless after all, given that science does not know how many crucial observations it has lost the opportunity to observe.

  19. I thoroughly enjoyed this; should be watched by every highschool student at least.

  20. A great lecture with some good humor. Definitely worth a watch. With that said, I had some concerns regarding his 'proof' that the universe is expanding. There is an equal argument using his own analogy that the universe could be collapsing in on itself.
    It should also be noted Krauss's attempts at ridiculing religion diminishes his position, especially his interpretation of what Einstein meant when he said regarding "did god have any choice in how the universe was created". This only confirmed his own bias, and was proof that his knowledge regarding Einstein's thoughts was actually quite limited. Perhaps this was because he was there for Richard Dawkins, but either way, being professional is based upon being respectful, even if you don't agree with other people's positions, or values! In other words, stick to the point at hand, and forget trying to reduce those who think differently. Too bad, because otherwise the lecture was quite informative, and entertaining.

  21. The notion that billions of years from now newly evolving civilizations will be without the ability to see anything beyond their own galaxy and will be deprived of our understanding of the universe is frightening. I'll never know those guys but I feel sorry for them and the religions they will have to deal with.

  22. "Forget Jesus--stars died so you could be here today."

    1. Exactly right, if there were no super-nova explosions there would be no star stuff that everything, including us are made from, sans all the bible idiocy.

    2. Gives me goose-bumps to think about it!

      Also now I'm singing Joni Mitchell's song, "Woodstock.": "We are stardust, We are golden, Billion-year-old carbon..."

      It sounds so much more magnificent than "We're all horrible beings who shouldn't even exist unless someone much better than us is tortured to death to make up for our miserable selves."

  23. @OvertheEdge
    Have you seen "Q&A - Lawrence Krauss and Christians?" Perhaps a link is in order. Usual solicitation of your opinion.

    1. just finished watching. Krauss is brilliant as usual. the two ladies were good. the Bishop was fine but i agree with Krauss that he effectively picks and chooses what parts of the bible to follow. the other guy (Nile) lost all respect when he chooses to exclude the OT immediately after he agrees with the use of it to refuse equal rights for LGBT's

    2. One of the thing sI like about Dr. Krauss is that he is passionate about his profession and science in general which is why he takes such umbrage at these creationist idiots and liars and couldn't care less about being a gentlemen. In this regard, have you seen the two-part video of his "debate" with Bob Enyart? Again seeking your opinion and suggesting a link.

    3. P.S. Bart Ehrman makes no bones about picking and choosing; he admits point blank that that's all you can do.

  24. Fascinating talk and I actually got goosebumps a couple of times!

  25. one thing i always thought was, does spacetime stretch? if it does wouldnt huge objects like galaxy's pull spacetime from the surrounding area in, does light move uniformly through this stretched space, or would it also be stretched, if the latter then wouldnt it look red shifted? no? ok.

  26. @delanceau... I don't intend to try to doubt your intelligence.. you seem smart enough... but Krauss' idea of nothing, is not absolute nothingness. My criticism of what you have to say is this: you require a tremendous amount of evidence for these theories, but you have a problem with Krauss' doubt of Christianity. If there's anything that lacks complete evidence it's creationism.

  27. Krauss must assume quantum mechanics so the universe does not actually come from nothing.
    Most recent scholarship on major cosmological theories all require a beginning.4 No current theory allows an eternity past! Hence all current theories say there still had to be a beginning.
    Fine tuning is still a problem for materialists. There is no evidence so far for hidden dimensions, other universes, string theory, etc.
    The matter/antimatter problem is still unsolved.
    Krauss admits deism may be right. His rejection of Christianity seems to based more on personal rather than scientific criteria.
    Young earth/old universe cosmologies such as Russell Humphrey’s can explain the CMB, abundance of light elements, “axis of evil”, expansion of the universe, and the starlight-time problem.
    Even if the landscape and the anthropic principle are correct (there is no evidence they are), one still has to explain origin of life and evolution. However, there is still no evidence for hidden dimensions, other universes, Hawking radiation, etc.
    Much of Krauss’s scenarios are speculative and depend on a quantum theory of gravity, which is not currently available.

  28. game theory. its a platform universe. data based created bt us in the future thats why there is mytsery :)

  29. Fantastic documentary. It's always nice to see well thought out material such as this with a warm element of humour thrown in for kicks :)

  30. Loved this film, always enjoy re-watching it in my spare time.
    Lawrence Krauss is wonderfully informative and delightfully witty through and through ^_^

    Never really understood why western theology (and to some minor extent, western philosophical thought) holds to the idea of "ex nihilo nihil fit", or nothing comes from nothing. I disagree, I'd say you can't have something without nothing in much the same way you wouldn't know solid without space to contrast it with.

    A universe from nothing seems perfectly logical, at least to me, and Mr. Krauss does a wonderful job of explaining to the general masses how this may be so. If anything, it should point us towards the notion that our Universe is more wonderful and mysterious than we could have ever imagined!

  31. Was sure I'd watched this, turns out I hadn't! Very good!
    First question, when he says you can measure the weight of something by its gravity, is that basically the same as measuring the pound pull of a longbow? The stronger the bow the greater the weight needed to pull it? I thought the more mass a thing has the more gravity it has, it's hard to jump off our planet because it has big gravity. Why does it all make some sense when I'm listening and then none at all afterwards? ;)

    1. For your first question, no.

      Second question... need reading or listening comprehension. lol

    2. Oops, sorry! Meant to log out not post that, hadn't even finished watching :)

  32. the one who talk about religen must know about religen, so the one who talk about science. you must ask me, the one who knows both perfectly to answer both people who stuck in mud like a dunky. this Gentelman....what is his name?...the gnostic man, he deny's religen when he knows not enaugh about it, if he was beside me i convence him in 10 min, just if he clame he is a scientist, if he really knows science i will convence him less than 10 min. so he is not a scientist if not looking for the answer. thank you very much Elvis left the building.

    1. "he denies religion when he knows not enough about it"
      That is a popular misconception among theologians, philosophers and theists. The truth is simple, though: if you provide no evidence for your claim and your claim explains nothing than we can reject it without knowing anything about it. There is no evidence for the existence of any gods and gods and religions are not needed to explain anything about how the universe works, so we can reject them without knowing much about them.

    2. If I read the Bible, does the evidence support it? The answer is yes. If I study the Theories of Evolution, they are created to support the evidence. But neither is scientific. Both are religion. You have to believe the creation story, just like you must believe the evolution stories. Science can not yet prove either.

    3. I have read bible 1990 version, useless book as its has been modified through centuries , on one page bible says dont kill, on other page it says kill all non/believers etc . Have you read about dagon? If not thres info of early christians who had no god. Its always science vs religion when thres doc of science here... Endless and useless batlle between religion and science. Think religion and science are both good for us unless its not fanatic fex fanatic christians and fanatic atheists both above mentined groups have lost objective thinking.. Make of that what you will.

    4. I'm pretty sure scientists are not trying to teach science as scripture.

      Too bad the preachers are trying to teach religion as science.

  33. This guy is an id**t. Read a few books and regurgitates text book nonsense. All on our tax dollars. Its like the shell game...he just never has an answer for anything. Meanwhile billions of dollars down the drain.

    1. Shame that a few of those billions of dollars could not have been spent to educate you.

  34. God created the universe, then created galaxy's, stars, planets and eventually humans - Ok so far so good. But who then created God - Maybe God's God - we can go on for ever(infinity). Theoretical Physics makes sense to humans but it still could be wrong.I think we as humans still got a long way to go. Lets just try to get along.

  35. Any thoughts about reviving the tired light hypothesis (tlh)? I do realize that the tlh has been relegated to the dustbin of physics history as a bad joke. However, as physicicists and astronomers keep on inventing new explanations for the unexplainable, I'm having second thoughts about ideas we've trashed. The falsification of the tlh hangs on a number of self-consistent assumptions, such as Tolman's surface brightness test of galaxies, the mainstream's acceptance of relativity theory, the nature and spread of microwave background radiation (mbr), and so on. But I'm not satisfied that the case is closed. A photon traversing the vast distances of space has a likelihood of encountering events that can snuff it out or bleed off energy (offbled energy needs to go somewhere - mbr, anyone?), to provide alternative explanations for otherwise self-consistent observations. Maybe every entity ages (the effects of entropy), even photons.

    On the plus side... do I agree with Krauss' argument of zero total energy throughout the universe, because it gels with my own atheistic axiom that the universe is inevitable, no god required.

  36. This was a very nice lecture, even a total witnit like me could follow it. Without having to understand every detail of theoretical physics. love it.

  37. Just a little thought inspired by one of Krauss's closing remarks:

    If the multiverse is infinite in extent, every possible thing, of course, happens all the time in some region of it. This means that not only will quantum fluctuations produce "this room with everything in it", they will produce a world full of fossils and geological strata, and in fact a universe full of redshifted galaxies and cosmic microwave background radiation; that is, a universe that completely appears to be 13.72 billion years old, but was in fact formed by a freak quantum fluctuation a few years ago, exactly as it is.

    Also, the same phenomenon will sometimes result in intelligent creatures capable of creating universes, and therefore universes created by these creatures.

    Problem, atheists?

    1. Besides the bending over backwards to leave room for ancient superstition and mixing theories as if they were pancake batter, nope, no problem.

  38. i can't get enought of these docs :PPP

  39. If you think you know it limits your ability to learn……….

    A wise man is someone who knows, he knows nothing.
    If you think you know all about something, it hampers or limits your ability to learn anything new in relationship to it.

  40. Very good!

  41. uv never lived until uv taken a psychedelic..once u take one u'll realize why they are banned,anyways nothing is for certain. I personally believe that there is a God

  42. if u take lsd u'll believe in god

    1. I have and I don't. Awesome experiences, but perception along with many other things is altered by drugs. I find it simply amazing how a substance and the human body can interact to produce such strange effects.. but that is all it is my friend; not magic, not God.

    2. I love how you " enlightened" kids who have messed with mind altering drugs always try to force them and those experiences on to others. Usually while drunk or high talking at me across a bar stool in between the time between your bouts of unemployment. I get higher and further sitting by myself in a dark room on a comfortable chair listening to music then your inane experiences with idiotic drugs will ever get you. No need to reply, nothing you say can change anything of importance, enjoy your miserable life, i know I enjoy thinking about people like you and how much better I have it. Oh do I ever lol

    3. Psychologists, neurologists, and drug veterans all disagree with you. Listen, some people take it too far, but you seem to believe that anyone that uses a drug is so messed up on it that you view them as essentially moronic animals. If those are the people YOU hang out with cool, but not everyone is like that. I personally know plenty of people that have legitimate professions, families, pets, boats, and large homes that are HAPPY in this life AND use drugs, the difference is, unlike all the nards you hang out with, they know their limits and don't over use to the point of mental failure.

      Also, most of us don't have miserable lives, at least I don't, it sounds like you are projecting your own idealizations of what a drug user is and making it a personal issue.

      I saw a doc once about people like you, those that condemn others for doing what they refuse to, and the concensus is that you hold this grudge simply because they are not like you. So in short, you're no different from a back woods racist.

      Get a clue dude, modern drugs have done more for our civilization than you would believe, my uncle has a rare disease and he takes big time narcotics (prescription pills) just to be able to walk around, now those same pills can be abused, and if it were up to people like you, they would not be around for him to use, seriously detrimenting the quality of his life.

      I'm really really glad that small minded individuals like yourself do not get to decide these things.

    4. Well said.

    5. Thank you for that, it was well said :) It has been a long time since I first read these comments. I feel sorry for someone who sits there inflating their ego by attempting to shit on others. It is really quite sad because it shows that in order for him to feel good about himself, he has picked something about people that he doesn't have in common with them (having ever used a drug for recreational purposes). He then fabricated a stereotype by choosing a single set of character and personality traits and opinions that consist of things he is not and does not agree with, for every one of the people who fall into the category of having used a drug. He then goes on to convince himself of their clone-like existance. By creating such a detailed stereotype in his mind, he can merge all the rather trivial facts about himself that aren't all that useful for developing self esteem and happiness (such as never having done a drug before or being employed) into a list of 'qualities' that his created stereotype does not possess. This, in his mind, gives him an enormous population to feel superior to and better still, he can determine whether he is or not by one simple identifier: Have they done a drug before?

      "No need to reply, nothing you say can change anything of importance,
      enjoy your miserable life, i know I enjoy thinking about people like you
      and how much better I have it. Oh do I ever lol"

      It's not hard to hear this when you read the prior excerpt:

      "I don't want to hear reason. I know this is illogical but it is my system and it helps me tolerate my existance. Wow, I feel awesome right now :D"

      The truly saddest part of this is that he could get his happiness, sense of self worth and esteem from any number of positive things like being a good friend, helping the community, etc. but he chooses feeling superior to people and fantasizing that their lives are miserable and pathetic as his solution. Because in truth, when people like that feel inferior, miserable and pathetic, they find it easier to simply pretend other people are instead of working on developing their positive attributes.

      I feel quite sorry for that guy. If a person thinks their lifes happiness is determined by a comparison of what makes their life and self better than others, they are never going to stop being pathetic and will never know real happiness.

  43. I thought this would be a science lecture - but instead it is some kook talking about science fiction...disappointing!

    1. This is the most interesting talk i've ever seen :) Lawrence is a great scientist and the mix between knowledge & comic is just perfect! :D So quit whining!

  44. I don't mean to offend anyone w/ the atheist comment. Maybe I just cannot understand either viewpoint because I was brought up in an nonreligious household that did not push one view or the other on me, I could understand the pent up frustration that some people have w/ religions, esp. Judaism-Christian-Islamic just because they perhaps grew up in an overbearing household and also the wars perpetuated by members of these religious groups... But still, tis not a reason to hate the religion in general, more of a reason to hate the charismatic leaders who use a philosophical ideal as a tool to dominate, the same can happen with science, when the scientific community ostracizes a member for a controversial belief that goes against their long held traditions... Is science as a community not much different from the incense swinging mysteries of the vatican... in a way at the least? I just like for people to question themselves... to hold any viewpoint so tightly cannot be good for one's intellect or psyche.

  45. Erm... clarification, the idea of: No such thing as a beginning or end, just an is-ness...

  46. I just have one thing to pick at... why is it almost all hardline atheists are just as dogmatic and intolerable as fanatic religious individuals? Also, how can you say that for sure, you *know* what happens after death... even science has said that it does not know, and cannot prove anything regarding this... to follow science as blindly as a god seems futile. BTW. I am not a Christian, Hindu, et al. I stand neutral on the god matter... I just choose to not vehemently push views onto others that I myself cannot prove, and then say that I am overly scientific, and intelligent and moral. I feel that it is a most unscientific thing, and quite base. If atheists would like to one up the religious community, why not be kind to them and treat them nicely, just so you can prove that you're all more christ like than them, and don't even believe in him! ;) Cheer up guys! And don't take everything science says to be truth, no one in this world can know anything for *sure*. god has not been proven, nor disproven, so for one to say that science has disproven the existence of a god is quite illogical.

    On another note, what about the idea that the universe has always been, will always be, and is an ever-changing infinite system?

    1. The universe is expanding at and increasing speed. So it makes sense to me that there will be other "big bangs" in the future that will need the extra space now being created to exist in. I adore the way you are so sensitive to what others believe. I wish I could have "faith" in God and the afterlife. I did have the near death experience in my life already and I can tell you with 100% truth that God is real and we do still exist when we die in this world. Once you know the truth for yourself, it takes the excitement and wonder that we all have from childhood and throws it right out the window. Enjoy the suspence for as long as you can. Once you have found the answer to the question... "Does God exist?", You will understand that it is like loosing your virginity. You can't ever go back to who you were before.

    2. you gotta be kidding, enjoy the suspence? because your sad now that you know god is real? did i get that right, you are unbelievable. you're an ignorant and are enjoying it, how 'bout that.
      no one can proove god is real i dont care how you got your hallucination, the brain is a machine to ''make sens'' of the information it gets, you clearly need a better feeding of information to understand the univers that surrounds you... sorry but your argument that god exist and that once you know that, learning more about the univers is boring, makes no intelligible sens, i don't know which way you twisted the logic in your brain but it's too simple, as in stupid.
      it sounds like you got raped when you lost your virginity.

  47. Seems like the notion of a beginning of a universe that could have been formed from nothing is baseless or a canard for it would not have had a beginning if it were infinite. Infinity comes and goes in every direction. Not from something nor from nothing.

  48. My Favorite Documentary. Our existence a "Coincident or Design", "A Special Time" being the only time life can exist. Then the Dr. "Returns to the Center of the Universe" to create a Different "Special Time" and infinite "Special Times" when life may exist. Something from nothing or from "THE VOID" sounds like Gods creation, GOD which is yet to be defined or described by anyone I know or heard of to my satisfaction. WHAT OF COSMIC HUMILITY?Please define God, love and Eternal. I don't understand or have ever seen any of them, but I experience LOVE and all of them at every opportunity.
    This without considering Reality and Truth from Bishop Berkeley to Kant. Sincerely loved Lecture, learned so much, opened too many doors to new questions.THANK YOU

  49. This is also one of my favorite videos on the site; very informative and clearly explains and relates a lot of complex concepts

    However I agree with Atom's comment. It may be true that the universe was created out of quantum fluctuations, but to say that this means something was created from nothing, and that that in turn proves there is no need for the concept of a prime-mover, is in my opinion a step too far. It's a case of science over-stepping it's mark; a worrying sign given the history of religions in this regard.

    Quantum fluctuations may be defined as essentially nothing in the realm of Physics, but then wasn't it Richard Feynman who said nobody truly understands Quantum Mechanics? I think Laurence Krauss has indeed led us on a bit of a Mystery Story here. His story ends at the point where neither Physics nor Cosmology can offer any further explanations for the mystery within their current paradigms. And rather than ending the story with something along the lines of "this is as far as we can go with the story in today's limits of scientific understanding", rather he concludes that a phenomenon not entirely understood by science is now in fact a new definition of nothing. And with this understanding he has shown us there is no need for a prime mover in the universe.

    Given how smoothly and clearly the story runs up to this point, it's particularly disappointing that in order to reach the climax, we need to make a leap-of-faith with this new definition of nothing. Perhaps the idea is totally plausible to Cosmologists and Theoretical Physicists; in which case it's more an issue of failure to communicate the idea to the rest of us mere mortals!

    A possibly related aside: I seem to remember some idea related to M-Theory and Parallel Universes whereby quantum fluctuations were seen as the crossing of particles from one universe to another [I could be confusing this with another idea on gravitational forces "leaking" across universes]. If there's anything to this, it suggests that in the realm of physics, Krauss' nothing is in fact something from a different universe

  50. Sorry but nothing means nothing and something means something. Title should read the universe from quantum fluctuation.
    Until you can explain the energy that pops out of it and what sustains it then you have no ground to make such "pompous" statements either.

  51. Scients claim everything in the universe was created from something millions and millions smaller than a single proton. What could that be? Obvious, the thought of God. The so called "experts" talk as if they never read the bible. If you read it as it is written and not looking for something to back up your opinion, you will find the answers to most of your questions, e.g. Genesis Chapter 1:27 and Genesis2:7. God created man and woman and they had no soul. He later created Adam and Eve and they had souls. Thats where Cain's wife came from.

  52. I wish there were more of these lectures with simple facts and without unnecessary background music and drama (like " Through the wormhole). Great documentary.

  53. It is funny how this guy hates on religious and philosophers alike. The reason that he has to refute secular philosophy is because his arguments are completely irrational. The fact is when he talks about nothing, he is still talking about something. I believe he said, "nothing can create something... because quantum particles in nothing cause something to exist." Wait, wait, NOTHING means NOTHING or NO-THING. Quantum particles are a thing, that creates another thing. This is a classic example of scientific fanaticism, it is the same as religious fanaticism. You assume that your conclusion is true, (atheism) and then bend your data to match. This is not true science, and is really a joke. Every philosopher knows what a joke Dawkins is also. Remember NOTHING is NO-THING, the absence of everything. You can play semantics all you want but the universe came from something.

    1. @Tim Hardin

      I have no problem with your post, which is much ado about nothing, (sorry) but I am interested in this

      “Every philosopher knows what a joke Dawkins is also.”

      Who are you talking about? Please provide some evidence; I guess you won’t be using Dan Dennett or Sam Harris but somebody of equal calibre would be nice.

      Unkeep the faith

  54. Anyone who does not worship FSM is an atheist and will be damned to eternal boiling in a pot without pasta!

  55. At least this man speaks in facts, unlike brainwashed religious idiots whose only weapon is fear.

  56. Do not be deceived, the bible says the Lord creation the universe, and He spoke it into existance from NOTHING. I love how science ALWAYS confirms the Word of God. Jesus IS LORD and each of us will stand before Him , face to face, wether you believe in Him or not. Check out chuck missler vids on Y*uT*be if you want to see how the Lord did create everything from nothing.

    1. BullS**t

    2. @Tim hardin: like every single person with a doctorate in history agrees that Budda existed.Or Mohammad. it is an irrefutable fate . jst sayin

    3. Chuck Missler? isn't that the guy with his jar of peanut butter creation scenario?

      He was laughed out of existence with that comedy. By the way there is no proof that your Jesus even existed, so you better switch religions, there are many thousands more with millions more gods.

    4. Actually almost every single person with a doctorate in History agrees that Jesus existed, it is an irrefutable fact.

    5. @Tim Hardin:

      Really? then probably biased, and it is not an irrefutable fact that Jesus existed, far from it. But since you are saying that he did then the burden of proof lies on you to prove it.

    6. Here is a fun exercise for you, try and draw out the creation story from Genesis. Make sure to read it very carefully though. No need to draw anything fancy just the stages of creation.

    7. What ? You don't believe in Buddha ???? ATHEIST !!!

    8. How long will you and your kind continue to spread hate & death in the name of your loving "lord"? I am here to tell you, I have died, and there is no god waiting for you on the other side.
      No light, no tunnel, no loved ones.

      All we have is this moment, please make all your moments the best they can be.

      I beg you, patriot978, to find compassion for the earth and all that live here, lest your hate consume you.

      The only judgement is your own, the only hell is hate, the only heaven is love.

  57. Please Vlatko, more lectures and/or debates. These are the most tightly packed with information formats there are, without long periods of music and pictures used as filler. Perhaps they are more difficult to find, but it is like being a student able to sit in and hear the most difficult concepts explained by the most brilliant minds. Thank you for this, it's a brilliant piece filled with information explained with wit, humor, and intelligence.

    1. That's why Vlatko started Keen Talks. Funny how our top commenter who is an unconditional science supporter and spirituality basher never comment on there...he rather argue to god or not to god on TDF.

  58. That guy looks like the dad from Calvin and Hobbes.

  59. @Hate_machine

    enjoyed your perspective and humor. Hope you can chime in on more discussions.

  60. @Dromato

    I cannot express how simple my life has become from watching many of the very educated documentaries here. And I am now content to call myself an athiest with a vision and background to support the views I hold.

    I agree with spiritual connection and it does not require a god or religion imho. It has evovled with us I believe.

    Great comments on your part also.

  61. @Ron

    Bravo, this is exactly how I feel when I watch docos like this one, and others on this site from Dawkins, and especially the amazing Carl Sagan.

    You're right about Science eclipsing Religion in our understanding of the cosmos. Further, the thing I never get about the religious is how they are unable to perceive the wonders that our increased understanding have revealed, and be so much more awed by the incredible intricacy and level of complexity that has arisen from nothing, than they could ever be by any parochial view of a creator inherited from our ancestors' attempts to explain natural phenomenon.

    What you were saying about coming to accept how small we are in the cosmos also really resonates with me. I get an almost spiritual joy from finding out how amazing and complicated our universe is.
    Sagan, Dawkins, even John Lennon, are all spiritual leaders in a way, in that they teach us to fulfill our human yearning for a spiritual connection, without having to resort to religion, which, let's face it, is pretty ridiculous.

  62. The best documentaries I have watched on this site are from Dawkins, Sagan and I would now include this one.

    Science and the theories we know and understand explain a lot. And that tells us how insignificant we are and it is entirely and totally possible that we are just simply small pieces of the cosmos. Nothing more. There is no plan there is no creator just us flowing along with all other living things on a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a universe in a potential multi universe environment. To me it is beautiful and simple.

    The religous people who watch these doc's are offended, feel threatened, want to profess our demise for not believing in their dogma yet their religion is but a small step in the evolution in mans history. How many religions have been built up and disintegrated over time? Science has moved on but only for a few moments in history where the religions have suppressed it.

    I just think it is beautiful that science can show us so much and prove and theorize the possibilities and we can find evidence to support the views of Dawkins and Sagan.

    I think it is beautiful that we can be free to think and create and love and grow and explore and understand that we are as significant as an ant when it really comes down to it. Yet we can achieve so much more but in the end we come we do our thing and we die.

    And we do not need a god to make our feelings and compassion be in alignment for the betterment of society. Understanding that we are part of the cosmos is all we need. For some it is god and that is fine but for many of us it is not god and that should be fine also. I do not feel sorry for religious people because when they die they will be disappointed. So why do they feel the need to ask me to repent and be concerned that I am going to be disappointed also?

    In my humble opinion.

    I think Sagan and Dawkins provide a great view of humanity and how science can and should lead us all to view our planet as one. Or as John Lennon wrote..."Imagine"

  63. Sorry Achems , I was just saying to myself,"nothing isn't nothing but something which is everything and something so nothing isn't anything!" Ha!

    Or a>a=1b(1b=1c)(1c=1b). So a = 0?

  64. @Achems
    Therefore existence exists necessarily, even if nothing else exists.
    So, there is always “something” rather than “nothing”

    If there is a such thing as "nothing". Given your statement, very well put might I add,liked it a lot, nothing as a word in sciences' eyes when speaking on occupied space/time is not in the vocabulary at all? Lol

    I don't necessarily disagree there. Care to elaborate a little? Give me an example if yoU could be so kind as to entertain the idea of infinite from infinite.


  65. Harry

    Like Nietzsche I say,"Thus Zarathustra spoke, god is dead."

  66. Ahhh this is where you guys have been hiding from me at!

    Again I say,bravo because u have been hitting the nail before I had a chance to get in here. I specifically like the way you put the nova example out there and the x=y out there. I couldn't agree more.

    Remember the penny. You can flip it over and over without ever being able to 100 percent tell exactly how it will land. Heads,tails, and sometimes on its edge, so is the quantum world. Two slits merely examples this but shows how the probabilities are going to show up eventually but not always when you'd like. But always will eventually hit the mark.

    But its funny you mention time and consciousness! I was discussing this today on how time is only relative to us humans as we perceive it and wouldn't necessarily be as such to other beings. Example; an hour on earth as opposed to an hour in space. Although on a clock it says an hour, depending on what we are timing and at what speed and on how much gravitational force we put on said object, does the time in which we use have the same relevance? Ie can we even use it as an accurate way of ltiming" in open space. Also would another species out there(just for fun assuming they even exist) even measure time as we do or would our mathematics be a viable tool in which could be usable to another planet? Think of the AU or the LY in which we measure distance, the AU to us would be non-usable as it only applies to our system alone but does light travel the same in another galaxy / universe? We don't REALLY know do we? Also like you said everything we see has happened already. You are right. We see everything after the fact,example; light from the sun is four yrs old and when I look at someone in front of me its like a trillionth of a second and gets even more and more distant as the distance between me and that object gets further. But how is this really relevant to our lives? Or is it just another thing we can look at to keep us pacing at night!? lol

    I know also from my own experience our personal perception and consciousness will differ on events from one person to the next. So does this not effect my time as opposed to yours? Ie my hour and your hour are not the same hour at all? Lol

    What do you (or anybody else_non religees please_ ) think about our own self/conciseness being apart of different realities dimensions or whatever all at the same time, and actually participating in multiple? Exampl; ever slept and woke yourself up while looking at yourself? Or just watched yourself sleeping and felt your own gaze? Or ever had a violent sleep where you seemed to be in more than one place and could feel the difference? Or is this just a subconscious thing? Or is the subconscious,apart of one or more of these other realities?

    Just throwing it out there. I'd like to hear you guys' feedback.
    Ep? You in on this?

  67. Harry Tritt, your comments were deleted because they are not productive.

    they are nothing except your religious delusional claims being yelled at people who want to actually watch and discuss something on an intellectual level.

    you say nothing = nothing yet you believe you god made everything out of nothing. you believe he existed forever and just decided one day because he was bored of playing with satan to make the universe and people.

    you THREATEN people that because they dont believe the same fairy tale that you have been tricked into believing that they will go to some terrible place for all of eternity.

    you are a disgusting person. you are a terrorist. you try to scare people into thinking like you. you have no logic, no evidence, no proof to support your claims so you resort to fear tactics. you make me sick.

    if you want to preach go watch a video about your god and preach there all you want. IF you have an INTELLIGENT response or refutation of anything said it, please, point it out and explain what you have a problem with and why...

    now until you can have conversation like an adult maybe you should leave your parents internet alone.

  68. Mr. Kraus is so arrogant and has so few answers. But if you DO NOT want to see the Truth, then Mr. Kraus and Mr. Dawkins are your heroes. And you will find what you are looking for, but it won't be the Truth.

  69. You deleted my comment because you are afraid of Truth....death will bring you Truth.

  70. This is the funniest video I have ever watched. Life is so simple and even the simplest of minds can understand. Nothing = nothing. God is making of fool out of Dawkins, Krauss and any other blind person that says there is no God. Repent of such prideful ignorance or face eternity being punished for your ignoring your creator. Everyone in their heart of hearts KNOWS there is a God. But because YOU want do not want to be held accountable to a standard, you ignore the FACT in your heart.

  71. Fractals, =)

  72. So in that triangulation point of galaxies parting each other, the dark matter cant take it more´, so it creates(becomes, separates into) matter or the cyclone to pull off the dust from the parting galaxies, and to form a new one. So is a new galaxy´s weight equal to the dust thrown off the parting galaxies?

  73. So what if galaxies where separating from each other, and the dust they leave behind will congregate in a point(we might call this at the approximation of where the galaxy that departed it became)That point is where the galaxy that is separating was born and where the dust thrown off by adjacent galaxies comes to congregate and spawn a new galaxie.

    So it will seem its not such a lonely Universe , we just get to hang out with the young ones instead of the old and that burp of expansion is just like a spider web a drop between drops, or so, part me a champagne super nova.

    The space that galaxies leave, will be a space for new to form, and the separation we envisioned is just connected with the new galaxy thats formed from the dust of those departing galaxies, flat universe er0 maybe , curved maybe, theres one more I forget, anyways I say it´s a bit of them all...

    So not realy a parting separation, just a breaking point to bring the ripples in, which I may burp the dark matter divides in the distance, and ripples a new dust, galaxy formation, dark matter must have a distance tension, probably a constant.

  74. Well, as most of the posters, i saw the documentary, and after that i wanted to take a look at the comments...
    Concerning the war about Gods existence or not...This dialog was formed in my thought:

    -Where is God when you most need him?
    -He is feeding His Cat.
    -Yeah, but is The Cat "really" there?


  75. A great ' Thanks ' for this whole canon of documentaries.


    If at the beginning there was something at all, and if that something was the whole thing, then it can be shown that by logical necessity that something will have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. This is by virtue of that something being the whole thing. Something is the whole thing means there cannot be anything at all outside of that something; neither space, nor time, nor matter, nor anything else. It is the alpha and omega of existence. But, if it is the whole thing, then it must have to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless. Otherwise it will be merely a part of a bigger whole thing. Now let us denote this something by a big X. Now, can this X be in any space? No, it cannot be. If it is, then where is that space itself located? It must have to be in another world outside of X. But by definition there cannot be anything outside of X. Therefore X cannot be in any space. Again, can this X have any space? No, it cannot have. If we say that it can have, then we will again be in a logical contradiction. Because if X can have any space, then that space must have to be outside of it. Therefore when we consider X as a whole, then we will have to say that neither can it be in any space, nor can it have any space. In every respect it will be spaceless. For something to have space it must already have to be in some space. Even a prisoner has some space, although this space is confined within the four walls of his prison cell. But the whole thing, if it is really the whole thing, cannot have any space. If it can have, then it no longer remains the whole thing. It will be self-contradictory for a whole thing to have any space. Similarly it can be shown that this X can neither be in time, nor have any time. For a whole thing there cannot be any ‘before’, any ‘after’. For it there can be only an eternal ‘present’. It will be in a timeless state. If the whole thing is in time, then it is already placed in a world where there is a past, a present, and a future, and therefore it is no longer the whole thing. Now, if X as a whole is spaceless, timeless, then that X as a whole will also be changeless. There might always be some changes going on inside X, but when the question comes as to whether X itself is changing as a whole, then we are in a dilemma. How will we measure that change? In which time-scale shall we have to put that X in order for us to be able to measure that change? That time-scale must necessarily have to be outside of X. But there cannot be any such time-scale. So it is better not to say anything about its change as a whole. For the same reason X as a whole can never cease to be. It cannot die, because death is also a change. Therefore we see that if X is the first thing and the whole thing, then X will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness by virtue of its being the whole thing. It is a logical necessity. Now, this X may be anything; it may be light, it may be sound, or it may be any other thing. Whatever it may be, it will have the above four properties of X. Now, if we find that there is nothing in this universe that possesses the above four properties of X, then we can safely conclude that at the beginning there was nothing at all, and that therefore scientists are absolutely correct in asserting that the entire universe has simply originated out of nothing. But if we find that there is at least one thing in the universe that possesses these properties, then we will be forced to conclude that that thing was the first thing, and that therefore scientists are wrong in their assertion that at the beginning there was nothing. This is only because a thing can have the above four properties by virtue of its being the first thing and by virtue of this first thing being the whole thing, and not for any other reason. Scientists have shown that in this universe light, and light only, is having the above four properties. They have shown that for light time, as well as distance, become unreal. I have already shown elsewhere that a timeless world is a deathless, changeless world. For light even infinite distance becomes zero, and therefore volume of an infinite space also becomes zero. So the only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
    Another very strong reason can be given in support of our belief that at the beginning there was light. The whole thing will have another very crucial and important property: immobility. Whole thing as a whole thing cannot move at all, because it has nowhere to go. Movement means going from one place to another place, movement means changing of position with respect to something else. But if the whole thing is really the whole thing, then there cannot be anything else other than the whole thing. Therefore if the whole thing moves at all, then with respect to which other thing is it changing its position? And therefore it cannot have any movement, it is immobile. Now, if light is the whole thing, then light will also have this property of immobility. Now let us suppose that the whole thing occupies an infinite space, and that light is the whole thing. As light is the whole thing, and as space is also infinite here, then within this infinite space light can have the property of immobility if, and only if, for light even the infinite distance is reduced to zero. Scientists have shown that this is just the case. From special theory of relativity we come to know that for light even infinite distance becomes zero, and that therefore it cannot have any movement, because it has nowhere to go. It simply becomes immobile. This gives us another reason to believe that at the beginning there was light, and that therefore scientists are wrong in asserting that at the beginning there was nothing.
    I know very well that an objection will be raised here, and that it will be a very severe objection. I also know what will be the content of that objection: can a whole thing beget another whole thing? I have said that at the beginning there was light, and that light was the whole thing. Again I am saying that the created light is also the whole thing, that is why it has all the properties of the whole thing. So the whole matter comes to this: a whole thing has given birth to another whole thing, which is logically impossible. If the first thing is the whole thing, then there cannot be a second whole thing, but within the whole thing there can be many other created things, none of which will be a whole thing. So the created light can in no way be a whole thing, it is logically impossible. But is it logically impossible for the created light to have all the properties of the whole thing? So what I intend to say here is this: created light is not the original light, but created light has been given all the properties of the original light, so that through the created light we can have a glimpse of the original light. If the created light was not having all these properties, then who would have believed that in this universe it is quite possible to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, deathless? If nobody believes in Scriptures, and if no one has any faith in personal revelation or mystical experience, and if no one can depend on any kind of authority here, and if no one even tries to know Him through meditation, then how can the presence of God be made known to man, if not through a created thing only? So, not through Vedas, nor through Bible, nor through Koran, nor through any other religious books, but through light and light only, God has revealed himself to man. That is why we find in created light all the most essential properties of God: spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness.

    Footnote: If the universe is treated as a whole unit, then it can be said to be spaceless, timeless. I first got this idea from an article by Dr. Lee Smolin read in the internet. Rest things I have developed. This is as an acknowledgement.


    I think we need no further proof for the existence of God. That light has all the five properties of the whole thing is sufficient. I will have to explain.
    Scientists are trying to establish that our universe has started from nothing. We want to contradict it by saying that it has started from something. When we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that there was something. We are not saying that there was some other thing also other than that something. Therefore when we are saying that at the beginning there was something, we are saying that at the beginning there was a whole thing. Therefore we are contradicting the statement that our universe has started from nothing by the statement that our universe has started from a whole thing.
    I have already shown that a whole thing will have the properties of spacelessness, timelessness, changelessness, deathlessness, immobility (STCDI). This is by logical necessity alone. It is logically contradictory to say that a whole thing can have space. Let us suppose that the whole thing is having space. Then the so-called whole thing along with the space that it is having will constitute the real whole thing. If my arguments that I have offered so far to show that the whole thing will always have the above five properties by virtue of its being the whole thing are sound, and if they cannot be faulted from any angle, then I can make the following statements:
    1. In this universe only a whole thing can have the properties of STCDI by logical necessity alone.
    2. If the universe has started from nothing, then nothing in this universe will have the properties of STCDI.
    3. If the universe has started from a whole thing, then also nothing other than the initial whole thing will have the properties of STCDI. This is only because a whole thing cannot beget another whole thing.
    4. But in this universe we find that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, is still having the properties of STCDI.
    5. This can only happen if, and only if, the initial whole thing itself has purposefully given its own properties to light, in order to make its presence known to us through light.
    6. But for that the initial whole thing must have to have consciousness.
    7. So, from above we can come to the following conclusion: the fact that light, in spite of its not being a whole thing, still possesses the properties of STCDI, is itself a sufficient proof for the fact that the universe has started from a conscious whole thing, and that this conscious whole thing is none other than God.

    1. you are saying, supposing and sudenly you conjure god. proof of god. good enough not to need any other. anyway, what if there was no beginning?

    2. Yes, Buddha is the almighty creator ! Or was it the Spaghetti-Monster ?

  77. charles b, who created god?...........

  78. hi all,

    i am a 1st time poster long time lurker who really enjoys this docu site and comments section thanks to all that work on here and long may it continue.

    as a layman who is fasinated to find himself on a rock in the corner of an non spectacular galaxy in a sea of billions of other galaxies wondering how i happened to be here i am glad there is a place where people with a lot more knowledge than me discuss exactly that which i often ponder.

    i really liked the cube analogy for time it is similar to 1 i use when trying comprehend time and probabilties.

    i view it as being a flower and the head is always your now and the petals are the different possabilities that are always ahead for you and the stem is the past from your perspective. hope that makes some kind of sense lol.

    great stuff guys keep posting i love reading all your perspectives. (yes even hate machine however frustrating that can be 8-) peace.

  79. @Achem Razor:

    Yes, wish I knew you long time ago, then my confidence might have not taken such a hit as a young person growing around devout religious folks, they always thought I was crazy when I tried to explain. I did not know much mathematics or science but it was just logical. Growing up and seeing scientists show this with such empirical data is astounding to me.

  80. @Abdul:

    My thoughts basically follow your perspectives also. As Einstein said, everything is relative, relative to the observer.

    To me, there is no such thing as oblivion, there is death of the body, yes. But the true threat of death is to the observer. in the third person view, life forms enter into existence and then leave.

    Try to imagine a state where nothing exists. Such a state is impossible, even contradictory, since the concept existence is necessary to apprehend it. Therefore existence exists necessarily, even if nothing else exists.
    So, there is always "something" rather than "nothing"!

  81. This will scare you; I had this thought when I was a kid, and always thought it was too crazy to discuss; the one thing most human fear is death, but I sincerely believe that this is the last thing you will get.

    You are in fact in an infinite loop, death will only happen to people you know, from your reference point you will be eternally between SLEEP and conciousness. I capped SLEEP purposefully, because when you are unconcious time approaches zero, so your conciousness will continue when everything that made you consciousness possible(call random quantum fluctuation if you like) happens again.

    YOU REALLY NEVER DIE from your your own reference, that is why you see yourself keep getting old and older, while everyone else around you passes on.

    Well if you died when 20 from someone else perspective?

    Sleep gives you a clue, remember when your sleep quality used to be the best, you fall asleep and 8 hrs passes like a second. In death it is the same think except trillion years or trillion universes later, if whatever happened that made your consciousness possible before happens again then wallah all that time between them is still zero...so you are never dead. The irony is that the thing we most fear to happen to us might actually be the thing we might never get.

  82. Wooow, When I was in primary school in Africa, I used to try to convince my school buddies, that we are possible because if we were impossible then we wouldn't be asking this question, and that is why I did not believe in God, obviously they were too young to understand me. so after all these years, I get to watch this thought put in mathematical form.

    It made perfect sense for me long time ago, without an ounce of education at the time.

  83. Religion is a Vampire and Science is the light of the sun.

  84. Great lecture, I really liked it.

    I know he kind of dismisses it in the lecture, but I'm curious as to whether string theory affects his model. Does its reconciliation of general relativity and quantum mechanics and the idea that gravitons can move through dimensions discount his theory?
    As far as I can see it, they're both trying to get all the forces in the universe to cancel each other out.

    And this is all assuming that Newtonian mechanics apply universally, right?

  85. We will be trying to understand the nature of the universe for our entire existence, but we are limited beings with limited means and if Einstein is correct and light is the ultimate speed limit then we will never truly know what a black hole is for example as we are "land locked" in our little nook and cannot make a direct observation.

    This fellow seems obsessed with trying to disproved God. I don't know if there is a "God" or not, but what I do know or suspect rather is that if you have infinity or an infinite number or universes then I suppose a being could have evolved with complexity beyond our ability to understand and be "God like" because it could happen. The laws of physics or mathematics as we understand them would not apply in alternative universe or another dimension as the rules (in another universe there may be no rules!) would be different. This "being" would not be subject to the limitations that are placed on us.

    We could all be in a simulation for all we know or perhaps just you?

  86. Quite intriguing,Good lecture from a perspective. On close,however still so much unanswered.

  87. LOL, I love richard. other than his comment media studies. I am a science student that went in to media studies. Can he explain why Americans are ignorant, lonely, but dominate? I can through media studies.

  88. WOW! I am no scientist however I am intrigued with science. All fields of science especially cosmology and particle physics. Lawrence Krauss makes it very easy for the average person to hang on to his every word and learn in plain English what he is presenting. This Documentary is entertaining, enlightening, and very funny at times. Well done!I will watch it again I am sure.

  89. that was cute .... does using the word "cute" insult you who think science is so important , understanding the details of it's language of math , al it is is another languauge i can not speak chinese , but speak other languauges , heck i can ot een function in my own languauge or draw within the lines ..( spell and use grammar ) .... what does STRING theroy mean " i dunno "

    love it ! what a geat show of humility , i wish more scientists would be such examples for the real legions to learn from maybe .

    and then the Q - n - A at the end is DESERT ( the choclate cake with ice cream and whipped topping w/ a strawberry big enough to share 0 if? if there is anything like IN FI NITE , ahhh what a great concept for in fi nite is just in fite to a mind that can process as little info as our bio machine can or any amchine we can CONCIEVE of out into what we currently call in fi nite ....

    back to the old question i found int he holographic model of the universe in the sci am article ,,, and i thought where am i as i am doing this observation .

    why is the or this or ANY unvierse so F'ing important anyways .... all would be in a 1 before the bigining of expansion and beyond PERCIEVABLE limits we hold to thru times to come of in fi nite growth in ablity to percieve ... still in a 1 ( for lack of a better word tool , i repeat the Lao ... i know not what it is so i call it Tao ) and double slit quatum babble ...just drops in a bucket of un imporatnce except that there is nothing better to do than accept the idea of no's so we can play

  90. @ doe:

    Just got on the computer, google "Julian Barbour" for his end of time theory. Can't explain everything on blogs. Will direct you though.

    @ Joe: Quantum-entanglement is a strange feature of Quantum physics,
    if you link together say, two particles that makes them two parts of the same entity, separate them and put one part say, in the deep feild of space, 13.7 billion light years away. A change in one particle is "instantly" reflected in the other.
    Good analogy for time by the way.

  91. Thanks for the response oliarguello.

    @Joe- Hard to tell but that second response seems more directed towards me... I asked him to explain his views on his beliefs because i'm interested. I fully understand all that can be understood about entanglement given my limited resources. If by chance that was a serious question then my apologies. Hard to tell over the net.

    I really like the attitudes here, hard to believe it's just a comment section....

  92. doe


    And your choices in reality will be shown as directions of the line within the cube.

  93. Razor

    Explain to me about ENTANGLEMENT like I am 11 years old. Please? :)

  94. doe

    Try to picture time like a cube. Within this cube contains all the probabilities of past, present, and future. Now, imagine a dot within the cube. This dot is you and your 'now'. Because we perceive time in linear you will be moving in one direction. After some duration there will be a line drawn within the cube.

    I know this sounds funky but it did helped me to understand how all realities could have happened already. And all probable pasts still exist.

  95. @DOE:

    Well a lot of bad things do happen, but I don’t blame GOD. People and nature are influenced by the Devil to do evil things. Now, one can replace the words GOD and Devil with universe and chaos respectively. After all chaos is a relative term, as is evil. A disease may be seen as chaotic (evil) to a person but it makes a germ, bacteria, or virus thrive from its perspective. The death of a animal or person may be tragic for a person, but its needed for the …excuse the Disney idiom….”circle of life”. A widower (with no son) having sex and getting pregnant by her late husbands brother is vile to us, but its law in some other cultures. Evil in humanity is relative, but its all about the intent to do an evil deed.

    But none of that harms the Universe…using the law of thermodynamics that nothing can be created or destroyed, only transformed, there is no chaos or evil from the perspective of the entire Universe. (And yes I believe devil/chaos is part of GOD/universe akin to how an organ is part of you but its not who you are). Chaos and evil stem from our egocentric views and are deemed as unnecessary, but holistically they are necessary processes.

    Those are reasons for the mechanics of chaos/evil, but whats the purpose/meaning?

    Well how can we grow as a race or individual if we are not challenged. A hero that has no struggle to overcome, or moral character to be tested, is nothing more than a scarecrow( since it is not threatened ,or aware, to be destroyed and has no choices to make). Who is regarded and revered as a person?…the person who manages to love life and thrive amidst a life full of tragedy and struggle, or the person born with a silver spoon in their mouth and never had to work for anything? Theologically its a process in which GOD weeds out the strong/loyal/harmonious against the selfish/evil/chaotic. The harmonious go to 'heaven" the chaotic goes to "hell"; but eventually everything goes back to harmonious/heaven GOD ( see Harrowing of Hell).

    As for “why can’t shit just happen”.. Lets look at the human being. We can take an approach that describes people as mindless sacks of chemicals that simply respond to the stimuli of its environment ( as intricate and complex as those chemical interactions and environmental cues can be). But I don’t entirely believe in such a nihilist view. I believe we have intellect and will that can surpass ( to a point) our genetic dispositions and environmental circumstances. My body can crave sugar but I am not an animal who is a slave to my desires and needs to eat it when its put in front of me. I can choose not to consume the soda placed in front of me. I view the Universe the same way. Its not just a collection of matter , force, energy etc; it also has a will, intellect, and plan that I call GOD.

    And I know one can argue that my refusal to drink the soda is just a consequence of another nihilist phenomena from prior experience, knowledge, influence etc….. But in the end nobody can know for sure short of an experiment that has a cross between a Star Trek Holodeck ( for environmental consistency), The Truman Show ( for observation without intervention), genetic clones ( physical consistency) and extrapolating and inserting souls ( as the variable factor).

    Am I just a byproduct of the Big Bang and the cascade of events following it up to this point, and my future is already pre-determined? Or am I a person who has choice? I believe its both. I am a byproduct of innumerable circumstances to be in existence and to be where I am; and if every possible factor in existence (and how they interact) was able to be calculated then my future can be determined. But since there are infinite variables that cant currently be calculated ( even if it could ,wouldn’t the calculation then in fact affect my decisions and have to start over after each calculation at infinitum?) at any given moment of my existence I have choices. Even if I abandon choice and do nothing and have total apathy, that’s still a choice I would make. Choice seems inescapable. (there may be a flaw in my logic there about choices’ illusion/manifestation….would love to hear if anyone has a constructive critique or alternative theory).

    We are all seeking answers and the truth. We must keep an open mind and truly expose ourselves to both sides of an argument and not dismiss anything because of bias. The more knowledge the better ( after all a neuroscientist, chemist, housewife, and poet can all interpret a cup of coffee differently but they are all correct).I had a stint as an atheist, as I mentioned, but I can not dismiss the direct miracles I received prior to it happening with proof of intervention. So any theory or hypothesis I come up with has to have the spiritual realm incorporated. But don’t get me wrong….I know there are lots of evil people in the churches and a lot of dogma are just blatant lies or half truths that were seen as total truths in the time they were told, but have not evolved. Like the view of the atom….. the Bohr Model was revolutionary but is now just seen as a half truth since our model of the atom has evolved.

  96. I never said I was confused.... I said some people, I know your just gonna say I don't understand while not even attempting to explain anything but in my opinion you talk about stuff i'm willing to bet you don't fully understand.

    How can a person even debate someone that says "everything that happened already happend..." uhh yeah it's called the past, I don't see how this helps your point any! Fossils aren't simply snapshots or something we choose to interpret. I'll agree with you on the "time is an illusion" but not the way you see it, I believe time is just a way to manage our lives... I don't believe it should be turned into a tangible object to be twisted by modern mathematics, our whole time system is based on our rotation which is drastically different depending on which planet your on. There only starting to measure time using the constant beat of a photon.

    I mentioned quantum entanglement because this proves that the double slit experiment has more then just one possibility that does not include the particle turning into a wave in order to interact with itself, infact it split into 2 particles which previous to this experiment was unknown and impossible due to the well known principal of contradiction law(This law prohibits being in 2 place at once). There was no actual particle turning into a wave just an interpretation of such that has since been changed, so this experiment does not show that humans have the ability to change matter with our minds.

    Last thing I want is to come off as an a--hole and ruin this discussion, I would like to hear your interpretation without the use of phrases like the quote in my previous post. Try and make it simplified like your talking to a friend and not add as many ambiguous words as possible.

  97. @ doe:

    Did you say you are confused? At first it can be a bit confusing.
    You asked about the 100,000 years of primitive fossils,
    Well, not to utterly confuse you, it is because time is an illusion, everything that happened already happened, so we are just pulling out snapshots. It is just something that we chose to interpret.

    Yes, Entanglement, can be in 2 places at once, not just a mile away, but unlimited millions, billions, miles away.

  98. @Oliarguello- "the only reason I lean towards a belief in GOD is because I have seen personal miracles."

    Not to disrupt an intelligent discussion but what about all the absolutely horrible things that happen everyday? They clearly outnumber the amount of "miracles".... If these "miracles" are ones basis for faith and there reason for believing in a god then what does that mean for all these atrocitys worldwide? My point being is that I know it's comfortable believing in a higher power but at the end of the day why can't shit just happen?

    Razor- "would there be anything?. Yes there would be, but it would be fundamental particles of empty inherent existence that exist in an undefined state of potentialities and probabilities, in the vast sea of Quantum energy."

    @Razor What about the 100's of thousands of years of fossils that can be unearthed from before even the most primitive humans were around? Are they materializing from the minds of the archeologists considering they're the first to see them since they died? Those fossils represent more then just "fundamental particles of empty inherent existence"..... whatever that's supposed to mean. They were living animals that lived and thought long before us.

    We are one small planet among many galaxies and maybe even multiverses... If you believe in that then are we alone? If not what's to say we're not a figment of some ET's imagination? Where does it stop? I find it amazing the things that the human brain can contemplate but I think it's this same function of the human brian that can confuse a person.

    It is said that in the double slit experiment they interpreted the particle as a wave so as not to break the princible of contridiction. It was groundbreaking but since then using quantum theory and quantum entanglement they have found that it is indeed possible to be in two places at once....even up to a mile away!

  99. Time is self is the fourth dimension. As even carl sagan has said.
    The cosmology of the atom shows us that a large portion of substance in a signal atom is popping in and out of this physical reality faster then the speed of light. and the universe is made of atoms as you are made of these atoms as well. This means that a large part of "u" is popping in and out of this reality a billion times a second. Now you can relate this to "the observer" who with out having the observer no fixed speed or time can be measured. This says to me that with out the observer nothing can be fixed in time. Yet the observer is spending half of its existence outside of time.
    Who then is the observer. You are . And because you "observer" you bring into existence time and speed. That answers the question who is the creator?. You are.
    Who then is god? You are. And because you spend this “time”(for a lack of a better word) out side of time “u” can not have been born nor will “u” ever die.

  100. Great, well rounded speech which cover a range of fascinating and timeless, as we as currently relevent topics. Good watch!

  101. This is an amazing speech. There probably has to be at least a trillion different things to go right for me to be sitting here posting this message amongst you all. haha

  102. @Epicurus

    I never said GOD is the creator of the Universe. I said HE is the Universe. I dont believe he is an entity that sits in the corner of the Universe somewhere...that would be like saying you are your liver or, brain, or kidney....no you are all your organs, cells, chemicals, etc. ( i know that metaphor is limited and flawed but you get the gist of it).

    I base my ideas on what I have experienced, which I cannot ignore.

    And I am using Occams Razor. There is scientific evidence for how the physical realm works, and I have witnessed miracles that the miracle worker attributes to GOD. I am simply trying to explore the spiritual realm with given scientific data.

    Like I mentioned before...I dont beleive in magic and the spiritual world/supernatural has to have explanations and mechanisms. If you have an alternate hypothesis that incorporates empirical evidence along with what I have experienced...would love to hear it.

    i will definitely check out that doc thats on here. THANKS! :)

  103. how can everything be god if god is the "creator" unless you are assuming parts of god are finite....all of this is just assumptions that are completely baseless.

    occams razor my friend.

    PS. there is a great documentary on John Nash here on the site.

  104. @Hatemachine

    Thanks for the comments. I appreciate your disposition. It’s such a breath of fresh air to see someone voice their opinions without being angry or spewing personal attacks. I always appreciate constructive criticism because it make me think more and either helps me dismiss one of my prior notions, refine my ideas, or open my eyes to something totally new!

    ["I like where you are going with this, it is very romantic… but like most romantic ideas it has no bases in logic.”]

    Thanks! Of course most of what I say is just hypothesis based on what I know, read, and experienced. I use to have a stint as an atheist, and the only reason I lean towards a belief in GOD ( or Universe with intent and will) is because I have seen personal miracles. Not the lighting or births phenomena as I mention later in my commentary, but true modern day miracles. There is a person (you can call her prophet, spiritual healer, or currandera…but she doesn’t go by any of those terms) who can tell you specific details about your health, past, present and future, without you uttering a word. And Not in a “you feel underappreciated at work” generalized mumbo jumbo, but specific things like ( just one of many examples)“your boss is going to call you into his office this week. But don’t worry he is going to ask you to travel out of state for business” ( and she said that to me and my job never has required me to travel). Mind you the whole time you enter the room you never say a word, she doesn’t ask you anything, she just hovers her hands around your body without touching you. She has also ( in the course of months) cured people of incurable diseases such as HIV, cancer, tumors, and advanced leprosy ( also some potentially dismissible things so I wont mention unless someone is curious)

    In her sermon ( we follow Jesus and believe in GOD) she will at the end bless the globe and mention global events to come by specifics such as dates , regions, names, etc. Some of the more significant ones that come to mind are ; S.E. Asia Tsunami, The Popes’ death( predicted by day), Hurricane Katrina, the pandemic warning of the swine flu but that its nothing to worry about in terms of deaths, some earthquakes, fires, etc.

    I have some theories about her, but I wont go into unless someone is interested.

    [“First problem I see is the if god is everything then he is nothing. If x + God = y + God then we drop God and show that x = y without him.”]

    The only issue I see with this logic is that x and Y are part of GOD/Universe in my suggestion. So its more akin to GOD=x+y . Your equation wouldn’t work in my hypothesis because since I mention GOD is everything ( including forces, matter, energy, dimensions, etc) something cant exist in addition to GOD/Universe.

    [“Second problem I have is that I don't find lightning miraculous. Awesome yes but not miraculous. With a bit of time, effort and alot of money there is no doubt that i can create all the lightning I want.”]

    Very true, but I mentioned, just because we know how something works, ( I was also trying to imply we can mimic the events) does not mean its not amazing . I was trying to make a point about how we become jaded by our own intellect. For instance, the cell phone. When the cell phone was just a rumor in a few magazines people were thinking “ WOW that would be so amazing….a phone that I can use anywhere without a cord”. Now we have mini computers for phones ,with tons of apps, that nobody even bats an eye to. Same with an email…I mean I don’t jump for joy every time a message I send to China is received in seconds, but when I take a step back and think about how humanity is able to manipulate his surroundings and create great things , from essentially stuff from the ground….I am amazed and in awe.

    I suppose your definition of miraculous lies closer to the “ beyond human comprehension” definition where I lean towards the “ wonder/marvel” definition. I don’t believe in magic, even the supernatural/unexplained has a mechanism or explanation…we are just unaware those details.

    [“Third, Im pretty sure that eating the apple was original sin... not a metaphor for our construction.”]

    I don’t think there was an actual Adam or Eve or a tree with a magical apple since I believe in evolution. Sin is only evil when recognized and when it has intent. Prior to self awareness, man was blissfully ignorant. Afterall, we don’t see animals as raping each other or hurting/killing each other as signs of evil, but as natural social habits that we call mating and group alpha ranking. The evolution shame of nudity was that we clothed ourselves with fur out of ceremony ( from hunting), then necessity ( migration into cold climates), and the practice persisted and evolved to lead us to have shame of our nudity ( cultural). I don’t think someone ate an apple and suddenly being nude was shameful.

    Besides if man was naive prior to the apple, wasn’t sin innocent until after the digestion of the apple and not prior to the picking and biting? A mute point since I don’t believe in that event…just seems there are holes in the flow of events and accountability of consequences in that story.

    [“Fourth, Evil is a feeling, idea or concept. Evil is intangible. You cant get a evilmeter and record how much evil is in 1 mole of carbon. You show to me a glass of water that is more evil then another and I have no doubt I will be able to explain why.”]

    I completely agree. Evil is innate and part of the social contract within a culture. In fact what is evil to us is perfectly normal to another culture. Its frowned upon here for a widower to breed with her deceased husbands brother if the husband bore no son, in other cultures its law. We consume beef everyday; cows are sacred in India.

    But brain imaging can detect lies, and I wonder if evil intent in general can be scanned? Afterall, serial killers have a specific physiology and psychological past with certain parts of their brain damaged (frontal lobe) creating animal propensities ( not that everyone with these brain damages are serial killers, but 75% of serial killers have this brain damage). Obviously not a perfect science right now, but remember chemistry had its root in alchemy.

    [“Last, bad things happening to good people has be demonstrated in game theory for many many years now. I think John Nash got a Nobel prize proving how to make bad things happen to good people in economics.”]

    Very interesting. I was not aware of this phenomenon in game theory ( have never looked into game theory). I will research it and read up on John Nash. Thanks for the heads up!

  105. @Triad - Most likely forced(against my will) celibacy and Mountain Dew.

    @BBC - I bet he would record the results and try to reproduce the encounter so he can show the community his findings... Just like any good scientist would do.

    @lee evans - I wish I could take a few grams of anything and see the world like Dr Krauss sees it for just a few hours.

    @Oliarguello - I like where you are going with this, it is very romantic... but like most romatic ideas it has no bases in logic.

    First problem I see is the if god is everything then he is nothing. If x + God = y + God then we drop God and show that x = y without him.

    Second problem I have is that I don't find lightning miraculous. Awesome yes but not miraculous. With a bit of time, effort and alot of money there is no doubt that i can create all the lightning I want.

    Third, Im pretty sure that eating the apple was original sin... not a metaphor for our construction.

    Fourth, Evil is a feeling, idea or concept. Evil is intangible. You cant get a evilmeter and record how much evil is in 1 mole of carbon. You show to me a glass of water that is more evil then another and I have no doubt I will be able to explain why.

    Last, bad things happening to good people has be demonstrated in game theory for many many years now. I think John Nash got a Nobel prize proving how to make bad things happen to good people in economics.

    @Javier - Well if god is omnipresent then he already knows what we will do. He knows the beginning of time and the end. If he wanted to create humans then he already knew he was going to create humans and already knows how it is all going to turn out. God should be above time. If he isn't then he isn't much of a god. Must be pretty boring to be god... but he already knew that.

    If god is something in another dimension of the multiverse pulling the strings of our universe and seeing what happens, then he is not a god he would just be some "thing". A creature. Maybe a very advanced creature... or maybe a very dumb creature. To the fungi even the leaf cutter ant is God, and the anthill is the "videogame". Does the ant or fungi understand the complete workings of the anthill. No. Does that make a anthill miraculous. Maybe to some. To the rest of us it is an interesting hole in the ground filled with fascinating animals. Nothing more.

    Then there are those that make up features of the anthill, "The ants bring in the spirit leaves from the magical forest to kill the dirt demons and free the fungi from eternal damnation." and get their panties in a ruffle when someone talks to them with aragonce.

    Yeah, I Know I'm a bad person and full of spite. If you think I'm wrong... I don't care. If you feel I'm wrong... I don't care. If you can show me where I'm wrong... please post back.

  106. WOW. I think I'll need to view this multiple times to get a better handle on many of the concepts Krauss breezes through. That being said, I'd rate this doc/video very highly.
    He seems to have turned off many previous posters with his perceived arrogance, but I found him to be engaging and witty while delivering some pretty complex stuff. I think much of what he says with certitude is meant to be facetious. After all, he declares his love of cosmic mystery and admits that we can't know everything. He also posits that we are even more significant in the universe than we had even previously imagined. Conversely, what I find arrogant are delcarations of belief in an invisible man that created me in my own image and is watching everything I do- like Santa Claus.

  107. @lee evans

    I agree. His tunnel vision is frustrating at times. Its very annoying when he belittles other scientists, religion ( any chance he gets), and theories he doesnt agree with ( string theory) by calling those ideas/people crackpots and cracking jokes relentlessly.

    I mean sure he doesn't have to believe in everything, but his arrogance leaves him to dismiss too much.

    In fact he seems to be guilty of the very thing he tries to dismiss....subjectivity. He says that he 'knows the truth' and past generations and future generations will observe the Universe differently and will be wrong". Pretty sure every generation has geniuses who think they have it all nailed down. They know they dont know it all, but they believe their theories are laws

  108. Krauss makes some genuinely interesting points. However, I really dislike his over the top atheist attitude. It's like how monks excavating old Roman structures find "evidence of God", because they were looking for it before they started digging. His idea is that "well of course it had to be this way, that's how math breaks down".

    Again, lots of very insightful points, but his attitude really depresses me. The guy needs to trip balls on a couple grams of really good shrooms and feel fascinated by the fact that anything exists at all.

  109. Sure I`ll sub ya :)

  110. Hi Yavanna... FYI: The moderator of this documentary website would like for us to keep our comments restricted to the topic of the documentary.

    But, if you'd like to engage in ENDLESS camp and frivolity concerning the activities of my left hand, you can join me over at YouTube ! Click on the blue link "DancingSpiderman" above. Over at YourTube, be forewarned... rebut me at yer own risk!

  111. I`m just left with one question: what was DancingSpiderman doing with his LEFT hand that made his bubble bath so memorable!

  112. @Javier

    I completely agree. But I think there are two reasons for this whole experiment.

    Reason 1 being that GOD/Universe doesnt just observe us; he lives through us. Since he is ( by my hypothesis) the accumulation of everything and at all times, that includes our life experience and knowledge. Furthermore since we all die and "go back to GOD" and in a sense become GOD, I believe we get to be a part of this. Sort of like playing a video game to experience one characters life/role in a game...then picking another character from a different game. So you really do one to others as yo do to yourself because you eventually experience everyone's lives. ( now take into consideration the string theory hypothesis of infinite multiuniverses, and the "videogames" are endless).

    Reason 2 is that each of our lives are unique. There is no other "javier" in this universe, at this point in time,wherever you live, that has the exact cumulative experience. Sure you may share similar experiences as others, but not from the perspective from your unique life with the plethora of unique interactions of people around you ( who are also unique). So not only is every human/nonhuman experience cultivated and observed when time reaches infinity, I believe this is the mechanism in which the GOD/Universe understands itself.

    I think these ideas can partly answer some theological questions such as why is there evil (which is a relative term) in the world and why do bad/good things happen to good/bad people. Because in order to truly understand everything....everything with every possibility must happen.

  113. If god does exist and he did create the universe for us I would bet all my money that he created everything so he could watch us for amusement. Eternity must be boring.

  114. I will chime in about the universal consciousness "dribble".

    Science does not dismiss the idea of GOD, it reinforce the idea of GOD. The problem is that religion is very close minded when it comes to updating theology even in the face of empirical evidence ( power hungry corrupt leaders/clergy)....I believe they say you will go to hell if you change any ideas in the Bible?....WOW talk about propaganda, and that just the Bible. the Quran, Torah, and Upanishads are all pretty much like that..only found Buddhism to be somewhat open ended.

    Once you realize GOD is not a guy sitting in the corner of the sky/universe, or that HE exists outside of of the universe, and that GOD IS the Universe ( all matter, dark matter, forces, universes, dimensions, beings, people, etc) things become clearer. "Big Bang and Star Stuff" for scientists ...."we are all sons of GOD, GOD is in all of us, GOD is in all places at all times" for the religious.

    But the ideas in the Bible were for men 4000 years ago( aprox age of the first books within the Bible)in a way a man of 4,000 years ago could comprehend; with parabels and metaphor ( 2,00 for new testament). Krauss said it himself in his own lecture...(paraphrased) what I am saying to you is a stretch/bit of a lie becasue the true explanation is with math, I have to translate with language you can understand with words.

    I mean imagine trying to explain the internet to a guy 2000 years ago ( let alone 100)? Or a guy 2000 years from now explaining his technology to us?

    Creationism because of Genesis? Its a metaphor for the Big Bang. Boom let there be light, forces, gasses,matter, Star Stuff, planets, organisms and then man. Man made made from Clay and eating the apple from the tree of knowledge? A metaphor that man is made from the same stuff as Earth ( carbon, h20, etc)and that we have evolved to become intelligent/self aware.

    Everywhere you can see a form of consciousness/intelligence "not as we know it" as you go up from the relatively chaotic "dumb" micro, then applied to make a seemingly more conscious intelligent complex "macro". Or to put it simply things become greater than jsut the sum of their parts. Elements/Compounds = reactions and creation of substances, cells/tissues= biological functions, neurons/brain=consciousness and thought, creature/groups= organized habits and rituals, organism/community= civilization and cultural phenomena, niche/ecosystem= global system connecting many by their daily activities.

    Just because we know how lightning and procreation works does not mean its not miraculous that it even happens, or thats its not amazing how it happens.Just because we understand how our physiology,biochemstiry, and neurochemistry works does not mean its not amazing we have a consciousness and will. Just because we can explain these things does not mean GOD no longer exists because of knowing a tiny fraction of existence and being egocentric enough to compare everything to ourselves, or have a puff of incomplete logic ( incomplete due to assumptions).

    Does the possibility exist that something exists with will and consciousness when everything in existence is taken to account? And would it not be a consciousness greater than our own....or at least different than our own?

    P.S. I know some people might argue that well if the Earth is greater than us and has a greater conciosuness...why doesnt it get rid of the human plague? Well we arent killing the planet, it will exist with or without us, it was here before us and will be here after us. We are jsut making it inahbiatele for ourselves, so we are really killing ourselves.

    P.P.S. I find it ironic when Krauss bashes GOD and religion when he says he wants to know how everything works so he knows how it all ends. GOD envy much?

  115. Interesting points guys!
    Spiderman, very funny.

    All was well until HATE MACHINE came along..
    Apropriate name!!

    What Is It that makes some people sooo angry??

  116. Hate Machine,

    I like your Socratic philosophy on non-conforming views. hahaha

    THis site is great.

  117. Charles B.

    If the lecturer has an encounter with God, I wonder how he would try to refute it? The seeing of the unseen may help him see everything, ultimate reality! I like the way you explain things Charles.

  118. "Krauss is one of the few living scientists that Scientific American has referred to as a 'public intellectual', and is the only physicist ever to have been awarded the highest awards of all three major US Physics Societies: the American Physical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, and the American Institute of Physics." Wikipedia

    Hail Professor Krauss! Your arrogance is rightly deserved!

  119. HaTe_MaChinE:

    I do not have to prove anything to you, nor do I have to justify
    myself! I am not your teacher, and if you want results from people, show some respect.

    tenesne?. tenes, quid dicam?.

  120. @Ashangel and Achem

    All the research suggest that you can record a photon as either a wave or a particle but not both (Wave–particle duality).

    When you fire a single photon through a couple of slits at a phosphorous plate the photon CANT be "affected differently when different people view it" or that "you can change photons, either into a wave or particle simply by thinking wave or particle." When it hits the plate it will always be a single particle. What is important about the slit experiment is that when you record a large number of these particles you will notice a interference pattern forms. This would suggest that before it hit the plate it was actually a wave. Achem you can stress your pretty little head all you want and and you will never change the outcome of the experiment.

    @Charles B.
    "Only a foolish man, no matter how intelligent would be so smug as to say that he knows how the universe bagan and will end"

    I say to you "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"

    I say to you "pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate". Why must you invent concepts and add them to already complicated concepts to justify yourself.

    "Everything is consciousness, the Universe is conscious, from the smallest one cell Amoeba and upwards. but different as we know it."

    WTF is this dribble... everything is consciousness... but different as we know it.

    I ask you then to prove this concept in simple terms that a simple man like my self might be able to reproduce the results.

    1) that everything is consciousness
    2) that the Universe is conscious
    3) Amoeba is conscious
    4) but different as we know it.

    Compare Quantum Theory to other mathematical mysteries like pi. We do not know the answer to pi. Just like we do not know how the universe began. Does that mean that pi doesn't work... Of course not, it just means that like pi as we get more accurate ways to measure it we get better results. And the results can be shown as accurate in other mathematics. Does that mean we have a perfect answer... No, it just means we have a mathematically sound answer.

    There is a good chance that humans will never know the answers to many of the questions of the universe. There is a good chance that we will just exhaust all mathematical possibilities and settle on knowing we know all the possibilities just not which one is right.

    meh... whatever... maybe god did create a conscious universe with spiritual dark matter and Noah and Jonah and photons that change state based on how hard we think about it, with people posting shit about spacons and chronons, and no mention of budah or the thousands of just as emperical religions.

  121. An intrigue story telling of the rarified world of physics to the closest possible for layman understanding on the latest knowledge of our Universe and beyond. Even if this is but only one of the many possible explanations, and there are lots of the explained ideas that I could not follow, it is still a very interesting and awesome talk...

  122. Correction:

    I should of said up to "Schrodingers Cat" which is a thought experiment.

  123. Charles B:

    A person is consciousness, that they might manifest an existence.
    "I think, therefore I think I am"

    Everything is consciousness, the Universe is conscious, from the smallest one cell Amoeba and upwards. but different as we know it.

    We are all souls, a better word is multidimensional entity, whether we believe it or not.

    Yes you can verify Quantum Theory, Even the uncertainty principle.
    Google-"Schrodingers Cat"

    My favorite color for my vehicles are white, red.

    I do not go by faith.


  124. Mr. Razor: You do a good job of simplification for the lay person.

    However, Quantum Theory begs the question, "What is a person that they might manifest an existence?" Would an animal count? Or a plant? A virus? Or does it require a more sentient being? Do we have a soul? Do those of us that believe in a soul have one and those that don't, don't, according to Quantum Theory? What's your favorite color? And lastly, is there any measurable way to verify this Quantum "theory" or are you just going by "faith" from something someone somewhere somehow has thought up? :-)

  125. Charles B:

    Dark matter: Since our Universe is one of unlimited Universe's, multidimensional, there are greater, and lesser, Universes than our own.

    Our Dark Matter could be a bleed through from a greater super Universe than our own, same as our gravity. that may be why our gravity is such a weak force.

    We ourselves and everything else are multidimensional, with unlimited reality's. The reality we are in is not that focused, RE: Sasquatch, UFO's, Bermuda triangle, the unexplained etc: that come in and out of our existence.

    I guess you can say the reality as we know it is in our minds eye.
    If you were not here Charles, there would not be any reality for you.
    If nobody was here, would there be anything?. Yes there would be, but it would be fundamental particles of empty inherent existence that exist in an undefined state of potentialities and probabilities, in the vast sea of Quantum energy.

    People do not realize how much power they really have!

    And I am not trying to disprove anything, believe what you want Charles if it makes your life easier, it does not matter, we all go to the same place!


  126. Mr. Razor: I read what you said about "dark matter". Might "dark Matter" be spiritual in some way? The Bible says that which is seen is temporal, but that which is unseen is eternal, giving greater "weight" to that which cannot be seen.

    In reference to this Quantum Theory, it is interesting to also know that one of the admonitions of the Bible is "Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind" and "Take every thought captive according to Christ" and the power of life and death resides in the "tongue" or in other words, what we say.

    If a spiritual world exists (our souls, the angelic, the demonic, and most certainly the Divine) where might that world be in your understanding of such things? Just curious.

    It's very easy for my mind to grasp the concept of Quantum Theory in reference to creation -- God's mind; God's creation; let's learn more about how He did it rather than trying to disprove His very existence.

    Nonetheless, it's just a theory.

  127. Ashangel: Yes, I have come up with something better recently.

    Firstly, he mentioned that judging distance was nearly impossible without a "standard candle" and that a supernova was 1 billion times brighter than our own star. Nice number, but even that is just a guess. They also consider that everything is constant, including time; not necessarily so. God could have spent billions of years in preparation for the creation of the earth, but perhaps not also; I tend to think the Universe was created "in process" in some way. When God said, "Let there be light" then all light sources could have been created as they are now in expantion instantaniously in process.

    He's despirately trying to prove there is no God in his lecture, so places much faith in "dark matter" and 70 of the missing energy of the universe in it, and his own interpretation of how the universe must be, so he can know how it ends. He says that "something always comes from nothing," so he can devoide the universe of God.

    Only a foolish man, no matter how intelligent would be so smug as to say that he knows how the universe bagan and will end without a god; I may not be a theoretical mathmatician, but I do have something better; understanding that science is explaining (perhaps) how God did what he did and does what He does now without negating His very existence.

    If 13.5 billion years ago is when the universe "began" than what was there before that? Atoms fluxuating in and out of existence as he suggests? I think not; it was God, and anyone that is so arragantly opposed to even the possibility that God is real desirves very little respect from me.

    If he is correct, then it all matters not anyway. He'll die; you'll die; we all die and it's just over. If so, we'll all find out soon enough; but if I'm correct, there is an eternity yet to come to contemplate what mathmatical calculation and theory we believed in enough to de-faith our souls and separate ourselves from God forever. I'd much rather live my life as I am now, knowing and learning, and believing and trusting, than to believe in this person's very difficult to understand theory of some really powerful "nothing" from which everything started from 13.5 billion years ago.

    He failed to mention that the whole universe is dying. This is issue is addressed in the Bible (wonderful science) in that it talks about a New heavens and a New Earth that are to be re-created, but as a atheist, there is no hope, so he rightfully comes to the conclution that "Life will get a whole lot worse, and will never ever get better!" LOL! Lovely.

    Yes, whether or not you think so, at least I think I've found something a whole lot better.

  128. "Arrogant smug man, wise in his own eyes. I wonder if he’s ever calculated the odds that he himself might not be 100% correct."

    Perhaps, but have you come up with anything better recently?

    Also its not just his opinion there are many many other (respected) scientists pursuing this theory.

    Judging by your comment you probably didn't like Zeitgeist either?

  129. Arrogant smug man, wise in his own eyes. I wonder if he's ever calculated the odds that he himself might not be 100% correct.

  130. Ever since I was about 9 years old I had always wondered why my experience of laying with my eyes open, my entire body submersed in a full tub of water, was so memorable. It had been about twenty minutes since I had sloshed the bathwater around with my hands, and so there were no bubbles left from the Mr. Bubble powder I had put in. I opened my eyes underwater looking up, and then I gave the surface of the water a vigorous swoosh with my right hand, and bubbles on top of bubbles formed. I even saw bubbles inside other bubbles. I looked at those bubbles for a while. And then I raised my head and chest out of the water, and looked at the stirring action of my hand creating more and more bubbles. And then I realized that this was an act of creation.

    I call this visual my Mr. Bubble Theory of MultiVerses: The Black Holes that exist in our universe are the outer boundary of someone else's universe. And the Black Holes in that other universe, someone else's universal boundary. And these MultiVerses can appear in permutations of parallel and series as well as of course cascade. Some universes shrink and disappear; some get too big for further continuance and Pop! becoming the outer boundaries of neighboring universes. Our universe's extreme examples of temperature (pockets of localized energy), time, and physical space are trivial in our own universe, taken as a whole; and are not even perceived in any neighboring universe.

    All the time, everywhere, new infinitesimally small spaces and all-encompassing universes are created from some energy source which is unknown to us in our own universe. That energy of creation is unknown because we cannot see or otherwise empirically measure that source of stirring energy from beyond, or underneath, our own universe's outer/inner boundary. That creative energy Source might as well be some kid with swollen wrinkly tiger-skin, sitting in a full bathtub, sloshing his hand around the existing ether and making bubbles for his own entertainment. And then the kid gets out of the tub and go does something else. Just another Saturday afternoon bath, just another day; nothing special.

  131. Ashangel:

    Thank you, you are correct. You can change photons, either into a wave or particle simply by thinking wave or particle. I think that also answers Hate_Machines questions in minimal words!

  132. When you break matter down to its component parts, it has been proven under lab conditions, in separate cases, that matter in its basest form is waveform and is affected differently when different people view it, this has been repeated globally. It doesn't get much more real than that.

    The trouble with mainstream science is that it has become (perhaps it always was?) so dogmatic and Tainted by politics and media, that little of anything worthwhile is allowed through what is in effect a firewall.

  133. Oh, and since a quantum leap(most basic element of quantum mechanics) is the process of the electron "jumping" from one energy level(space) to another very quickly(time) means you need both space and time.

    but what do i know... im just here for the coffee

  134. @Razor

    I pretty sure that quantum theory/physics/mechanics only deal with "real" things. Nothing depends on someone thinking about it to be real... information is there weather or not we observer "or think" about it. We just dont know a state until we measure it. Think of it this way...

    1) I use a iron system to produce a photon
    2) but fail to measure it
    3) but you were able to measure it
    4) so I go look at my system logs and confirm it was created.

    Did the process of you measuring the photon "step 3" cause my system logs to change "step 1" just because your brain got involved "step 4" before mine "step 2"? I think not.

    Think about this

    1a) since you were able to measure the photon
    1b) quantum mechanics knew I had to produce a photon

    2a) since my system created a photon
    2b) quantum mechanics knew I needed a system

    3a) since I needed a system
    3b) quantum mechanics knew a star should nova to create iron

    4a) since I need a star to nova to create the iron element
    4b) quantum mechanics knew to have a big bang and populate the universe with hydrogen.

    If you read that in reverse (4b-4a-3b-3a) order it says that the entire universe has been planned out. If the entire universe was planned out then it wasn't our brains that caused it but the last brain in existence.

    `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.

  135. Great doc!

    Lawrence is saying that dark matter is new. I did not know what he meant by that.

    My extrapolation is that dark matter is Quantum itself, that flicks in and out of our Universe, and at 10 to the 500 power of parallel Universes every "Planck time". Planck Time is the speed of light.

    He is talking about "Null Physics" when he says the Universe started from nothing, from the number "0". Which I wrote on a different TDF doc.

    He is saying that we are irrelevant, I disagree!

    "Quantum Theory clearly states, fundamental particles are empty of inherent existence and exist in an undefined state of potentialities".

    They do not become "real" until a mind interacts with them and gives them meaning. That means if nobody was here, there would not be a Universe as we know it! It would still be in, an undefined state of potentialities, in the vast sea of Quantum energy.

    Simply stated "You get what you are looking for"
    Or "what you consistently focus your attention on you manifest in your life"

    The Astronomy stuff was spot on though! How to measure distance etc:

    But like Lawrence said, nobody knows everything!
    To add more mystery, time and space are not real! they are illusions, everything happens at once, there is no past, present, or future. That is not me saying this, it is Quantum Mechanics.

  136. great lecture! he covers a lot of really interesting cosmology topics very quickly, i actually wish the talk was longer. lots of interesting stuff here, including whether the universe is curved or flat, multiverses, and the quantum explanation for the existence of dark matter.