iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Lawrence Krauss Writes 'A Universe From Nothing'

Lawrence Krauss

By ANN LEVIN   01/ 9/12 11:01 AM ET   AP

-- "A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" (Free Press), by Lawrence M. Krauss: In fall 2009, the theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss gave a talk about recent discoveries in cosmology that he engagingly titled, "A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing."

The popularity of the video, viewed nearly a million times on YouTube, prompted Krauss to develop the ideas in the talk into this short, elegant account of the origins of our universe and its likely demise trillions of years from now.

The best-selling author of "The Physics of Star Trek," Krauss possesses a rare talent for making the hardest ideas in astrophysics accessible to the layman, due in part to his sly humor. In another universe, Krauss could have been a stand-up comedian.

Indeed, the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who contributes an afterword to the book, dubs his friend the "Woody Allen of cosmology." One favorite joke involves Edwin Hubble, whose life story, Krauss deadpans, bolsters his faith in humanity "because he started out as a lawyer and then became an astronomer."

In just under 200 pages, Krauss walks us through a hundred years of mind-bending breakthroughs in astrophysics, which have led scientists to the inescapable conclusion that our universe sprang out of nothing – "without design, intent or purpose" – and is destined to return to that bleak, cold, dark space.

A professor at Arizona State University, Krauss clearly relishes his iconoclastic role, gleefully demolishing all theories of creation that require a creator – that is, most religions. In the early 2000s, when he was teaching physics at Case Western Reserve University, he very publicly took on creationists in a fight over the science curriculum in Ohio public schools.

But one has to hope that this book won't appeal only to the partisans of the culture wars – it's just too good and interesting for that. Krauss is genuinely in awe of the "wondrously strange" nature of our physical world, and his enthusiasm is infectious.

Here he is explaining how every atom in our bodies was forged billions of years ago in the nuclear furnaces of exploding stars: "We are all, literally, star children, and our bodies made of stardust." The book bursts with such poetic conceits.

For Krauss, the prospect of a godless universe is "invigorating," not scary. "It motivates us to draw meaning from our own actions," he writes, "and to make the most of our brief existence in the sun."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST SCIENCE

-- "A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" (Free Press), by Lawrence M. Krauss: In fall 2009, the theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss gave a talk about recent disco...
-- "A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing" (Free Press), by Lawrence M. Krauss: In fall 2009, the theoretical physicist Lawrence M. Krauss gave a talk about recent disco...
Filed by Travis Korte  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 238
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
07:26 PM on 01/23/2012
Some amazing facts about our universe: http://www.statisticbrain.com/universe-statistics/
There are between 200-400 Billion stars just in our galaxy!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Rampion Clark
creative maladjustant
04:24 PM on 01/12/2012
What IS the "something" in the Nothing, anyway? It has to be (something) that doesn't exist in the space-time, vibratory field -- i.e., with dimensionality. So, without dimensionality, what do we "have"? We have a non-vibratory ground of potentiality -- another word for which means "capability." Capability for what? For a living, evolving universe to Be & to Become -- whose meaning is derived from, and in, the consciousness of its individual beings (and ultimately from, and in, the consciousness of all living beings, as One Being).

That being said, if we accept that evolution proceeds in a series of stages and represents the ascent of consciousness (check Ken Wilber's four lines of simultaneous evolutionary development) then we have evolution's complementary opposite, involution (check Wikipedia for starters). Involution represents the manner in which potentiality or capability -- within the so-called Nothing -- prepares the "ground" for emergence of primal matter...and the entire arc of evolutionary creation.

The Bentov Big Bang model -- clearly a superior one to our expanding sphere model currently in vogue -- will emerge victorious in the arena of astrophysics, because it demonstrates how a RECYCLING UNIVERSE operates -- with an alpha-omega-like nucleus at the center that continually takes in "old" matter/energy through a black hole, and continuously emanates "new" matter/energy from a white hole "in front" of it. What's between the black hole & white hole? The Stillness of potentiality-capability.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brooke123456
God is ....(fill in the blank how you like)
11:06 AM on 01/13/2012
Load of garbage....
"if we accept that evolution proceeds in a series of stages and represents the ascent of consciousn­ess"
Evolution has no direction, no ultimate goal, our intelligence and self-awareness is just another aspect of it....that just happened without any prior "intention" from the Universe or anythng else. That is what the evidence shows...don't add "One Being", without any evidence to support it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Rampion Clark
creative maladjustant
12:13 PM on 01/13/2012
Did I say "intention"? No. I said "capability." What's wrong with that? Obviously, whatever is behind the manifest universe has the capability to produce it, correct?

The use of descriptive language -- not mathematics -- may be our last, best tool for "getting at" what happens in the realm of capability. Put another way, words can take us where equations cannot always find a "footing." Sometimes direct experience gives us such information, such as meditative states of stillness. Other times, the power of imagination takes over.

Evolution has no direction? Really? What about the observed direction towards more subtle matter, more complex form, more developed thinking capabilities, and so forth, as we move forward through time?

OK, so the One Being remark was a little over the top, I'll grant you. So what? I'm not exactly the only person here talking a little Unity.

And by the way, let's try and use some other description than "garbage." Come on; that just says you're lazy.
12:56 PM on 01/11/2012
k
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cole 33
Careful. We don't want to learn from this.
12:04 PM on 01/11/2012
I think a lot of the problem comes from terminology.

When Krauss is talking about a universe from "nothing", he's not referring to an *actual* nothingness, an actual state of *non-existence*.
He's talking about nothing in the abstract, like there's nothing in the glass. The idea, is that there was never an actual state of "nothingness", that before the big bang and the *material* universe, there was an empty state that is like a foundational level of "existence" with many elements within it.

Hawking proposes that Gravitation, is the force that draws those elements together, forcing them to interact, and over time creating a singularity, an infinitely dense collection of interacting elements, which produced the Big Bang, and Matter itself and the Universe.

And in this concept, a God would not be necessary, and you wouldn't need to ask where did we come from and why is there something. Because *something*, *existence* is the only possibility, there was never an actual state of Non-existence.

As well, it removes the idea of everything here by "chance" because chance implies other possible outcomes. Everything is here, because there is no other option, all the elements and gravitation didn't by chance form and interact in such a way, no, it's that there was nothing else for them to do, interacting is the only thing they can do.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sally Tallywhacker
Godless, just like everyone else.
02:00 PM on 01/12/2012
Indeed, we are all just stardust and probabilities.... and that's an awesome thought !
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brooke123456
God is ....(fill in the blank how you like)
11:08 AM on 01/13/2012
"he's not referring to an *actual* nothingnes­s"
It is in fact talking about as much "nothing" as is possible in theoritical physics.
The hypothesis is that "actual" nothingness is not possible, not ever or anywhere.
Quantum mechanics that "actual" nothingness doesn't exist! At least until furthur evidence comes along, its all we got.
02:31 PM on 01/10/2012
this sentence needs to visit the Mindful Living section :.." which have led scientists to the inescapable conclusion that our universe sprang out of nothing – "without design, intent or purpose" – and is destined to return to that bleak, cold, dark space...."

sort of like communism, a failed atheist attempt at government... that sentence quoted says scientists are one monolithic block in complete unanimity i.e. a religion

"led scientists " ? how many ? what percentage of scientists ? what percentage of physicists ?

this professor at Stanford [ former head of the engineering dept ] ? speaking here of intuition intention :http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8877579108277386203

dont want to harp too much on the careless use of the word scientists in that sentence but here are scientists who do believe in intention and purpose: John Hagelin [ grand unification theory flipped SU(5) etc ] , Dr. prof. Eckart Stein quantum chromodynamics , Volker Schonbacher 11 dimensional M theory , Ashley Deans physicist , educator, director of a school, Joeffery Clements , larry domash, Nobel Laureate brian Josephson actively searching for purpose, neuroscientists Fred Travis, Alarik Arenander , Robert Schneider MD FAAC , Norman Rosenthal MD psychiatrist [ are MDs and psychiatrist scientists ? ] John Fagan geneticist....

my website is : Humpty Dumpty levitates after a visit by the 3 wise kings
photo
Sabrae
Talk to the paws.
04:14 PM on 01/10/2012
Humpty you say?

I have my own theories...
12:33 PM on 01/10/2012
What Krauss basically says is that there has never been a shred of evidence found in physics that nature can implement something that would even approximate the PHILOSOPHICAL notion of "nothing".

Newtonian mechanics requires an infinite flat space. That's not "nothing", it's actually quite a handful if you think about it... it's just that not many people in the time of Newton thought about it that way. They were way too busy trying to pump air out of pressure vessels, trying to create what they thought would be a vacuum! Had they succeeded two hundred years earlier than they actually did, they would have noticed that even a perfect vacuum without matter contains radiation, thus rapidly changing the scientific notions of the 17th century into those of the 19th.

Thermodynamics explicitely postulates that one can never reach absolute zero. There can be no universe that is completely cold. And one can not make thermodynamics work without this postulate!

In electrodynamics the temperature of the radiation field is the temperature of the walls. And, indeed, the "walls" of the universe have a temperature of 2.7K... it's the cosmic microwave background.

Quantum mechanics shows that even in the most perfect vaccumeven at absolutel zero, there would still be field fluctuations.

Indeed, the only thing nature teaches is that there can be no such thing as "nothing". The postulate that there had to be "nothing" at one point, is, for all purposes, garbage in - garbage out.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:08 PM on 01/10/2012
Excellent post Jonathan. Almost worthy of your namesake!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gmikejake
resist evil
06:24 AM on 01/11/2012
Black holes .... until the final black hole .... and what often happens at the "end" of the "life" of a black hole? BOOM! So maybe god is a black hole?
photo
darkmark
religion, the veil of evil.
12:21 PM on 01/10/2012
interesting lecture on youtube.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:37 AM on 01/10/2012
‘the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not’..hmm well said
Pity he didn’t get to discuss the big rip.

I’m kinda going with Roger Penrose these days to deal with boring finity-
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44388
11:31 PM on 01/10/2012
"‘the universe is the way it is whether we like it or not’..

Robert Lanza, who blogs over in the Living section, would disagree.

But then, he's wrong.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:08 AM on 01/11/2012
Wow, just read him, I see what you mean.
His ideology is quite an old one, a bit Descarte (15th century), kinda Augustinian (5th century) and quite theosophical, that’s why he’s blogging in the lifestyle section (they never could tell the difference between life and lifestyle anyway),
I would hope that what we call reality will remain a separate 'study'.
Descarte was never meant to be applied to the big bang.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WoolyBumblebee
Creator of TruthAndOblivion.com
11:17 AM on 01/10/2012
"For Krauss, the prospect of a godless universe is "invigorating," not scary. "It motivates us to draw meaning from our own actions," he writes, "and to make the most of our brief existence in the sun."

I love this so much. It's perfect.
11:05 AM on 01/10/2012
intelligence exists beforethe big bang

otherwise nothing intelligent or intelligible would result from the big bang

everything measured by scientists is ffirstly an exercise in intelligence by humans and shows that the thing or system measured is something that functions intelligently it contains intelligence
inner directedness or vectors

nothing is devoid of intelligence [ excepting pollution a aspect of ignorance ]
11:25 AM on 01/10/2012
Now, if you can prove this nonsense logically, you are in.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:42 AM on 01/10/2012
Well said Dean Swift (from one Irishman to another),
but that Thoery might give me a pain, in me gulliver
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gmikejake
resist evil
06:27 AM on 01/11/2012
Hmmmmmm. Define intelligence, please.
11:05 AM on 01/10/2012
about 1-1=0 in vedic physics 1-1=1 that is the 0 still contains the 1 and the -1 they don tvanish but each covers the other

the 0 is a fullness containing both 1 and -1 whose total existence is unmanifest

the principle is " taking fullness from fullness fullness remains "

that fullness is infinite intelligence which is pure abtraction i.e. non-physical ; so when we say the universe is from nothing that means the universe is from the non-physical, the not a thing [ one thing this means: God is not a thing and therefore cannot be measured or even thought about in fact religions fail when they think about God ]

the singularity is a dimensionless point a " thing " beyond time and space i.e. non-physical thsi non-physical life-energy transforms a fraction of itself into physical energy at the same " time ' creating time [substance of intelligence] and space [ structure of knowledge] for itself to expand into so the infinite pure immortal unmanifest existence becomes a 4% universe from a small fraction of its divine [zero entropy] energy

the 73% vaccum energy or dark energy measured is residual divine energy a life force so to speak

in the vedic literature it gives this percentage speaking about itself the totality "75% unmanifest 25 % manifest"

the 25% is the 4% actual matter plus the dark matter the 75% is "quintessence"
11:26 AM on 01/10/2012
Now the only thing I am missing in your post is your website where you tell all of us your full theory of everything. Having a website is absolutely necessary these days for a full-time crank.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Sally Tallywhacker
Godless, just like everyone else.
02:05 PM on 01/12/2012
Uh-oh "divine energy"...I'm outta here !
01:10 AM on 03/09/2012
Energy in general is what has me out of here. No one even knows what it is, without the anthropomorphism going on with that word. "The ability to do work"? Damn, no one would know what that means without reference to human beings. But hey, that's the same with causality.
10:59 AM on 01/10/2012
Looks like the person who wanted to "disprove" natural evolution through the first and second laws of thermodynamics never responded to my question of HOW, exactly, this works logically.

And there you have it... ID arguments are always just a hit and run. Not once do we find a supporter of ID who is able and willing to stand his ground and actually argue his case.

My response to that is simple: if their God is as much of a coward as they are, he will never show himself.

Oh, wait... that's right! He never does.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gmikejake
resist evil
06:30 AM on 01/11/2012
Some of the gods are, apparently, quite tricky .... and mischevious too, it seems. And, apparently, like to play with "toys." But, you seem to be correct about most of the "masculine" ones.
10:57 AM on 01/10/2012
larry Krauss the man can learn TM ! maharishi's or John hagelin's TM ; anyonewho can think can learn TM, maahrishi says

Hagelin [ as a TM teacher ] says experience of "transcendental consciousness" is contact with the unified field, Einstein's unified field of natural law which Hagelin as a quantum physicist says is E8XE8 heterotic superstring field delineated in the Lagrangian of the superstring

the matter of thermodynamics is technically unknown to me [ except as aging which TM ha sbeen shown to reverse to some extend ] God is not subject to thermodynamics God is nondegenerating; that is allways devoid of entropy ; God is zero entropy and infinite { non-physical or negative entropy ] energy this " life energy" can be called heat in the sense of infinite dynamism which Tony Nader and John Hagelin says is called Vishnu in the vedic literature; anything dynamic e.g. professsor krauss , contains an aspect of Vishnu

commenters keep in mind i dont make a paycheck and i am not a politician so comment is unwarranted
11:27 AM on 01/10/2012
You are, for sure, confused.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ZenGardner
Neither believe nor disbelieve.
08:23 AM on 01/11/2012
comment is unwarranted? then why you make comment?
09:59 AM on 01/10/2012
Theory:

The cycle of life and death.

It applies to humans.

It applies to planets.

It applies to stars.

It applies to galaxies.

It applies to universes.

Our physical universe came out from a single point, a black hole.

And into that black hole we shall return.
photo
Tomaniac
Science keeps us from lying to ourselves
10:26 AM on 01/10/2012
The theory of Evolution seems to apply to all things and sprang from the creation of the universe. Some believe that black holes are the portals to other universes, hard to prove, but to me if you keep adding mass to a black hole for billions of years, if observed from the theoretical "other side", it would be seen as a "big bang".

I had my own theory of the universe and black holes years ago (I'm no physicist) that posited that all black holes are connected to the starting point of the big bang and that the expanding universe would eventually fold back through all of the connected black holes eventually coalescing to a single point creating another big bang and this process would repeat. In my mind, all things, electromagnetic spectrum etc. have defining frequencies, and I believed this event marked the longest frequency rate in the universe.
10:46 AM on 01/10/2012
The global connectivity of black holes and their connection to the early universe are current research topics but there are no results that one can use for philosophical purposes at this time. While I share some of these ideas, I wouldn't believe in them religiously. As with all complex matters, the first stab people take at them in science is almost always, wrong.
10:43 AM on 01/10/2012
Nice poetic summary. But, sadly, the object at the beginning of time is not a black hole. It has VERY different physical properties compared to a black hole.

People like to think about it like a black hole, but that's a misunderstanding. In classical general relativity a black hole has a singularity at its center. The early universe didn't, it doesn't even have a center. The universe is homogeneous at all times scales, a black hole is never homogeneous. And that's just for starters.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gmikejake
resist evil
06:33 AM on 01/11/2012
Not even the first, or final, one? Which might just be the same thing.
08:36 AM on 01/10/2012
I love Krauss to pieces. I've reread his Star Trek book several times. But I'm pretty sure he swiped that "star children" comment from the late Carl Sagan.
photo
RealityBaseCamp
My micro-bio did not meet someone's guidelines!
02:12 PM on 01/10/2012
He kept the children bet threw out their star "stuff"?

And even if Sagan wasn't the first one to say it, it bears repeating. It's about the most amazing fun fact ever.
11:33 PM on 01/10/2012
I remember learning the details of this in stellar evolution class, and thinking it was about the most amazing thing I'd ever heard.