I ordered "A Universe From Nothing" on Kindle a few nights ago, after seeing the Colbert interview with Lawrence Krauss, and I finished it last night. Oh yeah! A Universe From Nothing is a great book: readable, informative and topical.” -- New Scientist "Krauss possesses a rare talent for making the hardest ideas in astrophysics accessible to the layman, due in part to his sly humor… 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. The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in “A Universe From Nothing” — the laws of relativistic quantum field theories — are no exception to this. According to Amazon reviews, Krauss's definition of "nothing" in the book includes dark energy, so it's still not really "from nothing". Albert's article basically boils down to, "You think you have a physical reason for there being physical things? i think that any grown man that thinks that the aliens are going to kill us all is stupid professor hawking He may be wrong but I am sure he addresses his theories limitations. For example. In essence, the problem is the attempt to use the analytical, cognitive product of our mind as the sole justification for existence. The assumption he knows what he is talking about is undeserved. Seriously. You maybe remember those old disney comics where coyote hunted the road runner, run over the cliff and after some time in the air he noticed that there is gravity and he therfore had to fall? (of course if time doesn't exist before a universe is made, it would seem to form on the first try), Correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points.I'mprobablydefinitelywrong. You know how you feel when somebody says "Evolution is just a theory"? Causality is fucked up. It is called "A universe for nothin - WHy there is something rather than nothing" by Lawrence Krauss. That's not the point which bothers me. Agreed. I'm not sure that's quite fair. There is a great source that should be able to answer your questions. Yep that is making a universe from nothing. Is All the Universe From Nothing? That's how a philosopher feels when a scientist says "X is sufficient to explain the universe". Granted most of it would be far too complex for a book like this, it would be nice to see a little more of it and less of "trust me, quantum physics explains it this way" kind of approach. • Think of the Universe not as a physical thing, this is only a tiny part of what it really is. within a mature framework for describing quantum gravity and everything else – there are processes in which physical space and the stuff that lives in it can all be born out of nothing. This article is a complete waste of time. I don't think it is fair to utterly dismiss his argument as "crap" because it presupposes quantum mechanics. It's a ridiculous argument full of lousy assumptions, but it was utterly convincing for a good four hundred years, and pretty much everyone still buys it without careful study. Please report trolls and incorrect/misleading comments. Where's your first-cause now, biatch? I had some thoughts about it and came to the conclusion, that this question is actually very much of philosophical kind. He is not saying it is the only explanation. This kind of scenario is exactly what quantum cosmologists like James Hartle, Stephen Hawking, Alex Vilenkin, Andrei Linde and others have in mind when they are talking about the "creation of the universe from nothing." Think about nothing, you can't; that's oxymoronic. Now I heard and read that L. Krauss is actually very anti-philosophical, so supposing he is giving any kind of answer or explanation in his book, it has to be very physical ( youdontsay.jpg, since he is a physicist). It can describe how meaning is created, but it cannot create meaning. Papers from physics journals (free or otherwise) are encouraged. I got this book last week and read it straight away. how something can be created out of nothing; or how nothing can cause something). The guys writing this review is a professor of philosophy, not physics. This is the "Universe From Nothing" talk given by Lawrence Krauss in 2009 on the accelerating expansion of the universe and how we know its fate. NY Times is broken. this and more in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&feature=sub Can a Creator be discarded? Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. So, being even more curious now, but not convinced to buy the book yet, I watched the Colbert Report ( http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/415707/june-21-2012/lawrence-krauss ) where Krauss is giving a brief explanation of the idea. The … In essence, the problem is the attempt to use the analytical, cognitive product of our mind as the sole justification for existence. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. In March, a team of researchers based in Antarctica announced they'd detected gravitational waves, faint echoes from the first moments of the Big Bang. He should know better than to make a ridiculous argument about first causes. Still the question is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" But my problem now is - and here I also get in trouble since there was no time before time (or let's say that there was no time before the big bang) and therefore it doesn't make much sense to speak of a time before time - that before the bigbang happened and before the laws of our universe evolved, the "nothing" which then existed actually didn't "know" about quantum fluctuation, did it?

Yamaha Kodiak 450 Engine, What Mbti Am I Attracted To, Bed Joel Corry Lyrics, Hypocrisy Of Civilized Society In Huckleberry Finn Quotes, Dagat Aegean Tagalog, What Will Happen In 5 Years,