Lawrence Krauss - Why is the Universe Expanding?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 січ 2013
- For more videos and information from Lawrence Krauss click here bit.ly/1IobP7B
For more videos on why the universe is expanding click here bit.ly/1ESdiVT
We know our universe is expanding-this is one of humankind's seminal discoveries. What caused such colossal expansion? We call it the Big Bang, but what were the forces involved?
I'm not the smartest dude but I love watching and trying to learn about the universe. It's so interesting and fascinating the secrets of the universe and brilliant minds trying to find out what's going out there. I hope in my lifetime we can witness great scientific discoveries that will go down in the history books.
You already have! Stay tuned.
We got a picture of a black hole!!!
Harris, if you go by what Krauss farts out, then you're not learning much.
Krauss, "The universe is huge and old and rare things happen all the time, including life."
Just past 18:00 here: ua-cam.com/video/7ImvlS8PLIo/v-deo.html
That's not based on science but only Krauss farting that out of his dumb ass.
ua-cam.com/video/zU7Lww-sBPg/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Ymjlrw6GmKU/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/L0-hgSjnomA/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/5AXkrc2OSs4/v-deo.html
Life takes information to proceed on. But to atheists/agnostics, chaos through time gave us information. Although it's even hard to write such a ridiculous statement, they believe it. All one can do is laugh at such stupidity.
ua-cam.com/video/aA-FcnLsF1g/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/7c9PaZzsqEg/v-deo.html
creation.com/laws-of-information-1
creation.com/laws-of-information-2
To this dumbass, it's ok to say that space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, ALL being there ALREADY with NO explanation of how, is OK to call "nothing". There, by that alone, Krauss excused himself of all of that. You simply come up with a childish snot-nosed brat excuse to call it "nothing".
But it gets worse, space, matter, time, and the laws of physics, called nothing, created more space, matter, and time. The laws of physics were broken to create more space, matter, and time. Keep in mind (for those that have a working mind), that this "nothing" was eternal, and just by chance about 13 billion years ago according to Krauss, then did its magic. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics were asleep then.
*Krauss' attempt to dispell the need of God, just confirms the need.*
"A vacuum, to us, is a space with no matter in it. As a practical matter though, it's really a space with very little matter in it. You might already know that it's REALLY hard to get all the matter out of any space"
from: education.jlab.org/qa/vacuum_02.html
"Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states - no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems - are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff."-
from: www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=0
"That makes Matter = Energy; Energy = Space; Space = Time. Therefore matter, energy, space and time are all interchangeable characteristics, which implies strongly that they are all forms of one thing."
from: medium.com/@alasdairf/are-matter-energy-time-space-all-interchangeable-e2dbf7d411e5
And this "nothing" from chaos gave us the fine-tuning.
www.inplainsite.org/html/anthropic_principles.html
kgov.com/fine-tuning-of-the-universe
I like starting from the beginning because it shows how we got something to begin with. Not just that, it shows from the start who gave up their logic and who did not.
From all we know, creation HAD to be a supernatural event. The first logical and honest step is to admit that. The second step is to seek who or what did the supernatural event and the proof for that. Fools jump to 'who created god', 'god of the gaps', 'science does not deal with supernatural' and whatever excuse they can use to prevent them from seeing the truth. All they can do is fart smoke screens to avoid the issue at hand.
Those that deny it was a supernatural event, such a Krauss, Dawkins and a whole host of other fools, live in their fairytale of just making things up with nothing to back them. They say things so outrageous that they ask you to give up your common sense for science. Krauss and Dawkins go back and forth calling it "literally nothing" knowing it is something, and even their something can't produce what we have.
ua-cam.com/video/UT3dfPOdAYU/v-deo.html
Krauss admits he does not give a damn what nothing means and he then says he wants to be honest with his readers. He is full of doublespeak. He is WRONG and all he has is pride to continue saying such stupid things.
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html?_r=1
"One unsolved mystery is why there is an excess of mater in our universe; this is the Matter/antimatter problem. Why is the universe only made of matter? Matter/antimatter particles annihilate each other to produce radiation. Radiation coverts to equal amounts of matter and anti matter. Krauss says that the CMB suggests the photon-to-proton ratio was a billion to one. He says that by ‘plausible quantum processes’ the universe started out with 1 part per billion more matter than antimatter. Most of the matter and antimatter combined to make photons. Later he admits we still don’t really know how this asymmetry between matter and antimatter began."
"The energy calculated for empty space assuming virtual particles is 10 to the 120 times greater than that observed. This is a long-standing unsolved problem."
"Krauss also says that this proves you can get something from nothing given the energetics of empty space and the law of gravity. So he says you can get a universe from nothing if you can start with empty space with non-zero energy and the laws of gravity and quantum mechanics. He admits empty space with non-zero energy is something!"
Quotes from another review of Krauss' book here: creation.com/review-krauss-universe-from-nothing
You can read Hawking, Krauss, Hawking and others who praise their gravity but they just made it up and have no idea where it could have come from. And the list goes on. All they have comes down to nothing.
From the start, fools gave up their logic and that does not bother them. When it does not bother someone from the start, they continue giving up their logic with what follows.
@@unkleRucker21 lol
*If you decided to watch this for the purpose of learning, it means you are smart enough, dude.*
This is one of the best videos I have seen on this invaluable channel. The discussion was cogent, amusing, enlightening; not a moment wasted. A pleasure to watch.
Krauss kracks me up. I love his style
Krauss is a brilliant man. Thanks for the upload.
why? because he echoed what many physicists know aswell?
not trying to be an asshole, just digging in to your motivation for lauding someone.
@@thedude4795 he has no clue what he is talking about
Krauss explains it so well. I listened several times. Explains some of my confusions and locks down the essentials.
@@thedude4795 because he's fully versed in the language of math but also fully versed in natural language and also seems to have perfect mapping between them?
Is he?
You can't argue any of this using words. None of his statements come from thinking about problems in words the way most of us do. They all come from mathematical formulas drawn up to describe things we already see and understand, and then when they work on the stuff we already understand, the formulas are examined to see if they predict we'll see other things we'll see that we we haven't yet seen. When the math is on target with what we all agree we see, and it predicts we'll see some new stuff, and then we do, that's when it starts to become working scientific knowledge.
From the specific to the general.
Flat means parallel lines remain parallel and do not intersect.
Imagine a frame like the beams and girders in a traditional skyscraper.
Draw a line from one corner to another, that straight line leads to the next corner and so on to each corner.
The cool part is now imagine the structure expanding proportionally to represent the expansion of space. Straight lines still pass corner to corner.
Interesting, this guy knows a ton, and not so much at the same time. I’m glad I became a chef. I’m still trying to find answers about the universe and my wife.
I love cooking. Also, good luck finding out answers about your wife. Unlike women, the universe is much easier to understand.
What do you mean or seek to convey by the words "the universe"? Is it conceptually possible for there to be anything that is *not* whatever you mean by, " the universe"?
@@vhawk1951kl you got it right on the dot! You answered your own question. You must be a professor
Thanks, I love this stuff.
Lawrence knows how to speak to regular people , got to love this guy
anyone know what year this was?
This is why i believe there should be 4 classes of civilization, ones that have learned to harness:
1-Terrestrial energy
2-Stellar energy
3-Galactic energy
4-The currently unknown, apparently ultimately powerful enough to out factor and overwhelm every other existing driving force and happily tearing the universe apart from its very core... energy.
I'm a studying chemical engineer so theory and the conservation of energy are paramount to the success of the field(I mean they are what make the field what it is), however I am still not entirely convinced that these mathematical laws are the end all, be all. For instance, the idea that particles are coming in and out of existence seems almost like a cop out. To me, it seems like it's an explanation to make the calculations correct... which would be an(much simpler) explanation on why the energy of empty space is 120 orders of magnitude off when considering the effects of the particles within empty space. I'm skeptical *and* very curious of everything.
No one give me this BS like I don't have the right to be inquisitive, when I'm in quantum theory at this very moment. It's simply my observation; and I'm not so arrogant to say that Feynman and Krauss are wrong (Obviously). I know I'm coming from a place of ignorance. I need to see the calculations and the assumptions involved before being entirely convinced. I'm on the side that mathematics is not the "language of the Universe," however it is the way in which we can precisely describe what we observe. Some people would argue that that's the same thing. And, once again, I would't necessarily disagree.
Thank you for you insight. I agree. Fully entitled. Math. Is fascinating. We don't "invent" it. We discover it, and we evolve and expand our understanding of its eloquence. This creates an additional conversation. Math has laws. Constants. But even laws are "relative" to the scope of our understanding. Considering the age of the visible universe it is highly probable that laws have changed since the beginning of time. Not just the laws, but the physics behind them. Continuous event horizons expanding upon each other.. not one common yard stick to rule them all.
To apply any geometric shape to space would imply space is made of something, that can take said shape. So when you say space curves near an object with mass, what do you mean ? What is it in space that curves ?
Mr Krauss, have you ever seen a non curved object curving space around it ? Does a cube curve space ? Or a pyramide ? And if so, can you show me the experiment ? Thanks.
Any object massive enough to produce a significant gravitational field would tend to pull its own mass into a sphere. But every massive object produces a gravitational field no matter what its shape. Irregularly shaped asteroids have gravity, if they didn't they wouldn't hold together, they wouldn't have formed lumps in the first place.. Some oddly shaped asteroids and comets even have orbiting moons.. Even a single atom has a gravitational field, however slight, that's how irregularly shaped clouds of gas condense into spinning discs that form stars and planets.
My level of understanding stops after how it is we know the big bang happened. The red-shift thing makes sense. But then all this stuff about dark matter and dark energy always goes over my head. Damn I wish I studied physics in high-school!
People in the comments claiming with confidence that dark matter and the big bang aren't real. You're arguing with a majority of the world's smartest scientist...
We'll they actually do have their relative merits in those cases and In fact there other multiple other theories for it..
+Harry H my point is teenagers who are struggling to pass biology shouldn't pretend to know more than these scientist.
yes that's fair enough.. as they should realise how much they don't know, just as those like krauss should as well.. because they talk about these topics as if they know pretty much how it is.. without necessarily realising their own ingrained perceptual frameworks.
Wow Donald you completely missed my point. I'm not talking about the scientist in the comment section I'm talking about 14 year olds who don't want to admit their religion isn't real.
+Donald Airey That's a bogus point anyway. People were arguing Heliocentrism because it conflicted with Christian theology. Same with the earth being round and sane with evolution. It's not that the minority is always right. It's that Christianity is always wrong.
In fact, the big bang theory is a lot like Heliocentrism. You have smart scientist that observing the universe discover something knew, and Christians denying it because in conflicts with the bible.
Wow, the more I think about it the more shit that comment was.
Maybe our 3 dimensions of space are the 2nd 3rd and 4th and there is one under them such that our points are really lines (of time perhaps). Space seems to expand over vast distances because the light must travel up the lines as well as across the space. In other words, distant stars are not receding in space but in time which is the 1st dimension of space.
I was having an argument yesterday with someone about god and they were trying to dispute evolution and the big bang.
I was trying to explain to him that we know that the universe is expanding bc we can measure the light waves and compare to other measurements and he just kept saying
“Well, then you believe in something too, you didn’t go all the way out to that star to know it’s actually measuring the right thing, or that the instrument is accurate or that there isn’t human error... so you believe in science just as much as i believe in god”
😑 i didn’t even know where to go from there
But usually they combine big bang with Calam cosmological Argument.
But they don't know that the observable universe is different from the universe. But if I were you I would say Science gives sufficient evidence and it has natural explanations without magic.
@@Sammie551 I mean you believe in a miracle bc I believe only God who is alive can give life but I guess you say that life came from something that wasn't alive without any evidence at all.
thanks for the reply, actually the more I watch videos about this the more I understand.
Its just insane though.
empty space isnt really empty, its like a fabric and all the planets and stars are resting on it.
I wish i cold live another 200 years from now, its going to be crazy, "Jetsons" here we come.
As humankinds Consciousness
expands of course the Universe will expand...just my hypothesis.
I had the same idea today. It just popped in my head as the universe was expanding.
@@geraldvaughn8403 😄❤🙌🙌✌👍👍
What an amazing series
The metric expansion of space is a very weird phenomenon.So that light coming from a body in a part of expanding space may never reach a body which is in a part of space reciprocally expanding because the expansion of space can happen at speeds greater than the speed of light.That's very-well-incredibly,hugely,gigantically powerful.What is it about 'space' that makes this possible?What is this huge energy/force/phenomena that makes space expand metrically?
Yup, that's a big question. What is dark energy?
We may be finding that the speed of light may NOT have been constant since the big bang.
Modern science is based on general relativity, which claims space curves near objects with mass. If the universe is flat, it means it has no mass, because obviously the space around it can only be flat.
I have no clue what your talking about.
Can we go into space and go up, down, left ,right in either direction forever, or does our universe end on the top and bottom?
thanks for trying to help me, you can pm me if you wish to explain better.
If you expand an elastic material, it will break at one point.
Similar way universe breaks at one point.
This breaking point is called as BIG BREAK theory!
I. Love. Lawrence. Krauss.
I love how he dissed G.W Bush hahaha Krauss is the best.
+H8stupidppl love it!
H8stupidppl -- Turns out, science proves stupid people love cheap shots.
GWB had a higher gpa than John Kerry.
By expanding space does that mean (1) stretching the way a rubber band stretches or (2) growing the way a sphere of putty would grow if you kept pulling it apart and adding more putty in the gaps?
Like blowing into a baloon. The entire mass expands.
@@joaquinchavez3132 What baloon ? The universe is flat..
So if time is the 4th dimension and all particles are connected in some way irrespective of where they sit on the space time continuim, couldn't this random dark matter possibly be particles in other dimension which are simply "crossing connections" between dimensions...?
My question is...where did space come from, and what did it come from. Everything has a beginning. The universe must be pre-dated by something else in order to have existed.
what you are? recycled material....this univers is the same....problably born from one dead univers....recycle
@@alesancoeduard8947 There is literally no way to prove that or in fact make any theories about what was before. Also why tf are you responding to a comment from 7 years ago
@@abhaymangla5678 time not exist, also why tf you care=))
So first of all, if you say the universe if flat, there is missing something ok, because space is actually space-time, and being flat says nothing about the embedded time factor blend into space. Space-time. By-the-way other people say it is curved, therefore remote galaxies appears bigger as they are. So i have another idea, there is no energy in empty space, but space is replicating itself, it simply grows; without the mean of an energy.
I don't mean the energy of _nothing,_ I mean the energy of *nothing*
makes no sense
@@Norpan506 use your brain
Are the quantum volumes expanding or are more being created?
The mass outside observable universe could be much larger, pulling the universe apart with gravity.
Like The Great Attractor on a larger scale...?
wonderful new view from you
And THAT is why the outter "visible" universe is expanding at a faster rate. It is being pulled by a closer, more massive gravitational force. Beautiful bro.
I have also thought this. I don't understand why gravity gets no credit when it comes to the apparent expansion of the Universe. Proponents of Dark Matter theories need to have a grand piano dropped on their heads. Just 'cuz the math works doesn't mean anything more than a coincidence. The only difference I have with your theory is that it's not another Universe that's out there pulling ours apart but the center of gravity of our own. Our COG is so massive, no matter which direction you look into space you are looking towards the center. BTW, that would also mean our universe is contracting.
I have had the same thought for quite some time and always hoped I could speak with one of these great cosmologists about it. Over time gravity from objects in further regions beyond what we can see would eventually have an impact stretching space faster over time. We know gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. In an infinite or even vastly larger universe than the observable universe any point in space would have the space around it stretched more of time as the gravity from those distant objects reaches other regions following the inflationary period. It would seem to me to explain the increasing speed of the current expansion.
Picard is now very sad. He had that warp space shuttle, but if he had nothing he would have been much faster. Just him in warp space, pushed by the energy of nothing at warp speed. Amazing technology mr Krauss, truly amazing.
Is empty molecular/atomic space the same as interstellar space?
crushedz Yes, but on a smaller level.
The point is that space is not empty; it has never been & will never be.
Clearly some people didn't understand a shit of what he was saying since they're commenting about appearances after the deepest discussion of universe and the biggest questions in today's physics...
I would like to see/hear some discussion not of why the universe is expanding, but how (in what manner precisely) it is expanding - in cubic Planck units maybe? Yes, I know that nobody really knows how, but up to the minute speculation can be fun.
Oh and while we're at it: Since space is just one aspect of space-time, can we ask what effect the accelerating expansion of space has on time? Also, in addition to units of time and units of space, might there be theoretical units of space-time itself? Might space-time itself be said to be expanding increasingly quickly? What would that even mean?
To quantify "how" may be beyond our computing capabilities? Exotic.
But that's my point, it makes ex nihilo impossible, or at least impossible to detect. Like you said, you can't observe nothingness. Which means you'd have to imply it indirectly through certain observations, but even then it there would be uncertainty.
In extra dimensions smaller than planck units, could gravity be repulsive, in contrast to gravity attraction for matter and energy larger than planck units? Maybe small extra dimensions repel gravitational energy, while in dimensions larger than planck units gravity is attractive?
When I think about dark energy and the virtual particles I wonder about if there could be a way to coax the virtual particles to stick around a little longer so that they can do some work for you. Not really sure about what kind of work, but something.
The universe will one day be nothing and all humans can think about is can I make it do something for me.
@@redcriket Will you survive for billions of years to see the potential end of our current universe? I don't think so. Besides, what is wrong with trying to find ways to make use of the things around us?
Virtual n the context being imaginary?
@@vhawk1951kl virtual, as in detectable stuff that currently cannot be directly observed like we can singular atoms of something like carbon, this is due to how short lived the particles are. “We can deduce their presence because they have an impact on the interaction. For example, we could observe an excess of events during an interaction, which would indicate the presence of virtual particles,” - Claude Duhr, a theoretical physicist at CERN.
@@HikariMagic20 Just so imagery and exactly how many single atoms have you seen?
yeah right
I have a question. Why did people ever think the universe would slow down expanding and maybe even at a point turn in on itself again. That doesn't make any logical sense to be. One would imagine that at the big bang the mass of the universe was condensed and the farther away mass travels from one another the weaker the gravitational bond is between bodies. If the empty universe is a vacuum then outside of the universe containing all matter would be even more vacuum to pull mass outwards, and because of bonds loosening mass just has more and more trouble pulling back against the vacuum
Did you also got the final words as so depressing?
It could be something outside of the universe that is stretching the universe
EXACTLY my thoughts!!! Awesome. Thank you for sharing. 13.7 billion years old... the extent of the CURRENT "visible" universe. I presume there is more mass outside the visible universe than is within. THAT is why the outter visible universe is expanding at an increasing rate. It is being pulled. (Gravity). Like the Apple that fell from the tree. It accelerated from a zero state until it hit (the ground).✌
The Suns are growing space itself? Makes sense due to the increasing temp of the Cosmos...
The answer is obvious. We are in Euclidean space inside an elliptic plane. It's just light is red-shifted by elliptic gravity.
Why is the Universe Expanding?- It is not expanding.
But, they say "the space was evolved from nothing and it is expanding".
The unanswered question is, was that nothing also expanding?
or was it constant?
Redshift is not a measure of the speed of recession away from the observer.
The black absorption lines are stationary in the galaxy frame. This is the reference and shows the spectrum shift toward the BLUE. The universe is collapsing into your view.
I cant agree with naming of empty space as nothing. Empty space isnt necessarily nothing, if you can attribute a property to it, then it is something, it just means we dont understand this specific emptiness of space. The fact that there are huge quantities of energy locked in empty space should tell you immediately that it is something. There are enormous philosophical implications about suggesting ex nihilo.
Physics starts to have its own sort of Theos when given long enough to show its magnificence..
Would we be able to tell the difference between the universe expanding and all matter getting smaller, mathematically?
"The universe being exactly what? -apart from imaginary?
Are not all universals necessarily imaginary?
This guy is so good at making sense out of non sense. He should get a nobel prize just for that.
Does it not occur to you that the very words "expanding universe" are themselves nonsensical?
Perhaps the accelerating expansion of the universe ( in all directions) is not the result of a repulsive force. It might be a great unseen attractor. Perhaps the Big Crunch is already underway. A simple model of this might be drops of water falling on the bulbous side of a balloon. The drops run away from the very top of the balloon in all directions. To an atom sized observer sitting at the very top, all off the drops are accelerating away in
all directions as if they are being repulsed. To the observer, the surface of the balloon seems flat. The drops are following the warp/curve of the balloon due to the gravitational attraction, not a repulsion. In our universe, a massive attractor may be warping space to create the illusion of repulsion.
Is it possible that at the end of the universe we find consciousness creating more space with planets/stars or something else entirely?
Whose consciousness of what? Or for consciousness should I just read stuff?
The Universe is flat by looking at the microwave background radiation (anisotropy). However, if the expansion is accelerating then its geometry should be OPEN instead of flat because if its flat then its expansion rate should go down in time without reaching zero expansion rate and without re-collapsing. Do we detect inconsistency here?
I can see what the problem with general relativity is. All the objects with mass observed that "curve space" are extremely huge and round, like planets, stars, or galaxies which are made of round objects. I wonder if they ever observed an object that is flat, or squared, to "curve space".
What I am saying is that space around a round or spherical object can only be round. The bigger the object, the bigger the space that gets rounded up. It has nothing to do with mass, or gravity, it is a geometrical fact.
And then comes deffraction, reffraction, the way light defracts and refracts around stars with all that hot gas around them. Depending of how many layers of gas are, refraction can cause multiple images of same object, and also can cause warping or bending effect.
Spin is the only force. Clockwise and anticlockwise. The clockwise and anticlockwise creation of matter and antimatter goes through a cycle. This bigger cycle which controls the other two smaller spins give raise to orientation and that reducing the content of antimatter. That leads to expanding universe. Something like if you take a spherical balloon and put rubber balls and iron balls it creates a orientation once you spin the balloon. That gives a asymmetric expansion. The level of asymmetry depends on the spin of the balloon.
When you are in a rubber ball the universe is expanded and when on iron the universe is shrinking. You are in the better half or quarter.
What is the natural source of the spin? Seems spin a symptom/result of something... an energy source. Thoughts?
That's why physicists like him are still working on it. It's an interesting question.
If “empty” space has things in it, it’s not empty!
I think we call it empty cos we can't see, feel or handel it really. It's like air but unknown i guess.
This stuff is great but i think what we perceive and what is fundamental reality are two very different things...
Well that has already been established.
The question is what makes sense as conscious experience knowing any collective conscious experience the question of all time is what does anyone know the question of science has anything to do within any fact that no one knows where anything goes assuming a collective mind assuming an intelligent design so what is any authority when there is no interpretation to our technological culture following any plan
Wayland Porter I do not understand what you are trying to explain ?
Hey! What does his double statement about "nothing" at the beginning mean? He might have as well used "air quotes" for the word "nothing" as I just did right now with the emphasis he put on the word the second time around. Ah fuck it. I'm prolly overthinking it. Plz forgive it's 3 am.
Flat? The stars are on a surface? Is the surface 13.7 LY thick?
IF "nothing" is lots of bubbling particles, are those particles nothing?
It's not a question if virtual particles are there. The question is if the red shift could be due to things other than expansion. It seems it can. Therefore the accelerated expansion is at least questionable. And so is the Big Bang and dark stuff, which nobody understands. Probably because dark stuff does not exist.
+tomahawkskipper OK how can you be so sure that the red shift is down to an alternative explanation? I've only ever heard of one: expansion.
".. specially if they are string theorists..." Ahhh FFS Lawrence.
Halton Arp
7:30
maybe it's expanding the same way that the solar sail works, light just pushes everything apart.
Keep it up!
You have to be able to test your theory. It's maybe you need tested proof..
that or he finally discovered time travel, went back in time and brought his younger self thus immortalizing himself..
Didnt Einstein have a special theory where space was flat but (or because) there was nothing (causing gravity) in it ? How can you scientists apply that exact theory in a flat space with everything causing gravity in it ?
If "nothing" is not nothing, then don't call it "nothing" in the first place.
if the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate because it all started somehow with a big bang...how long would it take for earth to have come into existence in our universe?
+Gerardo Garcia It would take about 9 billion years according to the experiment, but the results may vary based on given environmental conditions present in a given region in space.
At 4:58 Krauss says we know the Universe is flat & it needs enough energy to make it flat & that 70% of the energy to make it flat resides in empty space which should have zero energy. And Krauss said scientists have no idea why it resides in empty space. What kind of statement is this? How did the 70% of the energy got into empty space when it's energy the theorists like him assumes the figure is zero (3:13 minutes) without stating why it should be zero.
Ends on a cheerful note, eh?
So, empty space is nothing, but virtual particules pop in it all the time... My guess is "nothing" isn't empty at all.
And We have built the heaven with Our own hands, and verily We go on expanding it. (51:48)
I can’t even finish this video haha this man is really saying that NOTHING IS SOMETHING! 🤦🏻♀️ no, sir... nothing produces nothing.. nothing consists of NOTHING.
I belivve a force is pulling what we call the universe
Lawrence, Mary Fowler has geophysics data that offers strong insight to an expanding Universe...GR?... you should listen to Teller about his opinion of GR compared to yours... and listen to yourself a little more...BUT you are VERY entertaining...
When Krauss talks I already know I am not going to understand nothing he says.
Why? We do not know....
I don’t think the universe is expanding into empty space but space is expanding itself. If the Big Bang theory is true, the universe exploded into something from nothing. So say you’re putting air into a ball which is flat, is the space inside of that ball expanding into more space or is the space in that ball expanding?
But what even if the universe is expanding? The space has no limits, so there is no danger of the space to end, so even if the the universe expands, we will probably become distant from objects, planets and everything around us!
Because of the separation of the expansion the universe ends up cooking down and dying .. there are videos on it
Heat death
Krauss looks younger than he is now. maybe some 4-6 years
If the Universe is FLAT then it will expand indefinitely into the future but it will decelerate and yet not reach zero rate of expansion. While if the universe is OPEN then its expansion will accelerate indefinitely into the future. Yet based on the CMB map the geometry of the universe is flat. It appears contradictory.
I would like to know what was there before the universe. I don`t comprehend the notion of nothingness. The universe had a mother. What was it
Can’t we end on a high note?
If the universe is made up at least in part of space-time, and there's no space-time outside of the universe, why is it taking any time at all for the universe to expand?
What if dark energy hits a wall?..it just runs out? How do we know that there is endless dark energy forever? It might just be anti gravity for a certain amount of time even. In the absence of matter..it dissolves.
Will never know for billions of years.
if you ask George Bush - no, a 4 year old. *LOL so hard*
Natalie H. no people on earth know that is so true than the Americans and us the Iraqis, he threw saddams regime and caused the death of thousands of young Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis as well, and left it to Iran at the end ,real foolishness.
I agree with you entirely, there is a limit to what we can know, the wiser man realizes this and moves onto something else. And im so tired of people thinking because you can show how something works therefore God is not needed, forgetting that cars work perfectly fine for quite a while without a mechanic, if i show how a car works from A-Z does that mean there was no maker of the car ? People have become such brain washed closed minded impossible to talk with people. God Bless You Brother
How do you define" know"? Depending on how you define know, is not collective knowledge or "we know" impossible? "We" being you and who else, or which identifiable interlocutor?
He said, "ALL OF US THEORISTS assumed we know the answer and it must be zero." (3:19). Then he said it cannot be zero but he DID NOT BELIEVE IT (4:00 minutes). He has not only seen the error of other physicists. He admitted he was in error too and observation forced him to admit it. Try listening carefully yourself and stop your hero worship of Krauss.
Only if there's something around to define it as that... this is moral nihilism, at its rawest...
:D.... *Hears his last sentence*... :\
Don't worry, he's talking about a future trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions of years from now.
SPOILER ALERT: Great quote at the end: "The future is pretty bad". LOL
I would like to know from Krauss, why?
Dodo M Have you checked out the series, "How the Universe Works"? In it, they discuss the prevailing theory that the universe expands indefinitely, eventually making star creation impossible. Once they all burn out, there's nothing left. I suspect that's what he meant.
Thank you for your input. I will look it up!
if it keeps going we never able to travel
Yho
we are not special because we r mafe of stuff that's everywhere. lol yet look at us. we are unique and special. show me something similar if anyone can...
+These Nuts OG please show me the proof if you have any. do you know what SETI is? i just gave you a clue. now lets see what you have to say.....
what I want to know is wtf do they mean that the universe is flat?
its 3d right?
I can go out into space and head in any direction right?
up down left right..correct?
How can all our planets orbit around a flat service? that doesn't even make sense
By flat, he cant mean, like a piece of paper?
Even that is 3D, I just dont understand how our universe is flat.