Something from nothing

[Gob]

LAWRENCE KRAUSS is not coming to Australia to argue that God does not exist.

The renowned American physicist simply wants to convey the extraordinary new findings that have been made about the origin of the cosmos.

His profound conclusion is that our universe, in all its vast complexity, could have - ''and plausibly did'' - arise out of absolutely nothing. And that just happens to make the concept of a creator ''unnecessary'', he said.

Professor Krauss, director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, who has been hailed by Scientific American as a rare scientific ''public intellectual'', will give public addresses in Sydney next week, alongside his good friend and atheist Richard Dawkins.

''My main purpose is not to argue against God, but to celebrate the real universe, and point out how much more fascinating it is than the universe of myth or fairytales,'' Professor Krauss said this week from the US.

The latest research in cosmology, particle theory and gravitation outlined in his new book, A Universe from Nothing, has been ''one of the most remarkable journeys of exploration humanity has ever taken'', he said.

It has revealed that the empty space that makes up most of the universe - a nothingness that theologians and classical philosophers have long pondered - is not empty after all.

''It is a boiling, bubbling brew of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence on a time scale so short you can't see them.''

Not only can this cosmic void give rise to matter, and to people, the laws of physics have also thrown light back to beyond its creation.

''We have learned that space and time can themselves spontaneously appear,'' he said.

And if that isn't enough nothing for you, ''I show that even the laws may have come into existence when the universe came into existence.''

This implies many universes exist, like drops in an ocean, each with its own set of laws - a possibility that he also finds ''quite plausible''.

He said that finding meaning in a universe that arose from nothing and may one day return to nothing was easy.

''It is an amazingly wonderful bit of good fortune that we happen to be here at a time when we have a consciousness that can appreciate the universe,'' Professor Krauss said.

''So it's more important for us to say we should take advantage of that remarkable accident and use our minds and produce the best lives we can have.''

Professor Krauss has been involved in many of the developments resulting in today's picture of an expanding universe that began in a primeval fireball 13.72 billion years ago and which contains a lot of invisible dark matter.

In 1995, with Michael Turner, he came up with the ''crazy'' idea that about 70 per cent of the universe's total energy is an unknown force that permeates empty space.

''I don't think anyone was more surprised than we were when it turned out, three years later, that our heretical suggestion was precisely on the money after all,'' he said.

Researchers, including a team led by Australian Nobel Laureate, Brian Schmidt, showed the universe's expansion was accelerating, seemingly pushed ever faster apart by this mysterious, repulsive dark energy.

''This discovery has produced remarkable new support for the idea that our universe arose from precisely nothing,'' Professor Krauss said.

He gets upset when criticised for challenging the concept of a creator, when critical thinking on other topics is praised.

''People automatically say, you're attacking religion when all I'm doing is saying, let us ask the question, 'Could you understand a universe without God?'.''

Professors Krauss and Dawkins will speak at a Cosmos magazine event at Sydney Grammar School next Thursday and at the Opera House on April 16



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-te ... z1rJ5a5400

[BoSoxGal]

Are you going to see them? I envy you the opportunity!

[Joe Guy]

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try...

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sounds fascinating - wish they'd come to Bloem. I'd enjoy hearing them. Bit of a misleading headline that - "He's NOT COMING to Australia to argue that God does not exist" vs. "He's not coming to Australia TO ARGUE that God does not exist" or something

Anyway, I'm glad to learn that there's not an invisible, intangible cause of the Universe after all but that it all comes from er..... intangible things too brief to be observed

That's all right then!
Meade

[rubato]

Buy it online from Powell's Books:



http://viewfromthecenter.com/files/View2minVer2.mov


You can watch two interviews here:


http://viewfromthecenter.com/interviews/tv-int.html

yrs,
rubato

[rubato]

...
His profound conclusion is that our universe, in all its vast complexity, could have - ''and plausibly did'' - arise out of absolutely nothing. And that just happens to make the concept of a creator ''unnecessary'', he said.
....
''People automatically say, you're attacking religion when all I'm doing is saying, let us ask the question, 'Could you understand a universe without God?'.''

... "

The beginning of science is the rejection of anything other than the material world. The idea that all physical effects have physical causes.


yrs,
rubato

[Rick]

...
His profound conclusion is that our universe, in all its vast complexity, could have - ''and plausibly did'' - arise out of absolutely nothing. And that just happens to make the concept of a creator ''unnecessary'', he said.
....
''People automatically say, you're attacking religion when all I'm doing is saying, let us ask the question, 'Could you understand a universe without God?'.''

... "

The beginning of science is the rejection of anything other than the material world. The idea that all physical effects have physical causes.


yrs,
rubato

Yet science boasts it relies on facts.

If it ain't a fact it's a belief...

[Lord Jim]

And of course the idea that the universe sprang from "nothing" is not a "fact", it is a belief....

It is a belief based on a philosophical perspective for which no "material" proof exists....

There is nothing "scientific" about that belief; no acceptable scientific methodology has proven it....

You would think that a real scientist would know things like that....

I suspect that real scientists do....

[Rick]

Jim you didn't have to write all that he already knew it...

[Lord Jim]

I wouldn't be so sure about that...

The beginning of science is the rejection of anything other than the material world

That statement is ridiculous; science begins with nothing of the sort....

That is the starting point for Atheism, not science....

"The beginning of science" is observation ; and prediction based upon observation; nothing more...

Science seeks to explain how the "material world" works....

It says nothing at all about whether or not there is anything beyond the material world; it can't, by definition...that is not the purview of science.

It is truly mind boggling to me that a person who claims to be a scientist could make a statement like the one I quoted above...

How can a "scientist" so fundamentally misunderstand the nature and purpose of science?

The Ancient Egyptians and Mayans, who performed quite advanced astronomical scientific observations and made accurate predictions about a whole host of celestial phenomena based on those observations, sure as hell weren't engaged in " the rejection of anything other than the material world"...

The idea that nothing exists beyond the material world is a philosophical conclusion; not a scientific one.

And if one accepts this:

The idea that all physical effects have physical causes.

Then one must absolutely rule out the "the universe sprang from nothing" theory , since obviously "nothing" cannot possibly be a "physical cause"....

[Joe Guy]

As the great philosopher Billy Preston once said, "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing".

[Rick]

Conservation of mass and energy it's not just a good idea it's the LAW...

[Lord Jim]

[rubato]

________________________
"
It is not by prayer and humility that you cause things to go as you wish, but by acquiring
a knowledge of natural laws. The power you acquire in this way is much greater and more
reliable than that formerly supposed to be acquired by prayer, because you never could tell
whether your prayer would be favorably heard in Heaven. The power of prayer, moreover,
had recognized limits; it would have been impious to ask too much. But the power of
science has no known limits. We were told that faith could remove mountains, but no one
believed it; we are now told that the atomic bomb can remove mountains, and everyone
believes it.
BR
"
_______________________

[Rick]

But the power of science has no known limits.

Guess ole Bert can give ya clue as to how infinite the universe is.

Here on Earth Higgs Boson is still a concept...

[MajGenl.Meade]

His profound conclusion is that our universe, in all its vast complexity, could have - ''and plausibly did'' - arise out of absolutely nothing. And that just happens to make the concept of a creator ''unnecessary'', he said.

It has revealed that the empty space that makes up most of the universe - a nothingness that theologians and classical philosophers have long pondered - is not empty after all.

Is that quite correct - re the empty space? Have theologians (I don't know about classical philosophers) long pondered it? I do not know of any theologians who have pondered the "empty" space WITHIN this universe or have even asserted that is IS empty. Surely, is it not scientists who considered it "empty"?

Theologians speak of the absolute emptiness and vacancy of what was before the creation of the universe - not after it was created. It is clearly an invalid scientific step to argue that because x now is, x always was. The non-emptiness of space in and around the universe provides no evidence as the emptiness or non-emptiness of nothingness before there was something.

It is hardly a profound conclusion to announce that something 'could have' and 'plausibly did' - that is precisely the argument put forward by theology - God could have and plausibly did. We can argue about that plausibility in either case.

In other words this guy is full of.... random particles
Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

His profound conclusion is that our universe, in all its vast complexity, could have - ''and plausibly did'' - arise out of absolutely nothing. And that just happens to make the concept of a creator ''unnecessary'', he said.

It has revealed that the empty space that makes up most of the universe - a nothingness that theologians and classical philosophers have long pondered - is not empty after all.

Is that quite correct - re the empty space? Have theologians (I don't know about classical philosophers) long pondered it? I do not know of any theologians who have pondered the "empty" space WITHIN this universe or have even asserted that is IS empty. Surely, is it not scientists who considered it "empty"?

Theologians speak of the absolute emptiness and vacancy of what was before the creation of the universe - not after it was created. It is clearly an invalid scientific step to argue that because x now is, x always was. The non-emptiness of space in and around the universe provides no evidence as the emptiness or non-emptiness of nothingness before there was something.

It is hardly a profound conclusion to announce that something 'could have' and 'plausibly did' - that is precisely the argument put forward by theology - God could have and plausibly did. We can argue about that plausibility in either case.

In other words this guy is full of.... random particles
Meade

[Joe Guy]

Good point.

[Joe Guy]

Good point.

[Lord Jim]

Anything worth saying is worth saying twice.