Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-46 of 46 posts in this discussion
Posted on Jan 9, 2012 1:09:21 PM PST
A few simple questions:

Is Professor Krauss actually saying what we call reality came from what we call nothingness - that is the complete absence
of being - no energy, no particles, no fields - no whatever the Quantumicists might discover as being capable of interacting
in some manner - whatever that might be ?

What has God/Religion got to do with all of this ?

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 9, 2012 1:34:32 PM PST
Regnal says:
By looking at 'search inside this book' one can notice a chapter: "Nothing is Something" (?!). This does not surprises me, cause it is a mantra that has arrived several years ago among theoretical cosmologists. Stenger , Hawking and others adopted it well before Krauss. It was Stenger again who stated that "Nothing is Unstable". To me title of this book is grossly misleading (Hawking titled his book "The Grand Design" - a bit better). Checking 'Index' I do not see anything that could possibly be new for me. "A Universe from Nothing" will be read by cohorts of trying to ascertain themselves atheists most likely. This book was not the best idea concocted by renown scientist like Lawrence Krauss.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 9, 2012 8:10:50 PM PST
Hi Wojciech,

I do my best to stay abreast of what is going on in Physics.

I am aware that what was commonly called: Empty Space
is evidently not so empty after all - I had long arguments with the grad students in physics about why space
cannot be absolutely empty long ago and used to ask them about what is now called the Quantum Foam -
so if Krauss is saying that what we once thought was empty/nothing is not quite empty/nothing...
then it interesting but not contradictory to reason.

As to why many scientists are hostile to religion or even the idea of a Creator who actually cares for His creation
all I can say is that many of them lack an ability to have deep emotions and are blind to that inability and
so they place their trust in what they call reason/rationality - evidently being unaware of what Pascal/Kant
wrote and what Godel's Theorem implies for any chance of fully understanding what they have constructed as
an apparently Rational explanation of the Universe. Plato makes it quite clear that we can never understand
the Universe as we have do not have the ability to describe all of reality with words that are a part of our
understanding of reality. I am sorry that so many people on this discussion are so immediately dismissive of what
you write - as what you write seem quite reasonable and open.

Posted on Jan 10, 2012 6:05:56 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 10, 2012 11:34:34 AM PST
Regnal says:
Thank you for interesting post and support. You are very right about nomenclature and meaning of "nothing" (I pointed at it in my earlier posts as well). Hawking stated few years ago that we will have to accept different sets of laws (one for gravity, another for quantum world).
It is an absurd writing the book with the conviction that we know what happened at the beginning. Besides Krauss came out with this repetitious 'song' way too late, if considering recent works of this type by Stenger, Hawking and even Dawkins (the third one knows nothing about cosmology, yet tries to teach children). Andrew Taylor wrote that at present we cannot explain the origin of the Universe. If we consider universe's expansion as a flying cannon ball, we can extrapolate it backward, but we are unable to see the cannon and the moment of the blast ("On Space and Time"; excellent chapter I). I also noticed chapter III in Krauss' book: "Light from the beginning of time". Obviously he has CMB in mind, but again it is not true. CMB is 300 000 or so years 'old' according to OBSERVATIONS. Lawrence Krauss, the one who always emphasised that science = observation and experiment/confirmation, now simply broke his principles for reason not quite clear for me. Sad indeed, because if something is done and reason is hard to see, most likely the reason are $$. I have respected him, but not anymore.

Posted on Jan 12, 2012 8:20:47 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Jan 12, 2012 8:47:38 PM PST]

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2012 6:59:53 PM PST
L. Krauss says:
thanks.. I am speaking around the country.. if I was nearby I might be able to speak.. I normally charge a fee, but am easier for book tours.. I am booking some tours through the Richard Dawkins foundation.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 16, 2012 7:00:15 PM PST
L. Krauss says:
hope you enjoy the book

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 17, 2012 12:15:15 PM PST
Ben says:
Thanks, Dr. Krauss! I will contact RDF and get more information. And thanks again for your wonderful book!

Posted on Feb 2, 2012 5:16:36 AM PST
Regnal says:

Too bad you did not make a bet. You could have won bottle of Maple Leaf pancake syrup mix with brandy, made in Ontario) :) You actually surprised me by quite smart and unique/easy explaining why virtual particles exist.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2012 6:35:02 PM PDT
1Danny says:
You sound arrogant.

Posted on Jun 7, 2012 11:37:24 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Jun 7, 2012 11:41:44 PM PDT]

Posted on Jun 8, 2012 1:15:01 PM PDT
D. Babcock says:
Nothing from something and something from nothing ,now that is an interesting hypothesis. O men of great faith, reason on. Persig's postulate, "The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite."

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 8, 2012 2:20:53 PM PDT
Regnal says:
The number of irrational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite as well :)

Posted on Jul 17, 2012 9:32:24 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012 9:36:00 AM PDT
Regnal says:
I would like Krauss to explain how and why the "quantum turbulences, quantum foam, energy that briefly decay into particles and antiparticle, domination of quantum gravity" (from the book), originated. Honestly, I would like to know it. No religious or philosophical answer, but true scientific answer. I have never found any explanations for it, neither in books or articles.

BTW: the whole book is just the old hypothesis, that I have been familiar since more than 10 years ago (particularly the notion about 'nothing') - Hubert Reeves in 1991 !!, Fred Adams in 2002 ! and many more. Krauss is just a sensationalist and talker selling the old cake. I think Krauss should instead focus on something useful for cosmology, like for example Raig Hogan (University of Chicago) who builds equipment at Fermilab to detect if space has grainy digital nature. Scientists like Hogan are fascinating, rather at best - boring.
I will continue to criticize Krauss for his repetitious, sensationalized, hypocritical work..
Why do I have to convince readers that Krauss' "Hidden in the Mirror" is much, much better than "AUFN"?

I noticed on Amazon, he presents himself as "I ...first proposed the existence of dark energy in 1995". Unfortunately I have not seen any evidence of it in any book or article. If he did that, it must have been some kind of not significant gibberish. Michael Turner is recognized as the one who first coined this term (check Wiki). You will not find Krauss name in Robert Kirshner (one of the research leaders who discovered dark energy accelerating universe) book "Extravagant Universe". So, here is Krauss who brags.

Also: Krauss somehow convinced more than 50 people to write biased reviews (all 5*, few 4*) at one day in May. He probably distributed his book among his lecture attendees and asked them to do it, though I have no 100% prove of it. However one can hardly find such phenomenon on Amazon (not 10, not 20 but 50 reviews/day!). Thanks to that, book's rating is artificially elevated. Without it , book would have less than 100 5* reviews. It all sucks.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 17, 2012 4:23:43 PM PDT

I think you are spot on about Krauss and his sensationalism.

Posted on Sep 1, 2012 10:39:39 AM PDT
If 1% or less of humans will ever understand the complexities of quantum mechanics and what Krauss means by "nothing" how can he expect the 99% to accept his "theory"? If it has not been observed it can only be a theory. Only when the eclipse was observed did Einstein's relativity move from equation to scientific fact.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 1, 2012 10:43:15 AM PDT
N. Holland says:
Oh cool, more scientific illiteracy.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 1, 2012 12:09:52 PM PDT
Welcome, genius, to the 99%! I hope it is not just pretense. unless you have a PHd in Physics specialising in quantum mechanics.

This talk about God and proving the universe without a creator completely ignores that science will never prove the origin of life. There is a true quantum leap between the big bang, stars, and functioning living beings. Sure, there is a lot of research and conjecture into abiogenesis, but nothing more than speculation. No scientific evidence.

Posted on Nov 1, 2012 6:53:27 AM PDT
Either nothing is really nothing or it is not nothing at all. The concept of energy in emptiness is really a concept of something, not nothing. Energy is something. No energy, no particles, no space, no time, no potential whatsoever, is nothing. Nothingness leads nowhere, becomes nothing, tends toward nothing, because it is nothing. If there is anything whatsoever that burgeons, explodes, expands, or becomes anything else, there was not nothing to begin with, but something. It doesn't matter how small it was, how elemental it was, how inactive or active, how latent or merely potential: it was something. Even the theory of quantum fluctuations--not to say the observation of them, since the observation is theorized to change them--implies directly that there is something to fluctuate. Those who claim that in quantum fluctuations a particle phases between existence and non-existence must begin with a particle or quanta that exists. Nothingness is quite different. It is simply a word that stabs at the concept of non-existence altogether: not non-existence fluctuating into existence as a particle, but non-existence absolutely.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 4:59:54 AM PST
Robert F. Simms says:

"Nothingness is quite different. It is simply a word that stabs at the concept of non-existence altogether: not non-existence fluctuating into existence as a particle, but non-existence absolutely."

To have a word for something does not guarantee it exists. "Unicorns" for example.

To satisfy your criteria, "nothing" must mean "absolute nothing." But as far as we can tell right now, such a nothing does not exist.

Did it ever? No one knows. But to claim that it must have predated our not-quite-nothing is an unproved assumption.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 21, 2013 12:36:04 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Jan 21, 2013 1:05:03 PM PST
Tad says:
As I see it, 'Nothing' is simply Something's negation. 'Absolute Nothing' is a mere abstraction and has no existence independent of something. Negate the world and you get nothing but only against a world that you are negating. Nothing is Something's backdrop without which Something could not be. Neither painting nor canvas could exist independently of each other. Each frames the other: The world frames nothing and nothing frames the world. My thoughts anyway,
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  17
Total posts:  46
Initial post:  Aug 30, 2011
Latest post:  Jan 21, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions
This discussion is about
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing
A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss (Hardcover - January 10, 2012)
4.0 out of 5 stars   (782)