I don't remember if I've posted this before, but nonetheless for those who have yet to view it, I highly suggest giving it a look.

Our Universe could have came out of nothing because there is no such thing as nothing in the common sense of the term, since "nothing" actually is not "nothing" but simply "empty space."

If you add up the total energy in a flat Universe, it is zero. Thus, a flat Universe, if indeed our Universe is flat, can begin from "nothing" as in from "zero energy." Confusing eh?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo[/youtube]

That was a really good talk, witty and smart. Krauss is a great communicator.

His lectures are also infused with comedy--makes for an enjoyable experience for me. I get tired of stuffy lecturers sometimes. Douglas Hofstadter is another witty lecturer. Fuck. I'm still reading his book, Godel, Escher, Bach. Fuckin' A. What a long complicated trip his book is. ((Yeah, I'm ripping off the Grateful Dead.))

pearlgirl wrote:His lectures are also infused with comedy--makes for an enjoyable experience for me. I get tired of stuffy lecturers sometimes. Douglas Hofstadter is another witty lecturer. Fuck. I'm still reading his book, Godel, Escher, Bach. Fuckin' A. What a long complicated trip his book is. ((Yeah, I'm ripping off the Grateful Dead.))

I am about as well versed in physics as a creationist is in evolution. Yet, Lawrence Krauss did a great job communicating to physics-illiterates such as myself.

An excellent lecture, to be sure. Oft misunderstood, though. I've come across quite a few who think he literally meant that the universe came from nothing, and completely missed the point he was making, namely that 'nothing' can't exist. Indeed, there is just such a thread on the forum as we speak.

Several applicable ones, in fact

pearlgirl wrote:...Douglas Hofstadter is another witty lecturer. Fuck. I'm still reading his book, Godel, Escher, Bach. Fuckin' A. What a long complicated trip his book is. ((Yeah, I'm ripping off the Grateful Dead.))

[derail]+1[/derail]

Very interesting lecture. Although we're left with a question: Why are the laws of physics the way they are? It seems an incredible coincidence that the gravitational constant, Pi and many of the other constants are exactly the correct number so as to produce the universe and life. If any of these constants were even a few percent different, stars might not form, water might not have the correct properties to produce life and so on and so on.

EDIT: Never mind he answered that question too I guess if the constants were different, something different would have formed and perhaps some different kinds of life forms would be asking the same question any way.

He did kinda go into that. We're not in a position to know if it's a coincidence.

Yes, he pretty much answered it with string theory.

"There's more that we don't understand about the universe than we do"
That statement really excites me. It means that I have an opportunity to investigate the laws of physics and further our knowledge about the universe.

Well, go to it, young man, don't waste your time chatting with me!

Speaking of physics, I was quite surprised that Isaac Newton, despite being a genius that came up with many laws by the age of "26," died a virgin.

He was also a fucking nutter Christian of the highest order, and (by no direct correlation?), was a complete twat.

andyx1205 wrote:Speaking of physics, I was quite surprised that Isaac Newton, despite being a genius that came up with many laws by the age of "26," died a virgin.

Why "26" and not just 26?

Anyway, what with biblical studies, calculus, optics, gravity, alchemy, petty rivalries, running the Royal Mint, eksetra, he was perhaps a tad busy for 'the other'.

j.mills wrote:

andyx1205 wrote:Speaking of physics, I was quite surprised that Isaac Newton, despite being a genius that came up with many laws by the age of "26," died a virgin.

Why "26" and not just 26?

Anyway, what with biblical studies, calculus, optics, gravity, alchemy, petty rivalries, running the Royal Mint, eksetra, he was perhaps a tad busy for 'the other'.

I was simply highlighting the fact that he accomplished so much, and was imo the greatest physicist we have yet to have (with the second being Einstein), at the age of 26. He invented calculus on a fricking bet with a friend in only two months.

He wasn't deformed or anything either, which is why I was surprised that he died a virgin. From the paintings I've seen of him, he looked like a decent-looking guy.

Not deformed = women lining up? IIRC, he was reclusive and acerbic.

Possibly asexual and therefore not having an interest in sex. Or possibly gay, therefore either being celebrate due to religious crap or bumming men and not telling anyone because it was taboo.

Ah, the word is "celibate", Paul1, not "celebrate" - just to avoid you getting into confusing conversations in the future!

As for anthroban: he probably is deformed, and wimmin pay him attention out of morbid curiosity.

Think of them as demonstrating the multiple universe hypothesis.