I suspect the results are startling even to most physicists. But some of them have been predicting the existence of "virtual particles" for a while.
I'm not sure this is the same thing as the light from vacuum experiment, but it's related in my mind. Also, I think Krauss mentioned that even a vacuum is swarming with these particles. Particles can "pop into existence" in our universe in pairs - particle and anti-particle which exist for tiny fraction of a second and then annihilate. I've read about conjecture that this is a mechanism by which black holes can "evaporate." A pair pops in near the event horizon, one particle goes into black hole and annihilates with some other particle, while its original partner goes off into space. No idea if there's anything other than speculation about this.
When scientists discover some new thing, they can make up new terms or they can borrow old terms. Either approach can create confusion in different ways. Also, just like everyone else they want to explain new things in terms of things they already understand - very often by means of analogy. Analogy are never perfect - and they don't need to be. But they also can sometimes create confusion.
One thing that irks me is that the scientists are still trying to figure stuff out and in swoop the obscurantists to "explain" the implications of it. One justification they use is that if the scientists don't know everything, then they really know nothing.
Bertrand Russell summarized the problem when he wrote "The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
(In "Christian Ethics" from Marriage and Morals (1950), quoted from James A Haught, ed, 2000 Years of Disbelief, but I got read it at
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/russell.htm )
So we have guys like William Lane Craig (WLC) telling us about the implications of "something from nothing" and Krauss telling us what it really means when scientists talk about "something from nothing." I have no qualms at all about accepting that they are both wrong - but anyone who thinks they're probably equally wrong is, well, not thinking clearly.
I understand that when scientists like Krauss use phrases like "literally nothing" it's confusing and irritating - I feel the same way. But it's no different than any other kind of scientific term. The word "order" CAN have different (orthogonal and perhaps even contradictory) meanings to a waitress, a judge, an artist, and a thermodynamicist - all of those definitions are correct in their appropriate context, but applying a definition in the improper context is, well, improper.
It's the same thing when we use the word "accelerate." The common understanding of the term is fine and even correct when you're talking to other lay people - but if you apply that popular connotation to solving problems in dynamics, you're going to end up proving the laws of physics are wrong. (ahem)
(If you ask a random person how to accelerate his car, most will look at you like you're an idiot and say, "step on the ACCELERATOR of course." If the person is clever and took algebra, she will realize that a deceleration is just a negative ACCeleration and might answer "step on the gas or the brakes." But an engineer or scientist would realize that acceleration is not just a change in speed. It's a change in velocity and velocity is a speed AND a direction, so an acceleration could be a change in either. So a car going in circles, even at constant speed, is nevertheless continuously accelerating.)
Similarly, the "the web" and "the Internet" are not the same thing and it's fine that some people do not distinguish between them. But if one wants to work in the technology, one probably ought to know the difference.
These are a few very simple examples to illustrate what I'm talking about. There are many others. It's not that Krauss and other physicists don't know what they're talking about, or that they're trying to deliberately confuse us.
A typical scientist goes to school for 4 years to get the very basic understanding of his field; then another 4-8 years of getting the crap kicked out of them in grad school (depending on field, etc); then maybe a postdoc, and then active research where they publish where they're getting beat up by their peers. They read books and papers on the exact subject, they solve problems, they check and recheck, they collaborate, they compete, they argue with their peers, subordinates, and masters. The masters argue with THEIR masters. It's not that I think these guys are always right, but how can anyone NOT think Krauss, et. al. know more than WLC (or Deepak Chopra, et. al.) about physics?
