The Big Bang Theory

[Cymric]

My view is basically that it came down to a quantum fluctuation. As far as we know, genuine mathematical singularities do not exist in this universe, when things become short, small or weak enough, Heisenberg (or his amendments incorporating gravity) steps in. There are still tons of problems---most of them mathematical as they cannot be empirically tested and thus fall outside the realm of science (!)---to solve before this view yields a consistent hypothesis. There are even some voices who speculated that we cannot describe Nature at these extremes because the mathematics at our disposal, in the shape of the very fundamental ZFC axions, is inadequate. The ZFC axioms make certain assumptions about the system we want to study, and there are some good, if somewhat heuristical arguments around to explain that these do no necessarily apply to the universe as a whole.

However, sometimes people succeed in doing some very remarkable things. Recently, a group of theoretical physicsists was able to construct a Universe out of quantum foam: the stuff you end up with if you quantize space as well as energy. The amazing thing: those calculations wouldn't normally yield a three-dimensional universe (rather bizarre two- or four-dimensional ones), unless you introduced a maximum velocity (speed of light) and a measure of causality... And then the foam spontaneously formed an expanding three-dimensional universe! There have been other such 'amazing!' discoveries: I vaguely recall reading up on research which managed to derive both Heisenberg's and Schrödinger's equations from the mere fact that quanta exist.

In any case, once you start reading these things, there really is not shortage to the number of ideas. Multiple universes, endless pulsating ones, universes shaped like a horn or like a soccer ball, universes curved in on themselved so that you never reach the 'edge', ... And all currently have the same status: your guess is as good as mine.

So what's yours :-)?

[Cymric]

Doobrey wrote:
What`s that law that says something like "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed, just transferred to another form" ??

First Law of Thermodynamics. However, you should be careful with this formulation: better is to say: the sum energy of a system is constant, and might be zero. It's been too long to tell you whether 'system' implied a closed or even isolated one. What is important is the constancy bit.
 

So where did the energy come from that was given off in the big bang? ..doesn`t it all just lead to a chicken and egg situation that just freaks everyone out because it reminds us of how insignificant we are in the scheme of things..

As far as I know, current lore has it that the energy was supplied in the form of gravitational repulsion, which was immense, and negative, at t = 0. (Yesyes, gravity attracts, and does not repulse, that's why Mr. Guth's theory made such an impact.) The negative gravitational energy turned into positive matter energy, resulting in a constant-sum game, whose value just happens to be zero. However, trying to prove this scientifically is a can of worms: you need particle accelarators in Lunar orbit if not more to verify these ideas.

[Cymric]

Karlos wrote:
1) Is there any way to derive the origin of c as a fundamental property that in turn gives rise to the 3D universe, or is it the weak anthropic principal that c exists because if it didnt, the universe we are in would be x-dimensional?

I'm not really sure how to answer that question. Partially because the material goes way over my head, and partially because I'm not sure you are allowed to phrase the question like you did. The anthropic principle can just as easily be turned into a simian, a bacterial, or a stellar one, for example. That said: recent calculations in string theory have resulted in the problem that you can create universes out of nothing, but that you can easily have more than 10^100 to chose from. Which of course begs the question: 'Why this one?'. We simply do not know yet.

I will admit that I think the entire undertaking has something of the Baron von Münchhausen in it: we are trying to come up with an explanation why we are here---and despite many impressive advancements, there's a tiny little voice in my head which keeps on saying: 'Because we are, silly.' It is simply a very weird problem.

[/quote]2) What develops for different values for c?[/quote]
I don't know, but my guess would be that it is very hard to say something intelligent about this, as everything inside that universe scales with c. It is the existence of a maximum speed that is important, not that it has the numerical value of c. A consequence (albeit I'm not sure I fully understand why) is that we will never be able to detect a change in c: it will always remain at, IIRC, 299.435.728 km/s. I really ought to dig up the link where I read this, I'll try and do that in the next few days.

[Cymric]

@X-ray:

Unfortunately, I cannot answer your question where it came from. Noone can, because that is what quantum foam means. We cannot hope to develop techniques to peer 'inside' the stuff, Nature won't allow it. Even Nature itself cannot peak inside it. This is completely against common sense, because you'd expect something 'in there'. Well, whatever there is, all we can say is that it obeys a few simple inequalities dealing with momentum, space, time, and energy, but that is truly all. Quantum foam is randomness in its more pure and ultimate form. Where does randomness come from? Noone knows.

Some people have objected very vocally against this sort of description, often to the point of creating a lot of physics which at its core is still nicely predictable, but outwardly resembles the unpredictability of quantum things to the letter. That is introducing needless complexity.

I am very much afraid that your quest stops here. I know, it ties your brain in knots. I try not to think about it very hard, simply because I know I lack the mathematical skills to properly describe things, and thus have to make do with simplistic views which are probably loaded with paradoxes, illogical arguments, and what-not. And now it's off to bed with me, my head is starting to hurt :-).

[Cymric]

So you see, thinking about it turns your brain into knots. That is not meant as a slight at Blobzie's long and informative (and at points somewhat cryptic) post, by the way, it simply is a very difficult subject.

[Cymric]

mdma wrote:
I say to you all, Creationists and scientific types:-

DOES IT REALLY MATTER HOW AND WHY, WE AND THE UNIVERSE CAME TO EXISTS?

It's good to debate these things but at the end of the day it comes down to this:- WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHO IS CORRECT.

At least until we die, and then it's too bloody late anyhow, ;-)

Precisely. It's a matter of life after death ;-).

[Cymric]

They are quips from an in my opinion exceedingly bad cult movie called Blade Runner. (Look up the entry in the Internet Movie Data Base here.) Of course that doesn't stop many critics from praising it to Heaven and back; perhaps I've had to many deep fried Mars bars to appreciate its absolute lack of a story line and difficult, complex character portraits. Perhaps that's why people think it is so great: they don't understand one iota of it, so it must be good.