Whenever we talk of the Universe and its origin we always consider its constituents which scientifically consists of: Matter/Energy, space and time. I, however, feel that there is one more constituent, which is much more fundamental to its origin and which is seldom mentioned. What about the rules by which it behaves, the natural laws of the Universe. Science is basically the determination and study of these laws and only with the knowledge of these laws can we hope to obtain information about its history. This begs the question: How did these rules originate and did it came about at the same time as the rest of the Universe?

The generally accepted scientific theory of the origin of the Universe at the moment is the Big-Bang theory with which I have one major problem: Looking at the Universe as presented to us we notice an almost random distribution of galaxies, how can a fixed set of rules account for this? I know that according to theory the rules may have been different at the early stages of the Big-Bang however as long as all matter/energy, space and time abide by the same rules, whatever the rules may be, then all we can expect after a Big-Bang is either:
A uniformly distributed plasma across all space with some inertia from the Big-Bang - virtual maximum Entropy.
or
Everything collapsed back to the original cosmic egg.

It speaks for itself that the original cosmic egg must have been homogeneous throughout its structure especially since it had virtually no size. If this is the case then the initial blast must have been equally intense in all directions so that the original plasma density would be perfectly spread in such a way that there would be no point of vantage where condensation can start.

The only way I can see out of this dilemma is to assume that at some stage all matter/energy, space and time did not abide by the same rules, there was a bit of randomness about the behavior of the Universe. If this was the case then we must hope it occurred near the start of its lifetime as information prior to this stage would be for ever locked away from science.

At this stage I feel it is only fair to also consider the Creationist view. The Scientific view of the origin of the Universe is faced with three problems:
1. The origin of the physical Universe (Matter/Energy, space and time).
2. The origin of the natural laws of the Universe (Surprisingly complex and yet so elegant and self-balancing that it seems unthinkable that it could have spontaneously occurred).
3. A period of alternative natural laws (actually lawlessness).

For the Creationist it would be easy to say that God created the Physical Universe and the laws and at some stage He stirred it a bit with His finger to introduce some randomness.

Even so called random events will have rational explainations when the forces behind them are understood. If I throw a glass of water in the air, the droplets will fall in a pseudo random pattern yet each droplet has an exact place to be in spacetime according to the laws of physics. Each drop will settle according the rules that govern the four forces. I imagine this is the same with all cosmic matter. I see no reason to assume visual uniformity especially when unification of the four forces elludes us to the degree that it does.

peace

c20

Even so called random events will have rational explainations when the forces behind them are understood. If I throw a glass of water in the air, the droplets will fall in a pseudo random pattern yet each droplet has an exact place to be in spacetime according to the laws of physics. Each drop will settle according the rules that govern the four forces. I imagine this is the same with all cosmic matter. I see no reason to assume visual uniformity especially when unification of the four forces elludes us to the degree that it does.

peace

c20

Exactly, there is no provision for random behaviour in the current accepted laws of the Universe.

Exactly, there is no provision for random behaviour in the current accepted laws of the Universe.

Random is a relative term however. Random compared to what?

Imagine if you have never seen a game of chess before or even know what it is. You see your first chess board whilst two players have gone off for lunch leaving the game half way through. It could appear that the pieces have been placed randomly on the board from your perspective, yet to the players who understand the rules, the pieces have been placed according to some very strict mathematical algorithms with purpose (domination) whilst upholding those rules.

peace

c20

Random is a relative term however. Random compared to what?

Imagine if you have never seen a game of chess before or even know what it is. You see your first chess board whilst two players have gone off for lunch leaving the game half way through. It could appear that the pieces have been placed randomly on the board from your perspective, yet to the players who understand the rules, the pieces have been placed according to some very strict mathematical algorithms whilst upholding those rules.

peace

c20

Agreed, there is however still nothing in the laws of nature that can cause a 100% uniform distribution of matter to orginise itself into a distribution that "SEEMS TO BE" random. Remember entropy can only increase so left by itself the matter in the Universe will tend to distribute itself more and more evenly.

THis is not philosophy! This is -science-! Please. Post in the right area. It is a fine post, but -please- post in the -right area-!

Now for my answer:

The Big Bang would not produce plasma, it would produce energy. The energy would then condense rapidly into particle pairs, many of which would suffer through annihilation and return to energy, which would provoke more pairs, and eventually you'll see enough particles not annihilating eachother to produce enough mass to cause gravity in that area to attract more mass, which in turn would help form areas - once the Big Bang energy cools significantly - of mass concentration. We also have to take into consideration that it is generally thought that atleast there of the forces of nature were united at the energy levels of the Big Bang (weak and strong nuclear and electromagnetism) which could cause other weird things to come about and produce our heterogenous (as regards mass) universe.

Now for my answer:

The Big Bang would not produce plasma, it would produce energy. The energy would then condense rapidly into particle pairs, many of which would suffer through annihilation and return to energy, which would provoke more pairs, and eventually you'll see enough particles not annihilating eachother to produce enough mass to cause gravity in that area to attract more mass, which in turn would help form areas - once the Big Bang energy cools significantly - of mass concentration. We also have to take into consideration that it is generally thought that atleast there of the forces of nature were united at the energy levels of the Big Bang (weak and strong nuclear and electromagnetism) which could cause other weird things to come about and produce our heterogenous (as regards mass) universe.

Thanks for the detailed description of Big-Bang theory, I agree mine may not be technically 100% correct but this is actually not that important in the overall picture. The fact remains that there is still nothing to account for any randomness in the formation of the Universe. We have to assume that all matter and energy obeys the laws of nature equally and 100% (no matter what the laws may have been at the time). At the first appearance of matter all particles at the same radius from the center should be identical and equally spaced and kept in 100% equilibrium by the individual gravitation forces. Under these conditions the particles cannot group together as no single particle has a favorable position for this to happen. I agree that the slightest imbalance of any particle will cause the matter to start to condense, but there is nothing to account for the slightest imbalance.

Root:

Randomness is a foreign concept in science. Things have causes, there is no "randomness" as there is nothing without a cause. You see, your theory falls short because there -is- no matter present to start off with, just energy. Matter develops out of energy swamping space and producing matter/anti-matter virtual particles, which in turn, would annihilate eachother almsot always, but since we're in a seething mass of energy and expansion of space, it is very possible that enough pairs will seperate to be able to have permanent existence, which only -then- would produce gravity.

The term "random sampling" is often used in scientific studies. So calling randomness a foreign concept in science is curious.

Rulers of the Universe? Well, the Celestials were pretty powerful characters. And then there was that guy Galactus. And the race that the Watcher came from, plus the pantheons (Greek & Norse). I personally think the Celestials were like the rulers of the universe. Was that Marvel or DC?

root,

The concept of 'random' doesn't exist as part of reality. It is a human-made concept used to desribe a relationship of predictability and is actually quite a useful concept for humans to employ. The same thing would consequently apply to the concept of 'nothing'. It's a human-made concept used to describe a relationship of presence. The commonality is that both concepts are polarizations: predictable / unpredictable, something / nothing where the right side of the polarizations are really asymptotes that don't tangibly exist.

Overall, it sounds like we're after the underlying laws that reality executes with (whether it's universal inflation, black holes, matter, antimatter, etc.). IMO the best theory (it's actually a cluster of theories) that we have to date is called M-Theory. At it's simplest coceptual level, the following exists:

* Sheets of 'something' (they are called 'dimensions')
* Lines and closed loops of energy that are called 'strings'. To my understanding, the type of energy that strings are made of is something unique and closed loop strings will attract things (the contents of closed loop strings is called 'quantum gravity')

Strings exist simultaneously in multiple dimensions and they vibrate on a never-ending basis. Each dimension responds to the vibration in a very exact and predictable manner. This would be the underlying governance of our reality (the theory of 'everything' so to speak).

Within this model, the smallest point anywhere in our universe is made up 11 dimensions and a string. To give you an idea of how small a point would be, a single quark would probably be made up of trillions of strings.

Now keep in mind, our universe (our reality) is likely not the only one out there. There would easily be plenty of other strings vibrating in other dimensions that have resulted in other universes. One theory called the 'Many Worlds' theory shows that our Universe is part of another universe which is part of another universe etc. It also states that our universe (in it's maximally compacted state) only inflated after colliding with a sibling universe. All universes (whether they are siblings or parents / children) in the Many Worlds Theory would be goverened by M-Theory (i.e. strings). To give you an idea of how many universes there would be... lets just say more than there are atoms in our universe.

Now keep in mind M-Theory is just that a theory and it's been virtually untestable to date; however, this is all changing in 2007 with the Hadron Collider in Geneva. Finally some predictions of string theory will be able to be tested. If it works out then great, if not then it's time to do some remodeling.

Assuming String theory turns out to be true, a great question would be where did all the dimensions and strings come from? The answer is nobody knows and they simply may have always been there (the concept of 'birth' may be something that Strings produce but may not be applicable to themselves).

'Rules and laws' of our universes are artificial concepts that we impose on the observed to codify what we observe within our personal intellectual framework. There are no laws 'out there' for us to stumble upon. Laws are an 'overlay'. We see patterns and devise 'laws' for those patterns to fit. Do you think that someone opened a rule book before boinking the omniverse into a lawful existence?
"Here is a Law, BANG!!! Now go forth and discover it!"??

the rules of the universe are what makes the universe so without rules
only dark vader can rule the universe with rules

Rules change over time as more data is discovered to disprove old rules and make new ones.

root...
1. The origin of the physical Universe - Do you have a problem with an infinite and eternal universe?
2. The origin of the natural laws of the Universe - Simple, if it works it stays. If it doesn't work, it goes.
3. A period of alternative natural laws - Now that's what you need a god for.

We created the universe with our 'creative power'. We created the tools, our bodies-- everything. Then we forgot what we are, and rejected.

Thanks for the detailed description of Big-Bang theory, I agree mine may not be technically 100% correct but this is actually not that important in the overall picture. The fact remains that there is still nothing to account for any randomness in the formation of the Universe. We have to assume that all matter and energy obeys the laws of nature equally and 100% (no matter what the laws may have been at the time). At the first appearance of matter all particles at the same radius from the center should be identical and equally spaced and kept in 100% equilibrium by the individual gravitation forces. Under these conditions the particles cannot group together as no single particle has a favorable position for this to happen. I agree that the slightest imbalance of any particle will cause the matter to start to condense, but there is nothing to account for the slightest imbalance.

You obviously have much more in-depth knowledge on the subject than me. I agree fully with your first two sentences, in fact you state it very well. I am quite sure that the rest is according to scientific fact and I won't dispute that. You have to admit though that without any means to allow for randomness the scientific theory just cannot explain why any particles should move together while in perfect balance, no matter at what stage the particles were actually formed.

root,

The concept of 'random' doesn't exist as part of reality. It is a human-made concept used to desribe a relationship of predictability and is actually quite a useful concept for humans to employ. The same thing would consequently apply to the concept of 'nothing'. It's a human-made concept used to describe a relationship of presence. The commonality is that both concepts are polarizations: predictable / unpredictable, something / nothing where the right side of the polarizations are really asymptotes that don't tangibly exist.

Overall, it sounds like we're after the underlying laws that reality executes with (whether it's universal inflation, black holes, matter, antimatter, etc.). IMO the best theory (it's actually a cluster of theories) that we have to date is called M-Theory. At it's simplest coceptual level, the following exists:

* Sheets of 'something' (they are called 'dimensions')
* Lines and closed loops of energy that are called 'strings'. To my understanding, the type of energy that strings are made of is something unique and closed loop strings will attract things (the contents of closed loop strings is called 'quantum gravity')

Strings exist simultaneously in multiple dimensions and they vibrate on a never-ending basis. Each dimension responds to the vibration in a very exact and predictable manner. This would be the underlying governance of our reality (the theory of 'everything' so to speak).

Within this model, the smallest point anywhere in our universe is made up 11 dimensions and a string. To give you an idea of how small a point would be, a single quark would probably be made up of trillions of strings.

Now keep in mind, our universe (our reality) is likely not the only one out there. There would easily be plenty of other strings vibrating in other dimensions that have resulted in other universes. One theory called the 'Many Worlds' theory shows that our Universe is part of another universe which is part of another universe etc. It also states that our universe (in it's maximally compacted state) only inflated after colliding with a sibling universe. All universes (whether they are siblings or parents / children) in the Many Worlds Theory would be goverened by M-Theory (i.e. strings). To give you an idea of how many universes there would be... lets just say more than there are atoms in our universe.

Now keep in mind M-Theory is just that a theory and it's been virtually untestable to date; however, this is all changing in 2007 with the Hadron Collider in Geneva. Finally some predictions of string theory will be able to be tested. If it works out then great, if not then it's time to do some remodeling.

Assuming String theory turns out to be true, a great question would be where did all the dimensions and strings come from? The answer is nobody knows and they simply may have always been there (the concept of 'birth' may be something that Strings produce but may not be applicable to themselves).

Thanks for all this, interesting but mind boggling.

'Rules and laws' of our universes are artificial concepts that we impose on the observed to codify what we observe within our personal intellectual framework. There are no laws 'out there' for us to stumble upon. Laws are an 'overlay'. We see patterns and devise 'laws' for those patterns to fit. Do you think that someone opened a rule book before boinking the omniverse into a lawful existence?
"Here is a Law, BANG!!! Now go forth and discover it!"??

:D No!, I think all the matter and energy had a bit of a team talk while squeezed together in the comic egg deciding all future acceptable laws of behaviour.

root...
1. The origin of the physical Universe - Do you have a problem with an infinite and eternal universe?
2. The origin of the natural laws of the Universe - Simple, if it works it stays. If it doesn't work, it goes.
3. A period of alternative natural laws - Now that's what you need a god for.

1. No, not as a matter of principal, you must admit though that the Universe is not stagnant, its changing and there seems to be some common direction which would then imply a cycle, what do you suggest?
2. Who is it that decides?
3. Exactly how do you get to this conclusion?

Rules change over time as more data is discovered to disprove old rules and make new ones.

Thats our concept of the rules thats changing not the actual rules.

root, you listed matter/energy space and time...and wondered the missing ingredient? why..it's consciousness!

Thats our concept of the rules thats changing not the actual rules.

As a matter of fact I will agree with you but this is a completely different argument which warrants a new thread.

Rules or a single rule? think about it.

Thanks for all this, interesting but mind boggling.

You're welcome.

It takes a few reads to fully digest the concept. I kind of hope M-Theory turns out to be the real deal as it has a certain cool factor too it; however, it it doesn't then I am sure whatever the answer is rocks.