Quote (James84 @ 9 Jun 2014 13:58)
Well, from the research I've done.
The universe is or was expanding, and eventually begins to contract.
Like everything in life, there is an opposite. Not everyone can comprehend the definition of dark, without ever being in light and vice-versa.
As for the universe, it expandes to a certain point, this takes an amount of time uncomprehensible by us, by anyone I'd imagine. This is also due to the definition of time itself, being relative.
Once the universe has come to it's point of expantion, it begins to contract. And yes, once fully contracted... nothing will exist, for like the smallest "time" imaginable. Then it will start to expand again.
Now, I'm not yet sure if this has ever occured, because I'm quite sure if it did, some civilizations who might be billions of years old, would of found a way around this inevitable cease of existence.
As for your questions:
why is it so big?; answered above.
why is there speed of light law?; Well this exist because it's a fact. There is a speed that light travels by, somewhat measurable in science. Wich some believe is the fastest speed.
is it so big on purpose to keep us wondering but never be able to contact any intelligent civilizations out there?; To keep us wondering, yes and no. Depends on the civilizations amount of understanding. It's to allow different beings to be able to prosper on their own, without outside force. (to some extent...) Example if aliens lived on the moon, it would've had a impact on us both.
I dont think worm holes and wrap speeds are possible...?; I recently researched about teleportation, worm holes, tunnels etc. The amount of data out there for this to be possible is obscene. But achieving it is even more! Some scientists/reseachers/doctors/etc. have been able to achieve it, but at a very minuscule event.
To be more clear, anything you can imagine as being some sort of magic or impossibility, is a reality somewhere, due to technological advances and so forth.
e - forgot to bold one part.
The universe is expanding because when the Big Bang happened, everything was giving a certain acceleration (just like in an explosion), which drove them away from the centre. In empty space, if you give a certain acceleration to an object, it wont lose that acceleration unless something takes it away from it. Throw a ball on Earth and air friction will make it stop pretty quickly. Do the same in empty space, and the ball will keep its course until it hits an other object, or until something is strong enough to act against it. This would lead us to believe that the universe will expand forever since in all objects, there is that acceleration.
However, theres an other force that is being applied in all known matter, which is gravity. The force that is gravity makes is so any object is naturally attracted to other objects, where bigger objects apply a much bigger force on others than smaller ones. Now the question is, is gravity strong enough to act against the Big Bang initial acceleration and slow it down until it stops, or is gravity too weak to have a influence on that acceleration? One one side, theres a force that is pulling objects farther and farther away from each other, while one the other side we have a force pulling every objets towards one another.
The latest theories lead to think that it will not stop, so that there wont be any Big Crunch. I would add that even if there was a Big Crunch, we wouldnt say that ''nothing'' exists at that point. Everything you see today was in that initial point in time we call the Big Bang. I think saying that everything is compressed in one single point is more accurate than saying there is nothing. Things might not have been created as you would get something out of nothing, but more something out of something different we dont understand yet. Answering what happened exactly 13.7 billions years ago might not answer the question of the origin of things but only push further the questioning.
Had to precise that the universe expanding or contracting is not a Yin Yang thing where theres a natural balance in opposite natural forces. For all we know at the moment, the universe will expand until even light travels too slow to travel from an object to another, which means we would see a pitch black sky at night as no stars would be close enough to shed light on us. I dont know whats more depressing, everything collapsing and being contracted into one single point, or a pitch black sky of emptiness
------------------------------------------------------
To op:
As far as physic laws are concerned, I would say that its really a reflection of our own way of understanding nature. First thing to notice when talking about causation is how theres often 2 ways to see it. If nature is as it is for a reason, do you mean it has reasons leading to it, that there is what Aristotle would call an efficient cause, or are you talking about final causes, referring to the purpose. Spinoza said that looking for final causes in nature was not the way to do things correctly since theres in no such thing as a purpose in nature. The only thing we have is efficient causation: Why is this ball falling to the ground? Because of gravity, because the Earth is dragging it down. Why is there a law for the speed of light? Do you mean for what reasons, in which case we could say that doing experiments, its been calculated that the speed at which light travels is
300 000 000 m/s and subsequent experiments confirmed it thanks to accurate predictions. If you are asking about the purpose of the constant that is the speed of light, that is something I wouldnt have much to say about, and its not the way I would ask the question in the first place.
My point is, talking about final causes, purpose, in nature is often inherently flawed as it is a very anthropomorphic way to look at the universe. I prefer to see it as efficient causes for the most part, as a way to explain, describe and predict with the most accuracy possible natural phenomenons, not as a way to understand nature's purpose.