Thread: Is the bang bang just a theory?

I read a article were a professor got upset because people said the big bang is "just a theory". Now i may get crap for this but isnt the big bang just a theory? Sure there is a ton of evidence saying it did occur but we were not there and cant say it happened the way we think it did. Now when i say theory i mean its widely accepted. My teacher has said that theorys in society today is thrown around so many times it has forgotten its meaning. A hypothesis is first and when it is accepted by many then it becomes a theory so i dont mean it in a bad way when i say the big bang is "just a theory"

Quantum theory is "just a theory" and so are everything else we call science. The phrase is a universal put down and nothing else.

Are you sure that the definition of "theory" is a matter of votes and social believings ?

Originally Posted by Xan

I read a article were a professor got upset because people said the big bang is "just a theory". Now i may get crap for this but isnt the big bang just a theory? Sure there is a ton of evidence saying it did occur but we were not there and cant say it happened the way we think it did. Now when i say theory i mean its widely accepted. My teacher has said that theorys in society today is thrown around so many times it has forgotten its meaning. A hypothesis is first and when it is accepted by many then it becomes a theory so i dont mean it in a bad way when i say the big bang is "just a theory"

The word "theory" is used several ways. When physicists call something a "theory" that, in its highest form, applies to a mathematical model with great predictive power that is supported by a large body of empirical data. The pillars of modern physics are the following theories: 1) general relativity (the theory of gravitation 2) the electroweak quantum field theory (the unified theory of electromagnetism and the weak force -- it includes quantum electrodynamics 3) quantum chromodynamics (the theory of the strong interaction that binds quarks).

There are lesser theories as well -- classical electrodynamics and classical mechanics for instance.

To call something a real "theory" is high praise.

"Theory" as used by some laymen is synonymous with "conjecture" which is something entirely different.

The Big Bang is not so much a theory as a hypothesis that is supported by a great deal of both theoretical and empirical evidence. The Big Bang is not a predictive model, but rather the result of a predictive model. See this thread for more information: http://www.thescienceforum.com/The-b...ogy-28430t.php

Originally Posted by J.C. Lavau

Are you sure that the definition of "theory" is a matter of votes and social believings ?

Not so much votes but supporting evidence from others saying that your hypothesis is correct. Thanks DrRocket for your responce, i always enjoy the answers you present

In the 1980's it was generally believed that "all reasonable theories of gravitation predict the existence of gravitons." It is often difficult to advance any hypothesis that is not viewed as "reasonable" by the politically empowered mainstream. Science is a democratic process. When a hypothesis is put forward, debate follows which leads to the accumulation of supporting or non-supporting evidence. Eventually a consensus is reached by a majority. At that time the hypothesis might be considered theory. However, we must remember that the minority view might still exist. Majority consensus does not trump minority opinion. Each side might interpret the supporting data differently. The application of "Law" to any theory inflicts a certain amount of prejudice on behalf of majority opinion and is often applied as a de facto validation of a theory. I believe it is important to question all aspects of any theory including the underlying "laws" and "principles" the theory rests upon.

The Big-Bang theory of an expanding universe is still in the debate stage with new evidence having been gathered which supports a non-receding model (no big-bang). In recent years it has been discovered that spectroscopic emissions from rotating galactic nebula do not exhibit a radial velocity curve! Such an observation would seem to disavow Hubble's Law. It should also be remembered that even though Hubble's name is firmly attached to Big-Bang theory, Hubble himself never believed that his spectroscopic data proved recession. He maintained that view to the very end of his writings. Personally, I don't believe Hubble's redshif data demonstrates recession and I believe Hubble's Law is flawed because it possess a theoretical error.

I like it back to -43 seconds.

Originally Posted by Emission Arc

In the 1980's it was generally believed that "all reasonable theories of gravitation predict the existence of gravitons." It is often difficult to advance any hypothesis that is not viewed as "reasonable" by the politically empowered mainstream. Science is a democratic process. When a hypothesis is put forward, debate follows which leads to the accumulation of supporting or non-supporting evidence. Eventually a consensus is reached by a majority. At that time the hypothesis might be considered theory. However, we must remember that the minority view might still exist. Majority consensus does not trump minority opinion. Each side might interpret the supporting data differently. The application of "Law" to any theory inflicts a certain amount of prejudice on behalf of majority opinion and is often applied as a de facto validation of a theory. I believe it is important to question all aspects of any theory including the underlying "laws" and "principles" the theory rests upon.

The Big-Bang theory of an expanding universe is still in the debate stage with new evidence having been gathered which supports a non-receding model (no big-bang). In recent years it has been discovered that spectroscopic emissions from rotating galactic nebula do not exhibit a radial velocity curve! Such an observation would seem to disavow Hubble's Law. It should also be remembered that even though Hubble's name is firmly attached to Big-Bang theory, Hubble himself never believed that his spectroscopic data proved recession. He maintained that view to the very end of his writings. Personally, I don't believe Hubble's redshif data demonstrates recession and I believe Hubble's Law is flawed because it possess a theoretical error.

Riiiiiiiight. Here's the problem with the idea that science is a democratic process: there really isn't any new evidence gathered in recent years that supports a non-receding model. Lies don't advance science very far.

It's not "just a" theory. It is the "only" theory. But do you mean, does the big bang theory stand up to scrutiny? If so, then you are perhaps onto a looser. There are many problems with the big bang, e.g. inflation is poorly understood and the cause is a mystery. Probably a bigger mystery than what Dark Matter is, but still it receives very little of the attention of non-scientists and amateurs alike.

And that isn't even touching on the fact that we can't reconcile gravity with the other three forces, and magnetic monopoles AND baryon asymmetry!!

However, many plausible theories have been put forward to explain the problems. Each with there own limitations and flaws.

Some might say, that the Big Bang occurred...there is evidence for this (CMB etc) but our full scale knowledge of what occurred between then, and now, is a little patch. Which is to be expected seeing that science has only been working on this for about 200 years...some might even say since the 1920's or perhaps only since Hawking.

So far, so good. Could be better tho!

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

It's not "just a" theory. It is the "only" theory. But do you mean, does the big bang theory stand up to scrutiny? If so, then you are perhaps onto a looser. There are many problems with the big bang, e.g. inflation is poorly understood and the cause is a mystery.

Inflation is simply not essential to the Big Bang theory. There are some good reasons to believe in inflation based on the actual things that we see in the background radiation. It's not convincing to me, but the failure of inflation doesn't effect the Big Bang theory at all.

Probably a bigger mystery than what Dark Matter is, but still it receives very little of the attention of non-scientists and amateurs alike.

This is simply incorrect. That there is dark matter is insanely well supported by the cosmological data. The search for the specific source of dark matter is being carried out by scores of researchers with a lot of funds.

Some might say, that the Big Bang occurred...there is evidence for this (CMB etc) but our full scale knowledge of what occurred between then, and now, is a little patch.

This is the opposite of what one should believe, given the available evidence! We know quite a bit about the development of the universe on the large scales in the last 13.5 billion years. It's the very, very early universe that we are more iffy on. We have almost zero information about some initial point of the universe.

Inflation is simply not essential to the Big Bang theory. There are some good reasons to believe in inflation based on the actual things that we see in the background radiation. It's not convincing to me, but the failure of inflation doesn't effect the Big Bang theory at all.

Yes, but why do we have inflation? Because we couldn't fix the horizon problem and the flatness problem ad hoc. It was an add on.

This is simply incorrect. That there is dark matter is insanely well supported by the cosmological data. The search for the specific source of dark matter is being carried out by scores of researchers with a lot of funds.

Not too sure why that was incorrect. I was just saying that the cause and mechanisms that cause inflation is perhaps a bigger mystery than what DM is.

This is the opposite of what one should believe, given the available evidence! We know quite a bit about the development of the universe on the large scales in the last 13.5 billion years. It's the very, very early universe that we are more iffy on. We have almost zero information about some initial point of the universe.

I accept this point. However, if what we know on GR and other theories turns out to be slightly wrong. Then this has dramatic consequences for what we have inferred from observations. Time will tell! (Hopefully!) :wink:

Originally Posted by Michael_Roberts

Yes, but why do we have inflation? Because we couldn't fix the horizon problem and the flatness problem ad hoc. It was an add on.

In my opinion, these are pseudo-problems. Inflation might be an interesting thing in its own rights, but I suspect that it will turn out to be no better a solution to these particular so-called problems than any other choice of initial conditions.

Not too sure why that was incorrect. I was just saying that the cause and mechanisms that cause inflation is perhaps a bigger mystery than what DM is.

You also said that this was not being researched. That is not correct.