Is the Big Bang a real theory?

[Anglocowboy]

<p>I recently posted a question about the legitimacy String&nbsp;Theory being called a theory.&nbsp; I also only just made a regrettably smart-alecky comment about the Big Bang theory also not being a real one.&nbsp; However, I'm doubting myself somewhat now.&nbsp; Isn't there some observable proof of the big bang such as the way matter is moving away from&nbsp;a common centroid?&nbsp; A colleague of mine did say there were some "problems" with it being a theory- although he didn't specify what those might be.&nbsp; Could someone clear me up or at least add better conjecture than my own?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "Make like Siamese twins and split... and then one of you die." </div>

 

[baulten]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I recently posted a question about the legitimacy String&nbsp;Theory being called a theory.&nbsp; I also only just made a regrettably smart-alecky comment about the Big Bang theory also not being a real one.&nbsp; However, I'm doubting myself somewhat now.&nbsp; Isn't there some observable proof of the big bang such as the way matter is moving away from&nbsp;a common centroid?&nbsp; A colleague of mine did say there were some "problems" with it being a theory- although he didn't specify what those might be.&nbsp; Could someone clear me up or at least add better conjecture than my own?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Anglocowboy</DIV></p><p>The Big Bang is just a description of our observations of what happened in the universe right after time began as we know it. </p>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I recently posted a question about the legitimacy String&nbsp;Theory being called a theory.&nbsp; I also only just made a regrettably smart-alecky comment about the Big Bang theory also not being a real one.&nbsp; However, I'm doubting myself somewhat now.&nbsp; Isn't there some observable proof of the big bang such as the way matter is moving away from&nbsp;a common centroid?&nbsp; A colleague of mine did say there were some "problems" with it being a theory- although he didn't specify what those might be.&nbsp; Could someone clear me up or at least add better conjecture than my own?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Anglocowboy</DIV></p><p>String theory, using a 'by the book' definition is not a true scientific theory because it can not be tested through experimentation or observation and therefor can not be falsified.&nbsp; I wouldn't suggest telling a string theorist that their theory is not science, even though they would likely agree with you.&nbsp; At least if you want to get on their good side, I wouldn't suggest it.<br /><br />A theory is never really proven or factual in the dictionary sense of the term.&nbsp; A good theory is supported by evidence that has yet to be refuted and through a theory, predictions should be able to be made.&nbsp; I always find that using the word 'proof' is a bit misleading.&nbsp; Proof in on a more personal level.&nbsp; I can prove something to you with crappy evidence.&nbsp; However, that doesn't make it valid.<br /><br />Another important factor in being a good scientific theory is that it has to be consistent with other theories.&nbsp; One thing to keep in mind is that theories are almost never complete and never considered as a fact.&nbsp;&nbsp; Despite how well General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics describe their respective realms, they are not complete and have measurable limits.&nbsp; They don't necessarily conflict with each other, but they're not consistent when scaled up or down into the others realm.&nbsp; A quantum theory of gravity is now and has been quite the active field of study for nearly 100 years.<br /><br />In cosmology, theories are quite difficult to reconcile.&nbsp; Often, ideas are highly speculative.&nbsp; Trying to figure out the origin of the universe is no easy task.&nbsp; Explaining how it came to its current state is equally difficult.&nbsp; One of the first things to remember about the Big Bang Theory is that it is not a description of the origin of the universe.&nbsp; It is built to describe the evolution of the universe.<br /><br />The Big Bang Theory is heavily reliant on mathematical models and remote sensing observation that require interpretation.&nbsp; It's pretty difficult to test in the lab.&nbsp; Nevertheless, the BBT is still a highly supported by an overwhelming amount of evidence.&nbsp; A few of the more solid pieces of the puzzle is the homogeneity over the largest scales, the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB), the Hubble constant coupled with redshift and type Ia supernova time dilation and the amount of light elements present described through nucleosynthesis.<br /><br />Do these "prove" the big bang?&nbsp; Of course not, but there are no better theories to date.&nbsp; There are no better models that present a consistent description of what we observe.&nbsp; Does the Big Bang have what you might consider issues?&nbsp; Certainly.&nbsp; However, these issues don't falsify the theory.&nbsp; Are there other theories out there?&nbsp; Sure, but they are generally not consistent with observation, nor are they consistent with other theories and models.&nbsp; Are their questionable, debatable theories and models within the BBT?&nbsp; Definitely.&nbsp; No theories are ever really complete.&nbsp; Especially concerning cosmology and astrophysics.&nbsp; There just too many damned questions!!!&nbsp; <br /><br />The BBT is not perfect, nor is it complete.&nbsp; It doesn't claim to have all the answers, nor does it claim to be fact.&nbsp; It is simply the best we've got at the moment and there is no reason to not continue with it.&nbsp; Folks are welcome to investigate the petabytes worth of data collected and come up with something better.&nbsp; Folk have tried and folks have failed.&nbsp; Folks are still trying and still failing.&nbsp; Maybe there will be a paradigm shift someday and I hope I'm around to see it if there is one.&nbsp; That would be truly exciting. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I recently posted a question about the legitimacy String&nbsp;Theory being called a theory.&nbsp; I also only just made a regrettably smart-alecky comment about the Big Bang theory also not being a real one.&nbsp; However, I'm doubting myself somewhat now.&nbsp; Isn't there some observable proof of the big bang such as the way matter is moving away from&nbsp;a common centroid?&nbsp; A colleague of mine did say there were some "problems" with it being a theory- although he didn't specify what those might be.&nbsp; Could someone clear me up or at least add better conjecture than my own?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by Anglocowboy</DIV><br /><br /><font size="2">In my not so sharp opinion, the big bang theory has a slight edge over religion(s). Both theories are accepted by men because there are no other theories to explain this big ball we all live in. And we desperately needed an explanation, human nature I guess. One is for smart people, the other for not so smart people.</font></p><p><font size="2">If you think we can tell billions of years of history of anything by observing it (should I say observing only part of it) for only couple of thousand years, you are&nbsp;one of the greatest &nbsp;optimists &nbsp;ever born.</font></p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[weeman]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I recently posted a question about the legitimacy String&nbsp;Theory being called a theory.&nbsp; I also only just made a regrettably smart-alecky comment about the Big Bang theory also not being a real one.&nbsp; However, I'm doubting myself somewhat now.&nbsp; Isn't there some observable proof of the big bang such as the way matter is moving away from&nbsp;a common centroid?&nbsp; A colleague of mine did say there were some "problems" with it being a theory- although he didn't specify what those might be.&nbsp; Could someone clear me up or at least add better conjecture than my own?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by Anglocowboy</DIV></p><p>Derekmcd explains it well. Your colleague should keep an open mind on the fact that a theory will always be a theory, unless it is otherwise proven as scientific fact. Which is misleading in itself, because there really is no true "scientific fact". A theory will always have its problems and issues that it can't quite solve. Yet it does not falsify it as theory. Most of our understandings of the universe (even today) are still just theories.</p><p>Many theories still exist just within our own solar system! For example, theories surrounding whether or not there was once liquid water on the surface of Mars may go unsolved until we can actually land a person there. Another unsolved phenomenon within our own solar system is why the corona of the Sun is at such a higher temperature than its photosphere. For these situations involving Mars and the Sun we've come up with credible theories, but none have been proven. Does this mean they're not real theories? Of course not! Theories can help describe cosmic events at best, even when they exist within a stone's throw from Earth (on a galactic scale).&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Another issue I have is folks criticizing the Big Bang Theory and LambdaCDM models without understand what they are.&nbsp; You can see this quite prevalent in the article commenting areas on SDC.&nbsp; Most have no clue as to how scientists collected, interpreted and, ultimately, arrived at the conclusions they have.&nbsp; I often say, "Understand what is going on inside the box before you start thinking outside of it."<br /><br />People and science in general can only benefit if folks learn and become exposed to the ideas behind the prevailing theories.&nbsp; It's important to understand why they are successful before you focus on their shortcomings.&nbsp; When you focus on the shortcomings without understanding the successes, it gives you a false sense of victory in 'proving' they are wrong.&nbsp; Ultimately, nothing is gained by this as they shift focus to other, less rigorous, theories that have even more astounding inconsistencies than the mainstream theories do.<br /><br />No doubt folks should question and form opinions of these theories and models, but they should do so in an intelligent way.&nbsp; Passing on misinformation from "stuff" that they read on the internet is no way to advance science.&nbsp; Folks should strive to ask good questions and form opinions by understanding why the conclusions are what they are.<br /><br />Take the example of MOND vs. dark matter.&nbsp; I guarantee the MOND folks understand why the conclusions of dark matter are as such in very fine detail.&nbsp; The MOND folks understand quite well that mainstream science didn't just conjure up dark matter.&nbsp; That's probably the biggest reason MOND has had some successes with mainstream science.&nbsp; Ultimately, it appears as though MOND a failing path.&nbsp; However, it was taken as a serious, valid attempt by mainstream due to the approach they took.<br /><br />Just because someone doesn't understand dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc doesn't mean they can dismiss it out of hand and claim it to be wrong and insert their pet theory to replace it.&nbsp; Just because we don't have a bucket of WIMPS or inflatons to study doesn't make them wrong.&nbsp; With that said, it doesn't make them right either... no one claims them to be "fact".&nbsp; But understand why they fit into the theories/model first before critiquing them.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Another issue I have is folks criticizing the Big Bang Theory and LambdaCDM models without understand what they are.&nbsp; You can see this quite prevalent in the article commenting areas on SDC.&nbsp; Most have no clue as to how scientists collected, interpreted and, ultimately, arrived at the conclusions they have.&nbsp; I often say, "Understand what is going on inside the box before you start thinking outside of it."People and science in general can only benefit if folks learn and become exposed to the ideas behind the prevailing theories.&nbsp; It's important to understand why they are successful before you focus on their shortcomings.&nbsp; When you focus on the shortcomings without understanding the successes, it gives you a false sense of victory in 'proving' they are wrong.&nbsp; Ultimately, nothing is gained by this as they shift focus to other, less rigorous, theories that have even more astounding inconsistencies than the mainstream theories do.No doubt folks should question and form opinions of these theories and models, but they should do so in an intelligent way.&nbsp; Passing on misinformation from "stuff" that they read on the internet is no way to advance science.&nbsp; Folks should strive to ask good questions and form opinions by understanding why the conclusions are what they are.Take the example of MOND vs. dark matter.&nbsp; I guarantee the MOND folks understand why the conclusions of dark matter are as such in very fine detail.&nbsp; The MOND folks understand quite well that mainstream science didn't just conjure up dark matter.&nbsp; That's probably the biggest reason MOND has had some successes with mainstream science.&nbsp; Ultimately, it appears as though MOND a failing path.&nbsp; However, it was taken as a serious, valid attempt by mainstream due to the approach they took.Just because someone doesn't understand dark matter, dark energy, inflation, etc doesn't mean they can dismiss it out of hand and claim it to be wrong and insert their pet theory to replace it.&nbsp; Just because we don't have a bucket of WIMPS or inflatons to study doesn't make them wrong.&nbsp; With that said, it doesn't make them right either... no one claims them to be "fact".&nbsp; But understand why they fit into the theories/model first before critiquing them. <br />Posted by derekmcd</DIV><br /><br />Post of the day <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>