Is it really appropriate to call the Big Bang a theory?

Question

Considering some of the major holes in it;

- the unexplained superluminal expansion of space early on
- the missing dark matter and dark energy
- the lack of explanation as to why the universe is accelerating apart

The big bang has some compelling evidence in it's favor no doubt, but science progresses by disproving things, not by confirming them. The successful prediction of CMBR was a test the big bang passed that allowed it to stay, not a finish line that proved it true. We can imagine other black body style theories that could result in the same CMBR. Red shift seemed to be anothe passed test, until we discovered acceleration. As a result, it is now a failed test. The big bang should have been seriously reconsidered the day that was discovered.

With these fundamental known major flaws, is it appropriate to downgrade the big bang from theory back to hypothesis? Is the widespread acceptance of a seriously flawed theory a raodblock to investigation?

Answer 1

A theory is a hypothesis that is successfully tested. Inflationary cosmology makes predictions that have been born out by further observation. At this point, it becomes a theory. Sometimes tests do not support a prediction. In that case the theory is modified. Sometimes a theory gets so broken that you have to start from essentially scratch.

The superluminal expansion is not unexplained. Symmetry breaking of the strong force from the electroweak could appropriately have driven this expansion within our current understanding of the standard model of particle physics. Missing dark matter is not a failure. By your strict standards you could have argued that solar support via fusion reactions was only a hypthosis. The predicted neutrino flux was not observed beginning with the first such experiments in the 70's. As we came to understand neutrinos better (that they have non-zero rest mass and can oscillate between different types) we learned why the neutrino counts were so low, however conclusive evidence of this oscillatory property has only been created in the last 5-10 years.

Ditto for a non-zero cosmological constant. This may not have anything to do with an inflationary universe. Inflation does not need to explain the cosmological constan, though the existence of a no constant at its currently estimated value does support why the universe appears to be so flat (neither open nor closed).

Likewise, the existence of DM does not damage inflationary cosmology and more than the extinction of trilobites does.

I do not understand why people feel a need to lump inflation, DM and the non-zero cosmological constant into one basket. (Dark energy IS the non-zero cosmological constant.)

Answer 2

Yes, it is theory, although defining it as a working hypothesis would not be far off the mark. It's a theory because it adequately explains at least some of the phenomenae we observe. It will probably never be more than a theory because it will not be demonstrable in a lab. You would actually have to recreate the Big Bang, and thereby create a new universe, in order to prove it.

It can, however, be refined as the descriptive mathematics becomes more sophisticated.

The early superliminal acceleration does not appear to be a major problem. The math for gravity waves producing it already exists. A couple of years ago, British mathematician, Michael Alcubierre (sp?) actually came up with a formula describing how gravity waves could be used to produce FTL space travel (that's the math; the hardware is problematic).

Dark matter is a 'problem' only because the math predicts it but our instruments can't yet find it. (In point of fact, some of it HAS been found. See link below) This is a normal state of affairs. Herschel predicted the existence of Pluto well before our optics could see it. Maybe we'll discover it, maybe we'll discover it's something else entirely. Whichever happens, it's unlikely to greatly alter the theory.

As to the acceleration of the universe, my understanding is that it's expanding but not accelerating. The observed red shift occurs because a source of light is moving away from us, but that requires only inertia, residual from the Bang, not acceleration.

Acceleration would imply some counter-gravity force at work. Maybe the edges of the universe are still riding those initial gravity waves, which is not actually the same as acceleration. Matter rides on a gravity wave more or less the way a surfer rides on an ocean wave. The matter itself does not move, per se, but the space behind it is expanding.

Even so, the apparent velocity should be decreasing as the gravity wave spreads -- the inverse square law applies.

If it's something else, I've never seen any attempt to describe such a force. Quite possibly that would mean that energy is being added to the universe, which contradicts the laws of conservation and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Even if energy IS being added to the universe, there is a limit to acceleration even if some unknown force is operating. Matter cannot be accelerated past a significant fraction of light speed. So as long as matter remains matter, galaxies will not recede from each other much faster than light speed (combined velocities).

As energy is added to the system, however, each individual particle would become more energetic (something we do not observe - yet). Over the course of a great deal of time, this increase in energy would cause matter to break down and eventually return to a photonic state so that the universe would exist as a thin, spreading fog of light wavicles.

Interesting idea. If it were true, we'd have to rethink, not only the Big Bang, but every law of physics.

I don't think the theory is much of a roadblock to investigation. You have to start somewhere, and this is the most comprehensive and workable theory of cosmological processes available. The problems and anomalies may lead us to something else that's better, but right now, it's the best we've got. We're only human, after all. Look how long it took us to get this far.

Answer 3

There are two parts to the Big Bang theory; what and how. What happened was that some time approximately 14 or 15 billion years ago, some form of a broken cosmic symmetry occured, and this universe emerged. The evidence for that is pretty tight. The second part, defining the mechanisms of quantum symmetry breaking, has some problems. So Big Bang Theory will remain, but its mechanisms are yet to be fully decided.

As for the holes you mention, here are some points. I'll address 1 and 3 first. Aspect's experiements (1982) indicate superluminal signal transfer between quantum coupled objects. This has yet to be explained as well, but seems to indicate that the quantum vacuum is an information medium without the velocity limits of ordinary space-time. There is also evidence that many of the physical qualities of objects (mass, etc.) are products of thier relationship to the vacuum, and not inherent to the object as such. So perhaps at forces and velocities as large as those predicted by the broken symmetry model, the initial expansion of the expressed "matter" did not have the necessary conditions to establish the above relationship, and thus the luminal limit was not established as well. I admit this is conjecture.

Point two is more up in the air. Exploring dark matter/energy may require observation tools we currently lack.

Answer 4

Yes. It's a theory with black holes in it and theological like with its god like Singularity beginning. You have to have an imagination at some point no matter what the math says but, it's pretty evident that the universe had a beginning. Maybe they will come up with logical explanations to fill in some of the holes that will hault the growing number of challenges. Acceleration doesn't disprove the theory. It just indicates that there may be another force or two that they haven't considered and the theory needs to be added to. Maybe when they consider other forces, parts of their theory, what black holes are and what anti-matter is, for example, will become less theological. Perhaps the cause of gravity will be discovered.

But, you know, you can't just say that anything that happened before the Big Bang happened before time and is therefore meaningless. That's like saying, believe in god because I said so. Obviously there were events that occurred in the time leading up to the Big Bang which were significant. You have to explain how something was created from nothing to complete the story.

Answer 5

Yes, it's not only a theory, it approaches being considered as a fact.

The existence of the CMBR was a powerful discovery, since it was predicted as a consequence of the Big Bang theory years in advance. The fact that it had the predicted temperature, 3K, is even more powerful.

But the real nail in the coffin of Steady State was the prediction, and subsequent detection by the COBE satellite, of tiny ripples in the CMBR. Once again, not merely their existence was proven, but their exact nature was as predicted. Their size and their frequency.

When that happened pretty much every scientist accepted the big bang. You can come up with alternate explanations for the CMBR. Kinda far fetched explanations, but something. Nobody has a plausible theory for the ripples.

Good book about this:

http://www.amazon.com/Afterglow-Creation-Fireball-Discovery-Ripples/dp/0935702407/sr=8-3/qid=1157383920/ref=sr_1_3/104-9413091-0636763?ie=UTF8&s=books

and also:

http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Cosmos-Texture-Reality-Vintage/dp/0375727205/sr=1-1/qid=1157589885/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-9413091-0636763?ie=UTF8&s=books

You said "The big bang should have been seriously reconsidered the day that was discovered."

Actually it definitely was. For years after it was proposed, the big bang was considered crazy, steady state was the accepted theory. But the events above and other confirmations made steady state implausible and big bang become the accepted theory.

Also, we may not have seen dark matter, but most consider it the best explanation for how galaxies rotate without flying apart. It's not just a big bang thing.

Answer 6

There is no ladder of ideas from hypothesis to theory to fact. They are not "grades" that an idea passes through, they are just different sorts of things. This is a common "popular" way of using these terms, but is not how scientists use the terms at all.

In science, a theory is an explanatory framework, whether it is well supported or poorly supported. So whatever the state of the evidence, the Big Bang is a theory.

"Hypothesis" is typically a statement of predictions from a theoretical framework to be addressed in research.

As to the status of the support for the Big Bang: I know of no other explanation for the evidence other than the Universe is expanding - suggesting that inevitably, something like "the Big Bang" happened. While parts of the overall theory will be revised, the fundamental aspects remain unchallenged to the best of my knowledge.

Answer 7

i'm an agnostic and no, i don't have faith the great bang thought. it is likely because of the fact i don't have adequate awareness of the sector. besides the fact that, i've got faith that the great bang thought ought to no longer have got here approximately because of the fact it defies such a lot of regulations and regulations that I even have discovered by physics. there is not any way i will see that each thing in the universe might have been compacted into one factor, one atom and with out any exterior information, enhance without delay to the universe as this is in the present day. i think of that this "thought" became into created with the intention to describe a happening (the beginning up of the universe and time) that folk won't have the ability to make your techniques up. human beings won't have the ability to image the life of achieveable that the universe might have been indefinite, and not making use of a beginning up or an end and subsequently a thought became into created with what I evaluate bogus evidence with the intention to fulfill the human beings's crave of an answer to a theory they do no longer opt to hold close.

Answer 8

With the big bang theory having been pushed by people who reject the idea that there is a Creator of the universe that we being created are therefore under His Laws of creation and are also accountable to Him for our actions, we there for by having the powers that be in education and science rejecting God and wanting to discover the (truth) of it all on there own with out any outside influence. The problem is to do so requires them to break the very nature of research and it leaves the (theory's) them case and push as literal dead ends for their lives. Look at Darwin it is well known he falsified his findings but it is still presented as fact even in today's text books.

Answer 9

A theory is when you have some evidence, but not enough to make it a fact or know all the facts. Theory can be changed as time goes by and new evidence is uncovered. A hypothesis is a speculation on an idea without hardly any evidence, and usually refers to something that needs to be prooved.

Answer 10

Theory still fits as it is not fact, and a theory is a supposition intended to explain something, it doesn't require proof to be a theory.
Maybe we should call it a myth... that way we could send it to myth busters and have the boys answer it once and for all.