Do you believe that the big bang theory (with or without inflation) is correct?

Question

why or why not?

Answer 1

It is not a case of "belief" this is not a religion here, this is a scientific theory, as such it is whether or not you accept it. As with all scientific theories it is a balance of probabilities/evidence, the current evidence in support of the big bang (red shift, background microwave radiation) outweigh the current evidence which contradicts the theory thus the balance of evidence supports the theory, and as such it is more probable on balance that it is true than it is false.

A theory like the big bang theory cannot be "proven" as such, making it in many ways similar to a trial in a criminal court an accepted scientific theory goes beyond reasonable doubt, ie the evidence against the theory does not provide sufficient doubt to invalidate the evidence in support of the theory. Of course just as with trials in courts there will always be people with different views on how events transpired within science, however these so termed "fringe theories" fail to stand up to scrutiny and thus are not beyond reasonable doubt, leaving only the accepted theory as the rational choice which in this instance is the big bang theory.

However, new evidence may come to light which could either support or refute the theory, and depending of course on the weight of the evidence and for which side it sits could tip the balance of evidence were evidence of sufficient weight to be found to contradict the theory then it would have to be reevaluated, which could result in correction of one or more of the theories components or a complete rethink of the entire theory possibly leading to it being rejected and replaced with a theory which better fits the evidence.

This page describes scientific terms "scientific law", "hypothesis" and "theory" and the differences between them, something which unfortunately many non scientific people fail to understand or in some cases realize exists, the terms are often incorrectly used interchangeably anyway here is the page http://wilstar.com/theories.htm and I hope this answer helps you.

Answer 2

First of all, it's a hypothesis, not a theory. Theories are explanations of facts and the big bang can't actually be tested. It is, however, consistent with observations that galaxies are all moving away from each other and the background radiation that exists in all directions.

Secondly, it's not something anyone needs to "believe" in. It's an acceptable hypothesis that fits the observations so far. When more data comes in the hypothesis may change.

Mttjocy: Do cosmologists call this a theory or a hypothesis? I always hear hypothesis for the big bang from scientific sources.

Clemente: Big Bang was the sarcastic label Fred Hoyle (Mr Steady State) put on this model, but it backfired on him and became the official name instead.

Answer 3

The current concept of the big bang theory does not tell us the whole story.
The inflationary theory postulated by D.Guth in the 80s can't be true,it would mean that the speed of light,or the principal that limits it did not exist in the beginning.
It wouldn't have inflated,it would have blown to infinity.
The universe began after time zero,when nothing existed except a finite potential that resulted in the beginning of the universe.
A single quantum space-time pulse of minimum size and duration initiated the universe.
It contained all the ingredients required for the evolution of the universe we experience today.

Answer 4

Scientific theories are based on tested by available knowledge. After some time., new evidence will come which may be against the theory. So a theory may loose its correctness. At present, we believe Big Bang is correct. But after some years it may change
Cosmic bakh ground radiation and red shift are the present day proofs for Big bang.

Answer 5

Big bang theory could explain inflation of the universe. For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction. What if both were to happen at once? Inflation and deflation acting together as one? Black Hole anyone? A mass devouring itself as fast as it can regenerate itself.

Answer 6

I don't "believe" any science theories. And this one isn't even a theory. It's just a model. Never mind the difference.

It's a curious thing with science... it just can't be "believed"! It can be "known", "understood", "tested", "falsified", "learned" and such, but there is nothing there to "believe" in.

If you want to "believe" in something, you have to go to a church and ask the priest or minister or whatever which the churches sacraments of faith are, i.e. the most outrageous things that can not be proven, disprove, tested or even questioned and which therefor have to be believed.

Like for a Catholic it's the virgin birth, the trinity, resurrection from the dead, transubstantiation and stuff like that. Now those you have to "believe" in. Not so much to be saved but to call yourself a Catholic here on Earth in the first place.

Get the idea?

:-)

Answer 7

It is not a matter of belief, my dear. Beliefs belong in the realm of religion, and the BBT is science. In science, one either accepts the evidence presented, or rejects it for some reason (not arbitrarily). I accept the evidence presented, because it is convincing. The galaxies are observed to be receding from each other, and the cosmic microwave background is detected by our instruments. That is what the theory predicted, so I accept the theory.

Answer 8

Currently, all the observable evidence we have seems to support inflationary theory (the "Big Bang" is part of that larger theory).

Theories are just that - theories. And they are constantly being tested and examined. But when a theory predicts something, and then that prediction is observed to be true after the prediction, that provides evidence to support the theory.
The Big Bang theory predicted the existence of a cosmic microwave background, and that was later found to exist.

Answer 9

properly the massive bang concept basically explains the commencing as much as the universe, motives for existence are somewhat separate to the massive bang concept itself. The electrical energy ingredient is abiogenesis, it somewhat is a diverse count additionally. There would not seem an evidence of how the Universe started. basically to assert that the universe began as an infinitesimally small singularity which has continuously existed. This singularity began to escalate and it somewhat is how the universe got here into being. one ingredient to appreciate is that factor and area did no longer exist before the massive bang, the commencing up of the universe. So before then, there grew to become into no longer something. different than the tiny singulary it somewhat is our universe. it somewhat is the frequent concept between the scientific comunity, there is possibly distinctive info on the interwebz. :D playstation one ingredient significant to appreciate, the universe did no longer EXPLODE into being. it began to escalate, SLOWLY to its length, 14 billion years later and right here we are.

Answer 10

The expansion of the universe and background radiation support the theory but other conditions can also cause those effects. There are points about the theory that disturb me, science estimated that they tracked the galaxies back in time to 10-35 second, later proposals state that no matter was created for 5000,000 years after this time, this is a major contradiction in my view, they can't have it both ways. Another major flaw is the fact that all scientists have no clue as to what existed before this event.