BB Theory - Popular Myth Or Scientific Fact

[steve_bank]

On pop science shows and science news segments the BB Theory is stated as true without any quantification.

Do yiu believe the BB Theory is true, and why.

As the theorized event is not demonstrable I consider the BB a good theory but not truth.

When String Theory was introduced some scientists compressed it phi;philosophy because there was no way to test it.

To me the BB Theory has become a popular secular cation myth.

In fact it does not explain or address ultimate origins of the universe. There is no explanation of where the imagined initial conditions came from.

The BB is also based on the limits ofur ability to detect EM radiation. Hubble was able to show a high nu,er of galxies i a region which they were not visble with ground based optics.

I used to have a poster of the image in my office for inspiration.

What would the universe look e from what we consider the farthest observable objects. How would we know that?

 

[atrib]

Can you tell us what you think the Big Bang Theory states?

Are you aware of the data (observations and theoretical modeling) that supports the BBT?

When you refer to the BBT as a "myth", which part do you consider a myth?
Do you believe the observations are flawed? If yes, why? Please be specific and list the flaws.
Do you believe that the interpretation of the data, i.e. the scientific modeling (general relativity, but also other topics) is flawed? If yes, how is it flawed? Please be specific and list the flaws.

My educated guess is that you have no idea what the BBT actually states, and know virtually nothing about the experimental data on which it is based. To have a meaningful discussion on the subject, and to make sure I am not wasting my time talking to a tree, I need to know that you understand the theory, and are willing to engage in an honest, open discussion. If you don't possess this understanding and would like to learn, ask, and I will do my best to help you. If you started this thread to simply rant about modern science, instead of actually discussing the topic and learning about stuff, I will leave you alone. Just be up-front about your intentions please.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

On pop science shows and science news segments the BB Theory is stated as true without any quantification.

Do yiu believe the BB Theory is true, and why.

As the theorized event is not demonstrable I consider the BB a good theory but not truth.

When String Theory was introduced some scientists compressed it phi;philosophy because there was no way to test it.

To me the BB Theory has become a popular secular cation myth.

In fact it does not explain or address ultimate origins of the universe. There is no explanation of where the imagined initial conditions came from.

The BB is also based on the limits ofur ability to detect EM radiation. Hubble was able to show a high nu,er of galxies i a region which they were not visble with ground based optics.

I used to have a poster of the image in my office for inspiration.

What would the universe look e from what we consider the farthest observable objects. How would we know that?

Kent Hovind has hacked Steve Bank's account.

I'm pretty certain astrophysicists haven't said "Well, we're done, Big Bang explains all of the mysteries as to our universe's origin. Let's go grab a latte."

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

On pop science shows and science news segments the BB Theory is stated as true without any quantification.

Do yiu believe the BB Theory is true, and why.

As the theorized event is not demonstrable I consider the BB a good theory but not truth.

When String Theory was introduced some scientists compressed it phi;philosophy because there was no way to test it.

To me the BB Theory has become a popular secular cation myth.

In fact it does not explain or address ultimate origins of the universe. There is no explanation of where the imagined initial conditions came from.

The BB is also based on the limits ofur ability to detect EM radiation. Hubble was able to show a high nu,er of galxies i a region which they were not visble with ground based optics.

I used to have a poster of the image in my office for inspiration.

What would the universe look e from what we consider the farthest observable objects. How would we know that?

The Big Bang is observable. Can't be Quantified? Look up Hubble constant. Red shift, Cephid variables and other cosmic yard sticks. Yes things can be quantified. How old is this Universe? 13.7 billion years. How big is this Universe. About 128 billion years in diamter. The size is thanks to inflation.

Google is your friend. Also Youtube.

 

[bilby]

It's a popular myth that there's any validity in the phrase "scientific fact".

Theories are theories. If they're not disproven after extensive testing, it would be absurd to claim them to be false, but that's a long way from their being "facts".

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Now I’m going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s the truth. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is … If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.
- Richard Feynmann

 

[Shadowy Man]

Yes. There is very good evidence from multiple lines of observations that lead to the conclusion that the universe was once much hotter and denser than it is now and has been expanding for billions of years.

If you are referring to the t=0 singularity, I would say that we know that an extrapolation of the expansion back to a t=0 results in a breakdown in the current theories we have and we will need new theories to explain what the state of the universe was near t=0. Our current theories predict a mathematical singularity, and most of the times in the past when that kind of singularity was found in a theory, it instigated the development of a new theory that better described the physics. We are currently awaiting that new theory.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It's a popular myth that there's any validity in the phrase "scientific fact".

Theories are theories. If they're not disproven after extensive testing, it would be absurd to claim them to be false, but that's a long way from their being "facts".

Baloney! Science is built on facts. We can examine a stars red shift to see how fast it is moving from us. Fossils are facts. The results of experiments at Cern are facts. Dna exists. That is a fact. Facts are the foundation of science.

 

[bilby]

It's a popular myth that there's any validity in the phrase "scientific fact".

Theories are theories. If they're not disproven after extensive testing, it would be absurd to claim them to be false, but that's a long way from their being "facts".

Baloney! Science is built on facts. We can examine a stars red shift to see how fast it is moving from us. Fossils are facts. The results of experiments at Cern are facts. Dna exists. That is a fact. Facts are the foundation of science.

Sure, science is built on facts. But theories aren't facts, they're theories.

A fact is an observation.

A theory is a predictive model.

A theory can't be a fact any more than a cat can be a dog.

And science doesn't generate facts; It used facts to generate and to test theories.

 

[Jarhyn]

It's a popular myth that there's any validity in the phrase "scientific fact".

Theories are theories. If they're not disproven after extensive testing, it would be absurd to claim them to be false, but that's a long way from their being "facts".

Baloney! Science is built on facts. We can examine a stars red shift to see how fast it is moving from us. Fossils are facts. The results of experiments at Cern are facts. Dna exists. That is a fact. Facts are the foundation of science.

Sure, science is built on facts. But theories aren't facts, they're theories.

A fact is an observation.

A theory is a predictive model.

A theory can't be a fact any more than a cat can be a dog.

And science doesn't generate facts; It used facts to generate and to test theories.

Well, I would imagine there are ways to make this happen, but they would be messy and pointless, of cats and dogs.

I suppose if you invented a language where the utterance "theory" was utterly synonymous with "fact" or perhaps one was a conjugate form, but even that assumes the words don't mean what they do in English.

It's easier to literally make a cat into a dog than it is to make the thing that is "theory" into "fact". It cannot be done.

Science produces principles which are applied by engineers to make machines that record facts well.

 

[steve_bank]

The BB is not demonstrable. It is conjecture or speculation. Circumstantial.

The quantization of electric charge can be demonstrated. Even then an isolated electron can no be captured and meadured, so that too is indirect.

The BB is based on our limit of observation. Analaogous to an ancient Zog sitting on the each concluding the horizon of the ocean was the end of the Earth.


My question is not whether it is a good theory or not, it is. Why might you think it is absolutely without a doubt true.

The histry of science has been a constant evolution, certainly ccerated from the 19th century and better instruments.

There is no clear definition of theory or hypotesis and thy are contextual. There is Electromafnetc Theory. In the tery are lase like Fraday's Law. A law is soething that has so well used and ted that it it is taken as truth, withing =n any boudaries of application.

I use the word model. A malcontent description of a process with inputs and outputs. In systems it is called a transfer function, a mathematical system that maps inputs to outputs.

Draw a box. On the left the input is the theoretical initial conditions of the BB. On the right are outputs. Partcles, stars, galaxies. In the box is what maps input to output, the model. Newton's Laws are accented and used without question as long as the object is not very small or very fast.

The BB is a complex exercise in fitting a curve to a set of data. The curve is by deintion fitted to the data.

The BB is constructed to match the data as in a curve fit, but why must it be true? A theory r model is constructed t fit the data.

So to me in context of physics in general the BB theory is probably the best fit based on our limited observations. But it is not gospel truth as it is presented in pop culture and pop science.

As this is philosphy what is objective truth in science? To me it is a repeatable experiment.

 

[bigfield]

The BB is constructed to match the data as in a curve fit, but why must it be true? A theory r model is constructed t fit the data.

A better question would be, does the model make accurate predictions that match both what we have observed, and will observe in future?

The big bang theory does that. It says that "our whole universe was in a hot, dense state" which we should see as the cosmic microwave background. We should be able to observe that other galaxies are moving away from ours, and that farther away galaxies are moving away ftom us at a faster speed. We should expect to find mostly light elements in stars and other bodies.

 

[Shadowy Man]

But it is not gospel truth as it is presented in pop culture and pop science.

If you really want to understand science best not to learn it from pop culture. Too many seem to learn it from pop culture and then argue against it using their flawed understanding of it.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The facts supporting the Big Bang are overwhelming. Denying that there was a Big Bang is as wrongheaded as flat Earthism or creationism.

 

[atrib]

The facts supporting the Big Bang are overwhelming. Denying that there was a Big Bang is as wrongheaded as flat Earthism or creationism.

Steve has no idea what the BB theory states. I asked him to post his criticisms of the theory and point out the flaws, but he is not willing to do that, probably because he doesn't know what the theory says. He seems to believe that the BB theory states that the universe appeared out of nothing, and he doesn't understand that the theory only describes the expansion of the universe from a point in time very close to the t=0 singularity, but does not address the singularity point, or make any claims about how it came about.

Steve also does not believe the universe is expanding, or that dark matter is real. He would probably react badly if people were to tell him about the quantum wave function and the Copenhagen Interpretation or the Many Worlds hypothesis, and lump us all in with Bilby as science fiction writers. He seems to have a fuzzy recollection of concepts he learned in an introductory college physics class, which probably did not go into relativistic mechanics, the BBT, or anything else discovered in the last 100 years. So he spends his time condescendingly instructing us to read introductory texts on physics. And to always use SI units. He is really into SI units. He doesn't understand how entropy works and is not interested in learning, but he sure knows his units.

But in Steve's defense, he has stated that he has poor eyesight, which makes me believe that he probably doesn't see well enough to do much reading. That is not an excuse for arguing from ignorance, but is a very real potential explanation as to why he appears not to read anything people say.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

I have always found studying science from a historical viewpoint quite illuminating. Start with the history of building large telescopes. Discovery of distant galaxies and nebulas. Invention and development of spectroscopy. Discovery of red and blue shift.
Sooner or later discoveries like the Big Bang are obvious. Fred Hoyle's steady state hypothesis is offered up and fails. It is all process. Discovery. It all ties into physics. Determination of speed of light. Relativity. All with their own histories.

My eyesight is not good either. That is why I have a large 1920 X 1200 27 inch monitor.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Steve, you have a couple options here:
1) learn what the BB theory actually encompasses and the dvidence that supports it. At least a little better than a bad pop sci understanding at least;
2) Ask what it is in good faith and actually pay attention to the answers;
3) offer up a better (and better supported) theory, and reap the rewards of fame and fortune;
4) stfu

 

[Swammerdami]

Here is one of several recent YouTubes claiming that, at least according to some cosmologists, recent observations do not match the predictions of the Big Bang Theory.

I am not qualified to comment on the topic.

 

[bigfield]

Here is one of several recent YouTubes claiming that, at least according to some cosmologists, recent observations do not match the predictions of the Big Bang Theory.

I am not qualified to comment on the topic.

No point watching some Youtube video without citations, there are plenty of articles about the "crisis in cosmology".

This one is pretty recent:

A crisis in cosmology: New data suggests the universe expanding more rapidly than believed

A group of astronomers led by University of California, Davis has obtained new data that suggest the universe is expanding more rapidly than predicted.

phys.org

However, it's not the big bang theory itself in question, but rathed a specific model, the Lambda-CDM model, which does not match some observations made in the last couple of decades.

The Big Bang theory itself, which is more general in its terms, is still consistent with observations.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Generally any video that says one observation has disproved something big can be readily discarded as established theories or understandings don't get trashed because of one observation. It is a bit like how YouTube got saturated with videos about how James Webb trashed cosmology. It did no such thing, but a loose title of a study and a couple quotes were taken quite a bit out of context... and it led to clicks.

The Big Bang explains a lot about the expansion of the universe. It doesn't explain everything about the expansion, nor about everything else either. That doesn't negate its usefulness. Kind of like how my car sucks at flying doesn't make it a useless vehicle.