Is a wormhole a white hole?

[Rajnish Kaushik]

It is a theory which i m thinking about for a long time and its just made by me(self made)

I think that Big Bang theory do have many limitations but i suggest that the bib bang is nothing other then a white hole or a wormhole from another universe since according to me the parallel universe exist

I m remaking it because due to some bugs the older one is showing as delta1212's post

so please delete the older one and keep this

so what should i add or change or answer in this?

Edited January 26, 2014 by Rajnish Kaushik

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

OK, stop making new threads on this. I'm not going to try to merge other responses.

 

And if your theory hypothesis hasn't been tested, please put it in Speculations next time. And please be aware we have special rules for this section.

[Endercreeper01]

It's not a theory, it's word salad. Do you have any mathematics behind your theory?

[Rajnish Kaushik]

nope what wrong in it

everything just dosent have only maths behind it it can also have logic scene and way of perception

[Endercreeper01]

If you don't have any math, it won't even be considered. It needs to be proven mathematically and experimentally in order to be a theory.

You can't just use logic. Aristotle used logic, but he was incorrect. Much of science is counterintuitive. There is even a rule in speculations about this.

It doesn't matter how logical it is to anyone — if it disagrees with actual experiment it's not correct.

And if you can't test it, it is not a theory.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Endercreeper01

[Rajnish Kaushik]

so how big bang theory is a theory??

[Endy0816]

 

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

[Endercreeper01]

so how big bang theory is a theory??

The big bang theory is a theory because it has been repeatedly tested, and there is a mathematical proof behind it. Edited January 26, 2014 by Endercreeper01

[Bignose]

The big bang theory is a theory because it has been repeatedly tested, and there is a mathematical proof behind it.

You have to be awfully careful about tossing around the phrase 'mathematical proof'. There certainly is no where near the same level of mathematical proof for the BBT as there is for Pythagoras' Theorem, for example. There is no doubt that the Pythagorean Theorem is correct. There is some justifiable doubt about the BBT, however.

 

The BBT is an idea that makes predictions. And when we've compared those predictions to measurements, the agreement is quite good. Better than most alternative ideas for the early time of the universe. But it isn't perfect. And no reputable scientist should claim that they know exactly what the Big Bang was, or have knowledge of time 0. Because we just don't know that, and offered suggestions very often make predictions that aren't quite the same as observations. But it is the idea that makes the best predictions to date, and hence is the favored idea.

 

As to why it is called the Big Bag Theory, and not the Big Bang Idea or Big Bang Hypothesis... it is true that in science we try to reserve the word Theory for things that have been confirmed correct literally millions of times over -- like the Theory of Gravity. I am not sure the BBT can truly live up to that, since its predictions aren't perfect every time.

 

Quite simply, it is that words are sometimes misused, even by scientists. And once a phrase has caught on, it is hard to get everyone to change it. It happened with the Higgs boson being called 'the god particle'. A reporter took a quote a little out of context, and the phrase has stuck ever since. I suspect something similar happened to BBT.

 

Again, though, it makes a great deal of predictions that agree quite well with measurements. I just would consider the BBT more likely to be replaced someday by something else than the Theory of Gravity. There very well may be some other idea that comes along and makes even better predictions that agree with observations than BBT. The Theory of Gravity is unlikely to be replaced, as again it has been confirmed an almost countless number of times.

[Endercreeper01]

You have to be awfully careful about tossing around the phrase 'mathematical proof'. There certainly is no where near the same level of mathematical proof for the BBT as there is for Pythagoras' Theorem, for example. There is no doubt that the Pythagorean Theorem is correct. There is some justifiable doubt about the BBT, however.

 

The BBT is an idea that makes predictions. And when we've compared those predictions to measurements, the agreement is quite good. Better than most alternative ideas for the early time of the universe. But it isn't perfect. And no reputable scientist should claim that they know exactly what the Big Bang was, or have knowledge of time 0. Because we just don't know that, and offered suggestions very often make predictions that aren't quite the same as observations. But it is the idea that makes the best predictions to date, and hence is the favored idea.

 

As to why it is called the Big Bag Theory, and not the Big Bang Idea or Big Bang Hypothesis... it is true that in science we try to reserve the word Theory for things that have been confirmed correct literally millions of times over -- like the Theory of Gravity. I am not sure the BBT can truly live up to that, since its predictions aren't perfect every time.

 

Quite simply, it is that words are sometimes misused, even by scientists. And once a phrase has caught on, it is hard to get everyone to change it. It happened with the Higgs boson being called 'the god particle'. A reporter took a quote a little out of context, and the phrase has stuck ever since. I suspect something similar happened to BBT.

 

Again, though, it makes a great deal of predictions that agree quite well with measurements. I just would consider the BBT more likely to be replaced someday by something else than the Theory of Gravity. There very well may be some other idea that comes along and makes even better predictions that agree with observations than BBT. The Theory of Gravity is unlikely to be replaced, as again it has been confirmed an almost countless number of times.

That is what I meant. Ideas in physics need to make predictions, and it would be a theory if it makes accurate predictions. By mathematics, I mean that it needs to have mathematical predictions if it is an idea in physics. The big bang has this, as it predicts the CMB, for example. There also needs to be evidence for it. Going back to Rajnish's post, he says the following:

 

 

I think that Big Bang theory do have many limitations but i suggest that the bib bang is nothing other then a white hole or a wormhole from another universe since according to me the parallel universe exist

There is no evidence of white holes or wormholes, but let's assume there was. He would need a mathematical framework describing the space-time around this white hole or wormhole at the big bang, and also a proof of why this would happen. To make it into a theory, it needs to be tested. If it is untestable, it is not a theory.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Endercreeper01

[Bignose]

That is what I meant. ...

Ok. Then in the future, to improve your communication that needs to be clear. As I started my last post, the phrase 'mathematical proof' typically caries a very different meaning: it much more often than not means starting from a set of axiom and demonstrating a logical result based on those axioms. This is certainly not what the BBT has...

[Rajnish Kaushik]

i will prove this in future

i do will

[ajb]

so how big bang theory is a theory??

We have the so called Lambda CDM model which is a mathematical model of the Universe just after the "big bang". This model is fits observations very well including the subtle details of the cosmic microwave background radiation and many other observations. Today we call it the standard model of cosmology!

 

This model is not perfect and there may well be some modifications here are as observational cosmology gets better and better. But for now any alternative cosmology will have to at least match the standard model of cosmology in its matching with nature. This is independent of any objections to the existence of the initial singularity or philosophical objections to general relativity.

[Phi for All]

i will prove this in future

 

Hypotheses don't try to prove anything. They provide a framework for you to gather evidence that supports or refutes your idea. If you can gather enough supportive evidence, and nothing or no one can refute the idea, then the hypothesis becomes more trustworthy, and others will add to the supportive evidence as well.

 

Eventually, people will begin to refer to this well-tested, well-observed concept as a theory, never a proof (because we want to keep testing the theory, always). Theories are so stable you can use them to predict what will happen in a certain situation, and that's one of the things that makes the scientific method so valuable to us.

[proton2701]

A plausible hypothesis but still needs some other conclusive evidence that supports the current models of the universe from a cosmological corner as white wholes and black wholes remain hinged in the balance of wether or not any evidence of a black whole having an end. Also wormholes are classed as an anomaly as they require amounts of energy that are practically impossible to reach let alone the effects they would cause at opposing end such as a alteration in the paradigms of ones life or the altering the current course of the flow in that universes flow