Big Bang Theory?

[SkyTeCh05]

Hi I am 13 and am wondering if anyone believes in the big bang theory? My school believes in it but me not sure. I am neutral. If you believe in it can you please explain why?

I am just interested inwhat theories everyone believes in? I am more curious about the people who don't believe in it. I just find this quiet interesting to talk about, and this is probably more debatble.

Edited April 19, 2014 by SkyTeCh05

[pwagen]

It's not, and shouldn't be, a question about belief.

 

The Big Bang Theory, as it stands, is the best explanation we have for how the universe developed. It has managed to make accurate predictions, and we have lots of data supporting it.

 

It is, and should be, a question about evidence.

[StringJunky]

A theory in science is the closest thing scientists will admit to an idea being a fact. When they call something a "theory" they mean it has a lot of verifiable evidence to support it. If new research has a confidence level better than 95% it can go on its way to be a theory. Note: they don't do certainty because if they did then their minds would be closed to new future evidence that may show current research conclusions to not be applicable in every instance. They like to always keep the door open a bit just in case an idea may turn out to be wrong or, as they call it: its domain of applicability may be limited. Most established theories are eventually found to be incomplete. This was found with Newton's theory of gravity which was superseded, or extended, by Einstein's geometric curved spacetime theory and lately his theory is found to be wanting in the domain below atomic scale i.e. tiny scales. Quantum physicists are currently trying to explain gravity in terms that fits with the description of the three fundamental forces - strong, weak and electromagnetic - but it's proving difficult. Established scientific theories don't usually turn out to be flat out wrong ...just incomplete and can still be used within their domain of applicability. Newer theories usually just extend older ones.

 

A 'theory' in science is as good as it gets so if you want annoy a scientist say; "It's just a theory"

 

After this explanation you should now realise the big bang theory is very highly regarded by conventional scientists.

Edited April 19, 2014 by StringJunky

[ajb]

If you believe in it can you please explain why?

As already stated, believe is the wrong word here. By big bang I will take that to mean the standard model of cosmology, the Lambda CDM model with inflation. Why scientists think it is a good model is because it fits the data extremely well, not just on some generic features but also in a lot of the detail.

 

The classical evidence of the "big bang" models include (you can google for details);

 

1. Hubble's law.

2. The CMBR.

3. The ratio of primordial elements and ordinary hydrogen.

4. Galactic evolution and distribution.

 

 

The Lambda CDM + inflation which is a specific paramaterised "big bang" theory is the gold standard here. It explains all of the above plus;

 

5. Flatness of the Universe, the horizon problem, the dilution of magnetic monopoles via inflation.

6. Details of the CMBR including the power spectrum.

7. Includes the accelerated expansion of the Universe we see today.

 

If some better model came along then cosmologists would take it seriously, but right now the Lambda CDM model really stands out as the best we have.

[michel123456]

Can someone from the staff please correct the typo in the title that make my eyes blooding?

[Prometheus]

I think you're quite right to question the big bang theory. Your school has probably just taught it as a fact to remember, but there is more to it than that. Lots of reasons have been given above as to why people believe in the big bang. You should try to understand these and question them with an open mind and you will probably come to the 'belief' that the big bang theory seems sensible. If not, maybe you can suggest a better theory, and supply evidence why you think it is correct.

 

Don't run before you can walk though, these ideas take a long time to understand. Also maybe pay more attention in English classes, communication is vital in science life.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Prometheus

[SkyTeCh05]

Sorry, if I used the word believe. I am still learning you know.

[ajb]

Sorry, if I used the word believe. I am still learning you know.

No problem, just this kind of scientific belief is evidence based and must not be confused with faith in the religious sense.

[Intellectual]

I accept the big bang and inflation because they fit within the current models of physics. And string junky, yes it does annoy me when people say it's just a theory, there's a lot of evidence to support both theory's.

 

And to expand, if a scientist says it's a hypothesis it means there is evidence to support it however it is not garnered enough evidence to there be reasonable assurances with the scientific community. And if there are two competing theory's then either one is completely wrong or one fits somewhere in the other.

[ajb]

And if there are two competing theory's then either one is completely wrong or one fits somewhere in the other.

You have hit upon a subtle issue here. One should really talk about models being good or bad rather than right or wrong. A good model is defined as one that fits the observed data well. Similarly, a bad model is one that does not fit the observed data well. But note that this is subjective as I have not quantified "well".

 

One must also be careful with the domain of applicability. There are usually sets of parameters in a theory for which you do not expect it to be a good model. For example, Newtonian mechanics is a good model of macroscopic objects moving a low speeds. It is not so great for microscopic objects, where quantum mechanics comes into play nor when we have high speeds, where relativity comes in. But it would be unfair to say that Newtonian mechanics is wrong. However, as you suggest we know how to see Newtonian mechanics as a limit of QM and relativity.

 

Another issue is that theories are ruled out rather than ruled in. If the theory does not agree well with nature within its expected domain of validity then it should be considered bad and discarded (or maybe applied in a different context).

 

So, the Lambda CDM + inflation model has parameters that are fixed by observation and these are all consistent in the sense that we get a good model within the parameter space. It applies well where we expect it to.

Edited April 22, 2014 by ajb

[Ophiolite]

Hi I am 13 and am wondering if anyone believes in the big bang theory? .......... I am more curious about the people who don't believe in it.

I am reluctant to accept Big Bang theory for a handful of reasons:

 

1) Past cosmologies have been overturned. Why should the Big Bang be any different.

2) I consider it inelegant and disappointing. Some form of Steady State would be more satisfying.

3) I like to be disagreeable.

 

As you can see none of these objections have any scientific validity. Also, and more importantly, the universe doesn't give a damn about what I think about how it functions. The fact is, as noted by several others, that practically all the evidence provides clear support for Big Bang theory and very little support for any alternatives. Therefore I am forced, logically but reluctantly, to accept it - but I don't have to like it.

[Unity+]

I am reluctant to accept Big Bang theory for a handful of reasons:

 

1) Past cosmologies have been overturned. Why should the Big Bang be any different.

2) I consider it inelegant and disappointing. Some form of Steady State would be more satisfying.

3) I like to be disagreeable.

 

As you can see none of these objections have any scientific validity. Also, and more importantly, the universe doesn't give a damn about what I think about how it functions. The fact is, as noted by several others, that practically all the evidence provides clear support for Big Bang theory and very little support for any alternatives. Therefore I am forced, logically but reluctantly, to accept it - but I don't have to like it.

At first, I was about to go full out rage at this comment until I read the last few sentences.

A 'theory' in science is as good as it gets so if you want annoy a scientist say; "It's just a theory"

I think the reason why scientists rage at this response is because of the misconception of definitions. Though, scientists still have to consider the evidence and what its actual conclusion is.

 

The Theory of Evolution has much evidence supporting its developments, but still needs more and more evidence in order to become more fully developed. A theory's standing solely depends on the level of evidence involved in it.

[Airbrush]

I accept the big bang theory, not because I understand it, but because the experts in the field think it is the best we have for now.

[StringJunky]

I think the reason why scientists rage at this response is because of the misconception of definitions. Though, scientists still have to consider the evidence and what its actual conclusion is.

I think, in truth, it's the scientists fault for giving it a narrow non-standard or non-universal definition compared to what the non-scientific public think it is. The real meaning of "theory" is anything you can think of or pull out of your arse. .

Edited April 22, 2014 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

Do I believe it at the same level as Newtonian Mechanics. No. But it certainly is a compelling model, though built on more uncertainty the further one goes back, I think. I have had ideas I liked better, but they never fit the evidence as well, at least to the limits of what I could comprehend.

 

Still the best we have, and it seems to have evolved.

Would it still be coined "the Big Bang", if named today?

[Intellectual]

You have hit upon a subtle issue here. One should really talk about models being good or bad rather than right or wrong. A good model is defined as one that fits the observed data well. Similarly, a bad model is one that does not fit the observed data well. But note that this is subjective as I have not quantified "well".

 

One must also be careful with the domain of applicability. There are usually sets of parameters in a theory for which you do not expect it to be a good model. For example, Newtonian mechanics is a good model of macroscopic objects moving a low speeds. It is not so great for microscopic objects, where quantum mechanics comes into play nor when we have high speeds, where relativity comes in. But it would be unfair to say that Newtonian mechanics is wrong. However, as you suggest we know how to see Newtonian mechanics as a limit of QM and relativity.

 

Another issue is that theories are ruled out rather than ruled in. If the theory does not agree well with nature within its expected domain of validity then it should be considered bad and discarded (or maybe applied in a different context).

 

So, the Lambda CDM + inflation model has parameters that are fixed by observation and these are all consistent in the sense that we get a good model within the parameter space. It applies well where we expect it to.

Yes, this may not be what you meant but here's an example:

 

Einstein's force which he thought would keep the universe in a steady state or cosmological constant, he later ruled this theory out when evidence of a unsteady universe was found. Several decades later in rolls dark energy, Einsteins force which counteracts the force of gravity.

 

Do I believe it at the same level as Newtonian Mechanics. No. But it certainly is a compelling model, though built on more uncertainty the further one goes back, I think. I have had ideas I liked better, but they never fit the evidence as well, at least to the limits of what I could comprehend.

 

Still the best we have, and it seems to have evolved.

Would it still be coined "the Big Bang", if named today?

It may not be at the level of Newtonian Mechanics, however the big bang can be considered part of a larger more illusive picture while gravity we had some intuition with as we experience it daily

[ajb]

Yes, this may not be what you meant but here's an example:

 

Einstein's force which he thought would keep the universe in a steady state or cosmological constant, he later ruled this theory out when evidence of a unsteady universe was found. Several decades later in rolls dark energy, Einsteins force which counteracts the force of gravity.

It is not what I had in mind, but this is a good example.

[Phi for All]

"Believe" is a murky word. For explanations I can test myself, like the Big Bang Theory, I use the word "trust". It's a form of belief based on a preponderance of evidence and the ability to check methodologies and test predictions.

 

I trust the Big Bang Theory to be the best explanation for the development of the universe we observe now.

[michel123456]

"Believe" is a murky word. For explanations I can test myself, like the Big Bang Theory, I use the word "trust". It's a form of belief based on a preponderance of evidence and the ability to check methodologies and test predictions.

 

I trust the Big Bang Theory to be the best explanation for the development of the universe we observe now.

IMHO one should not trust a model that explains through 95,1% dark evidence.

I am waiting for a better model to come, since I am not in a position to provide anything better.

It is pathetic.

[Phi for All]

IMHO one should not trust a model that explains through 95,1% dark evidence.

 

Is there a theory that explains more, or better?

 

And I didn't say I trust the model, I said I trust it to be the best explanation currently available. I suppose it's more accurate to say I trust the methodology used on the model, to give the most meaningful findings.

[SkyTeCh05]

There seems to be more violent talk here. What is about the RAGE??? I just want to know your belief not aggressiveness. I am LEARNING and I am definitely not an adult, so therefore I can't take all the aggressiveness like adults do. Man you people are angry, when I posted the topic.

[Endy0816]

The question you asked is just loaded.

 

Belief applies to religion. Theories are based on proof.

 

The idea is that you don't let your thinking become fossilized or set. You forever question and challenge(from a position of understanding) in hopes of advancing our knowledge.

[SkyTeCh05]

My question is loaded? Don't look loaded. I think people don't get what belief is. If any of you do, then state what it is since you complain about my question.

[Acme]

There seems to be more violent talk here. What is about the RAGE??? I just want to know your belief not aggressiveness. I am LEARNING and I am definitely not an adult, so therefore I can't take all the aggressiveness like adults do. Man you people are angry, when I posted the topic.

My question is loaded? Don't look loaded. I think people don't get what belief is. If any of you do, then state what it is since you complain about my question.

Please forgive or ignore the angry adults. When you get to be an adult, try and remember what it's like to be a kid and treat kids accordingly.

 

To answer your initial question, yes I believe -that is I trust- the evidence for a big bang. It is not a simple idea even for most adults, but it is an idea based on actual observations. The following is a short summary of some of the early observations leading to the idea's development. You can read more about the big bang at the link to my source. When you see words you don't know, look them up in a dictionary. If you have specific questions after reading the material, ask them.

 

...

Development [of big bang idea]

 

The Big Bang theory developed from observations of the structure of the universe and from theoretical considerations. In 1912 Vesto Slipher measured the first Doppler shift of a "spiral nebula" (spiral nebula is the obsolete term for spiral galaxies), and soon discovered that almost all such nebulae were receding from Earth. He did not grasp the cosmological implications of this fact, and indeed at the time it was highly controversial whether or not these nebulae were "island universes" outside our Milky Way.[36][37]

 

Ten years later, Alexander Friedmann, a Russian cosmologist and mathematician, derived the Friedmann equations from Albert Einstein's equations of general relativity, showing that the universe might be expanding in contrast to the static universe model advocated by Einstein at that time.[38] In 1924 Edwin Hubble's measurement of the great distance to the nearest spiral nebulae showed that these systems were indeed other galaxies. Independently deriving Friedmann's equations in 1927, Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest, proposed that the inferred recession of the nebulae was due to the expansion of the universe.[39] ...

source: >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Underlying_assumptions

[SamBridge]

The only main thing that scientists have theorized about but for someone that no one has explained to me is how the creation and expansion of space happens the same from all relative directions and points while space is simultaneously being flat. Is there some explanation of 5 dimensional space that explains how space was create at all points where it already exists and it is merely the case that the local spacial metric of spacetime-creation that counted distance between objects is what has and is causing the continual expanding of the universe from all directions from all frames?

Edited April 24, 2014 by SamBridge