Big Bang possibly confirmed

[Otto]

I don't have any strong views on this, but I wanted to point out that perhaps the use of "fact" is causing a problem of terminology in

this discussion. On an extensive meta level, one might think to establish what "proof" or "truth" really mean to the topic of cosmology...

 

 

Err, if that makes sense.

[Wheatley]

If a theory fits "a" fact, or two, it is quite possibly, even probably, wrong.

 

If a theory fits the entirety or the vast, vast majority of a set of interrelated facts, and does not involve impossible things (wizards, magic, honest politicians) it is much more likely to be right.

 

"Theory" is, in fact, the highest level of confirmation that there IS in science, since it stopped generally applying the term "Law" some time ago.

 

If I may, I think Feynman had something very interesting to say about what physical laws are.

 

Newton also gave one rule about the force: that the forces between interacting bodies are equal and opposite—action equals reaction; that rule, it turns out, is not exactly true. In fact, the law F=ma is not exactly true; if it were a definition we should have to say that it is always exactly true; but it is not.

The student may object, “I do not like this imprecision, I should like to have everything defined exactly; in fact, it says in some books that any science is an exact subject, in which everything is defined.” If you insist upon a precise definition of force, you will never get it! First, because Newton’s Second Law is not exact, and second, because in order to understand physical laws you must understand that they are all some kind of approximation.

 

With this in mind, we would probably say that classical mechanics is a "theory" built from the "laws" of Newton (and then expressed equivalently by Lagrange and Hamilton). Similarly, the fundamental postulate that the speed of light is observed to be the same in every reference frame could be said to be the "law" from which (special) relativity theory falls from; the law is some sort of statement which allows us to understand everything else better. Theory is really just a word for the understanding that follows from a set of laws.

 

And there isn't any conclusive proof for the "big bang"...

 

If it isn't fact, don't treat it as fact. Changing the subject to something concerning religion doesn't change that these theories are being portrayed as fact, not as theories like they should.

 

Technically we cannot prove anything which is not purely abstract; however, insofar as the daily "facts" we deal with (the Earth goes around the sun, iron is ferromagnetic, etc.), the Big Bang is as much of a fact. This observation is not actually being taken as evidence for the Big Bang, rather it is evidence for the inflationary model of the Big Bang. There are models of the Big Bang without inflation, and were inflation shown to be incorrect, it is likely that one of the other models would be used.

[oVexlz]

is the gravitational waves propagate represent the stretching of light waves into radio waves by the expansion of the universe forming cmb?

[BTGBullseye]

@Wheatley: I don't disagree with much, but considering that the reason the "Big Bang" was originally postulated was solely to try and take God out of the equation, I find it extremely unscientific to say that it is as close to fact as it gets. (especially how it is portrayed when the theory is being taught in recent years)

 

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

 

Most people are trying to change the meaning of the word so that this definition (which is the one that applies to the scientific theories) no longer is what is used when people look it up.

[Vapymid]

the reason the "Big Bang" was originally postulated was solely to try and take God out of the equation

 

Given that it's a fact ( ) that the theory of the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, I fear that you may have fallen victim to some ideological brainwashing here...

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

Where did you hear that?

[Vapymid]

From Wiki:

 

Monseigneur Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, (French: [ʒɔʁʒə ləmɛtʁ] ( listen); 17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Université catholique de Louvain.[1] He was the first person to propose the theory of the expansion of the Universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble.[2][3] He was also the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article.[4][5][6][7] Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe, which he called his 'hypothesis of the primeval atom or the "Cosmic Egg".[8]

 

Sorry, sending this from a tablet, so apologies for lack of formatting...

 

Regards

[Doom Shepherd]

but considering that the reason the "Big Bang" was originally postulated was solely to try and take God out of the equation.

 

Dude, you need to sue whoever was responsible for your scientific education for GROSS malpractice.

[Doom Shepherd]

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact..

 

This is also extraordinarily wrong.

 

This may help a bit... assuming you can ignore whoever lied to you when they told you that the language is being redefined.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

[BTGBullseye]

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact..

 

This is also extraordinarily wrong.

 

This may help a bit... assuming you can ignore whoever lied to you when they told you that the language is being redefined.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

 

"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it."

 

Key to all that is the "modern science" part... Not science in general, just modern science.

 

"Modern uses of the word "theory" are derived from the original definition, but have taken on new shades of meaning, still based on the idea that a theory is a thoughtful and rational explanation of the general nature of things."

 

"The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

 

The formal scientific definition of "theory" is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed."

 

*Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models.

 

the reason the "Big Bang" was originally postulated was solely to try and take God out of the equation

 

Given that it's a fact ( ) that the theory of the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest, I fear that you may have fallen victim to some ideological brainwashing here...

 

Regards

 

Ah, see I missed that when they kept saying the other when I was in school. (blame the public school system for the mistake)

 

Still, it's not fact yet.

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I notice nobody has actually asked if I believe in the "Big Bang" theory myself... lol

[Otto]

Hah, I guess your belief is entirely irrelevant to the argument of whether it's a theory or a fact / how a theory is applied.

Maybe a better question would be Do you believe that it's wrong?

Is there such a word for describing the acceptance of something as a fact, without necessarily believing in it yourself?

Meaning that, for all intents and purposes, you could happily accept a scientific model and work on it as an astrophysicist,

but could not entirely believe in something that is as metaphysical or abstract without some kind of firsthand knowledge.

 

 

Technically we cannot prove anything which is not purely abstract; however, insofar as the daily "facts"

we deal with (the Earth goes around the sun, iron is ferromagnetic, etc.), the Big Bang is as much of a fact.

I guess I would agree with this, I believe it's an accurate view of the larger scientific community, but I dislike the comparison.

The theory of the Big Bang was born of the observation that other galaxies are moving away from our own at great speed.

I would not think the observation that the earth orbits the sun is evenly tangible to this model for the origin of the universe.

It is a pretty cool model, and unless a discussion like this were ever brought up, I wouldn't really question anybody's views.

[BTGBullseye]

Hah, I guess your belief is entirely irrelevant to the argument of whether it's a theory or a fact / how a theory is applied.

Maybe a better question would be Do you believe that it's wrong?

I believe the way that science is currently taught in almost all schools is wrong. I personally do believe the "Big Bang" theory itself, but not the other stuff about evolution. (even Darwin agreed that macro-evolution wasn't what originated our species) I believe that many of the "scientists" that are working towards proving that there is no God are wrong in what they're doing. (not the attempt to prove God doesn't exist, but the lack of publishing any of the results that oppose their opinion; something a lot of "scientists" are now beginning to do)

 

Is there such a word for describing the acceptance of something as a fact, without necessarily believing in it yourself?

No, there isn't. And Googling the question comes up with articles asking why people don't believe in God, and why people don't believe in evolution.

 

Meaning that, for all intents and purposes, you could happily accept a scientific model and work on it as an astrophysicist,

but could not entirely believe in something that is as metaphysical or abstract without some kind of firsthand knowledge.

Belief is not a prerequisite to be able to research a subject. Many scientists don't believe in God, but they can always research His signs. Some don't believe in the possibility of an infinite energy source, but there are quite a few of them looking into making it a reality. (and with quantum batteries, it's energy being made from apparently nowhere; an impossibility to our current understanding of the universe)

[Wheatley]

@Wheatley: I don't disagree with much, but considering that the reason the "Big Bang" was originally postulated was solely to try and take God out of the equation, I find it extremely unscientific to say that it is as close to fact as it gets. (especially how it is portrayed when the theory is being taught in recent years)

 

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

 

Most people are trying to change the meaning of the word so that this definition (which is the one that applies to the scientific theories) no longer is what is used when people look it up.

 

I think at this point we shouldn't get too bogged down with the definitions of "theory". In the context of natural sciences, the word essentially means a body of explanations, ranging from a collection of concepts and evidence such as evolutionary theory, to a mathematical formulation such as the Standard Model of particle physics. Whether or not this usage is consistent with everyday usage, this is what is meant in physics. The big bang "theory" is one of these objects.

 

Now, to touch on the earlier part, my intention was not to say that the big bang is essentially proven. My goal was in fact to say that our concept of what is "known" is very weak. People willingly accept many ideas as "facts" with far less of a basis than the historicity of a universal expansion. We, as humans, are not very good judges of the "factualness" of things. Thus, I think that we should not get too focused on how "factual" the big bang is, because this question is purely subjective, but rather on how well it works. Now, it's possible that the big bang is not the right idea, but for the moment at least I don't have many reasons to think this. It works pretty well, so for now I think we ought to consider it a pretty good model (and the inflationary theory may have just received a pretty big boost of evidence.)

 

I guess I would agree with this, I believe it's an accurate view of the larger scientific community, but I dislike the comparison.

The theory of the Big Bang was born of the observation that other galaxies are moving away from our own at great speed.

I would not think the observation that the earth orbits the sun is evenly tangible to this model for the origin of the universe.

It is a pretty cool model, and unless a discussion like this were ever brought up, I wouldn't really question anybody's views.

 

I understand your point and you essentially are correct, but I think that the question of how factual ideas are is very tricky. If we focus too much on just how tangible these models are, then we get tangled up in an exercise of trying to isolate just what their exact tangibility is, and how we can judge it, and ultimately we then are faced with arguing epistemology. When we get to that level, everything becomes unknown and unknowable. However, with the looser, more everyday definitions of "fact", there is no particular reason to call the big bang less of a fact than most other things, except that it is more disjoint from our common experiences.

 

I'll note that I'm in a physics sort of mood, so hopefully I haven't come across as being dismissive to either of you, as when I want to talk about physics sometimes I'm not as good at perceiving my own tone.

[BTGBullseye]

Don't worry about me... I got what you were intending right from the start.

[Vapymid]

I personally do believe the "Big Bang" theory itself, but not the other stuff about evolution.

 

I wouldn't want to go into discussing the merits of evolution v ID arguments here as the entire Internet is not big enough for it.

 

However, I just wanted to say that it always puzzled me why would anyone think that, if you postulate that God exists in the first place, the concept of God who has to micro-manage each species, always tweaking and re-writing the DNA by hand and issuing firmware updates and upgrades a-la Microsoft patch Tuesdays, is somehow superior to that of God who simply set up the whole Universe at its inception so as to evolve human beings without requiring any further intervention on his part...

 

Clearly, the latter God is a better engineer and, if I wanted to consider myself as having been made in his image, is a better role model than the former, fussier and fiddlier God.

 

This is just my personal attitude to that whole debate.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

I could get in to a very long conversation on that stance in particular, but this isn't the thread for it. (unless everybody says they want to hear my response)

[Vapymid]

If we could limit the discussion to only reasons why this question is so important from the religious/theological perspective, then I would very much like to hear your view on that.

 

Regards

[BTGBullseye]

Well, simply, random just won't make a human... Besides, you would have to completely throw out the entire story of creation (which is the backbone of why you should believe in God, and follow him in the first place) just to start believing in a completely unproven theory. (one that the guy who originally made it [Darwin] said could NOT happen on a macro scale, and wouldn't generate completely different species)

 

Hopefully that made sense... I couldn't sleep last night, or the night before... So a total of 4 hours of sleep in the last 72 hours.

[Vapymid]

I see, this must be because of a belief that the Bible should be interpreted literally and not metaphorically...

 

For myself, I came to a conclusion that the Bible is an attempt to record the first memories of humanity as a species - things like the loss of paradise would then be the hazy reminiscences of humans stopping being apes (you know, like realising the existence of the arrow of time and responsibility of working today to ensure one's future, unlike animals who live and die today and for whom no future exists beyond the next meal). Similar to individual's first memories, which are incomplete and equally hazy.

 

This all to me is quite distinct from the question of whether or not God exists, which is in the philosophical realm and is complex enough by itself to not need to be further confused by literal interpretations of a book, especially when they are contradicted by observed facts.

 

Regards

[Otto]

I understand your point and you essentially are correct, but I think that the question of how factual ideas are is very tricky. If we focus too much on just how tangible these models are, then we get tangled up in an exercise of trying to isolate just what their exact tangibility is, and how we can judge it, and ultimately we then are faced with arguing epistemology. When we get to that level, everything becomes unknown and unknowable. However, with the looser, more everyday definitions of "fact", there is no particular reason to call the big bang less of a fact than most other things, except that it is more disjoint from our common experiences.

 

I'll note that I'm in a physics sort of mood, so hopefully I haven't come across as being dismissive to either of you, as when I want to talk about physics sometimes I'm not as good at perceiving my own tone.

Very good points and I would definitely agree. Even in your physics mood, which I would normally encourage, I think your

arguments and writing is among the clearest and understandable of everyone here.

 

Hopefully that made sense... I couldn't sleep last night, or the night before... So a total of 4 hours of sleep in the last 72 hours.

Geez man, you shouldn't push that stuff too far. Unless you think you're getting closer to some truth, I don't know how

you can stay up so long and spend the time to write all of this. Doesn't slowly losing your sanity and coherency kind of hurt?