Do professionals use the term universe to mean what was created in the big bang?
The "universe" is all of space and time and all of the matter and contents within. The Big Bang is simply a theory that scientists believe explain how the universe is created.
Uh, quarky, that's not right (It is a pop-sci point of view). The Big Bang Theory says NOTHING about how the universe was created. It is a description of how the universe has evolved from approximately one Plank time after the singularity up to the present. The singularity is not part of the Big Bang Theory because we don't know what it was physically.
EDIT: Actually, let me amend that statement. If by "the big bang" you mean "the big bang singularity" then yeah, I guess it's right to say that's what created the universe but the problem you run into is that people then conflate that with the belief that the Big Bang Theory describes the creation, which it does not. The "singularity" and the "theory" are radically different things and it's important to keep in mind that the big bang singularity was not an explosion; we don't know what it was, which is why it's called a singularity.
I would say that the universe is the (for lack of a better word) stuff, and the big bang describes how it's evolved. The universe would still exist if it didn't "bang." If the universe had not expanded, and instead collapsed in on itself, there would never have been a big bang, but there would still be a universe.
The Big Bang theory describes the evolution of the observable universe from an early hot, dense state to our present epoch.
Good point, The Big Bang presumes nothing about the parts of the universe that we can't see.
Yes, you're right. That's wrong. The fact that Big Bang Theory and Big Bang Singularity are so very similar (word-wise) always gets me. Sorry.
The answer to the OP is still yes, nonetheless.
Yes. Unambiguous question allows short answer.
Haha, yes, that's true.
On the plus side, I got corrected on something, so this thread served its purpose.
I disagree. When the short answer itself can lead to confusion, as it can in this case, then I think the longer answer is called for.
And I don't see your point. In my opinion, the question "Do professionals use the term universe to mean what was created in the big bang?" can be answered with yes or no.
Why leads the answer "yes" to confusion?
Read post #4
Well post #4 is not an answer to the OP, it is commenting on something else.
Jeez, fella, you asked what is potentially confusing and I answered you. It seems you are being argumentative just for the sake of being argumentative. That's MY job here
Thread closed for moderation.
This isn't quite right either. The Big Bang theory starts with the hot, dense, rapidly expanding state that existed at the end of inflation. That was not one Planck time after the singularity; in fact, we don't even know that "time after the singularity" has any meaning at all. The numbers that are quoted in pop science sources (and even in some of the literature) for "time after the singularity" refer to a mathematical model with no inflation that does not represent what anyone believes actually happened. But even if we accept those numbers as notional numbers, the "start time" of the standard hot Big Bang theory is not one Planck time after the singularity.
Separate names with a comma.