Official version of Big Bang 2008

  • Thread starter Thread starter jal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the Big Bang and the nature of scientific consensus in cosmology. Participants explore the idea of an "official version" of the Big Bang theory, the evolving nature of cosmological models, and the challenges of establishing certainty in a field where experimental replication is not feasible.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that while there is general agreement on the timeline of events in cosmology, significant uncertainty exists at smaller timescales.
  • Others argue that the scientific method is limited in cosmology due to the inability to replicate the conditions of the Big Bang, making theoretical predictions essential.
  • One participant notes that predictions from theories, such as those made by COBE regarding cosmic background radiation, can be validated through observations, indicating a functioning scientific process.
  • Another participant challenges the assertion that deviations observed in experiments like COBE and WMAP can be definitively attributed to the Big Bang, suggesting that such claims are probabilistic rather than certain.
  • Concerns are raised about the multitude of modifications to existing models, with some expressing frustration that no new proposals are being put forward.
  • It is mentioned that there is no formal board of experts that establishes an "official" version of cosmological theories; rather, consensus develops over time as ideas withstand scrutiny.
  • One participant emphasizes that historical sciences, including cosmology, utilize the scientific method despite the challenges of recreating past events.
  • A later reply suggests that while there is no standard committee for cosmological theories, the current best-fit model can be found in textbooks and research papers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the existence of an official version of the Big Bang theory or the implications of current cosmological models. Disagreement persists regarding the interpretation of observational data and the nature of scientific consensus in the field.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on observational evidence and the subjective nature of theoretical interpretations in cosmology. The discussion highlights the challenges of establishing definitive claims in a field characterized by ongoing discoveries and evolving theories.

jal
Messages
544
Reaction score
0
Where is the official version of the Big Bang?
There are new discovery all the time.
Is there a "board of experts" that puts out the official version?
jal
 
Space news on Phys.org
I think up to a certain timescale most scientists will agree on the timeline of events. Below this timescale, nothing's certain. Cosmology is an unusual discipline, there's only one universe in which to observe. The methodology of scientific process is not applicable when you can't repeat experiment, so theory is the only way to progress (You can't reproduce the conditions from the Big Bang!)

And as we all know, theory is entirely subjective without experimental proof.
 
astrorob said:
I think up to a certain timescale most scientists will agree on the timeline of events. Below this timescale, nothing's certain. Cosmology is an unusual discipline, there's only one universe in which to observe. The methodology of scientific process is not applicable when you can't repeat experiment, so theory is the only way to progress (You can't reproduce the conditions from the Big Bang!)

And as we all know, theory is entirely subjective without experimental proof.

now there is certainly some truth in this, but on the other hand: they can try to get some predictions out of their theories and then look whether this predictions match observations. like they did with COBE, they predictet that there would be some (tiny) variations in the CBR, and after looking hard enough, they found some. so at least in this case the scientific process was working well enough.
 
Very true, but you can't say unequivocally that the deviations in the likes of COBE and WMAP are due to some primordial fireball at the beginning of time. You can only say that it's very very likely..
 
astrorob
...without experimental proof.
Hummm!
I’m gathering that there are so many possible modifications to the presently taught model that nobody wants to venture and propose an improvement.
What about the experiments with quark-gluon plasma, CGC (Color Glass Condensate) and solid hydrogen?
jal
 
jal said:
Where is the official version of the Big Bang?
There are new discovery all the time.
Is there a "board of experts" that puts out the official version?
jal

Science doesn't work like this Jal. There are lots of papers on Cosmology coming out all the time with all sorts of new ideas, new observations, new theories and new tweaks to old theories. But there isn't an ordained group somewhere who decides what is 'official', eventually the ideas that stand up to scrutiny the best become more and more accepted and become a consensus view, but consensus is always shaky and can be changed quickly with new evidence.
 
astrorob said:
Cosmology is an unusual discipline, there's only one universe in which to observe. The methodology of scientific process is not applicable when you can't repeat experiment, so theory is the only way to progress (You can't reproduce the conditions from the Big Bang!)

And as we all know, theory is entirely subjective without experimental proof.

You are misrepresenting the scientific method here. We certainly cannot recreate the big bang. We also cannot recreate the evolution of species, or the exact events that led to the formation and development of the Earth, or Julius Caeser. Moreover, we were not present when the universe first formed, when the Earth took shape, when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, when the first hominid first walked upright, or when Caeser ruled Rome. This does not mean essentially historical sciences such as evolutionary biology, archeology, geology, and cosmology are not science or do not use the scientific method.
 
As Wallace has said, there is no committee that decides which theory is the standard. Cosmology is constantly changing as more evidence is obtained. If your actual question is "what is the standard model of Cosmology today?"; i.e. what are the details of the model that best fits the observational data today, then this is a valid question. However, it can easily be answered by picking up a good Cosmology textbook, or reading papers, or posts on these forums.

I can't see this topic going anywhere useful, so I'm closing it.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Before the Big Bang
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
High School Can big bang be a part of a loop?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
High School Could Black Hole Collisions Trigger a Cyclical Big Bang and Universe Rebirth?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
Undergrad Big bang at the edges of the Universe?
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
Undergrad Questions about the Location of the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
High School Does an infinite universe contradict a Big Bang origin?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
Undergrad Question about the big bang singularity
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
High School Big Bang and Infinite Universe
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
High School Big Bang Question -- How was the first matter formed?
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
7K
Undergrad Post Big Bang Gravity
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K