Scientific explanation of the Universe

In summary, the universe cannot be explained by scientific means. All of the 'theories' we have on its beginnings are nothing more than hypotheses.
  • #1
Unless we figure out time travel (laughable), there is no way to come to a scientific explanation of the universe. All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses...and that includes the big bang 'theory'...which is currently being shot to **** (Back and to the left)...turns out we jumped to a conclusion long before there was any practical conclusion to be made from the evidence.

For any valid theory to exist on the beginnings of the universe, we would have needed to be present at the creation of this universe...or somehow create a second verse...and that's under the assumption that our verse is the only one in the universe (which could hypothetically be a multi-verse without contradicting current mathematics).

Simply put, we can figure out what the universe looked like millionths of a second after expansion began; but we cannot EVER (through science or faith) figure out what it was at the very beginning, or how it began, or why it began, or when it even began...nor can we figure out if a 'who' was involved, or if there even is a 'why'.

It's a pipe dream to think we can establish a working theory to the beginning.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
It's a common misconception that the Big Bang theory is meant to explain the moment of creation. In fact, standard Big Bang theory only goes back to the end of inflation and explains the late-time evolution of the universe. Prior to that, there are a number of theories still in contention (mostly varieties of inflation), and prior to that, we have no useful information.

In professional circles, there are only a few old scientists that still question standard Big Bang theory, and they drift further from the mainstream as time goes on.
 
  • #3
You must understand that any scientific theory is just a mathematical model of the universe. It can only go so far as the model can.

The model stands or falls on the predictions that it makes. The Big Bang is generally supported because it predicted the background microwave radiation that is found in all directions. This prediction was confirmed by engineers trying to find the source of noise in their advanced antennas. The engineers were awarded the Nobel for their work. It is the first and only case of an accidental Nobel Prize. The scientist who made the prediction got nothing. (Life's not fair).

The fact that a theory can't model everything is irrelevant.
 
  • #4
creation versus autonomous reality

Handsome_Dick said:
For any valid theory to exist on the beginnings of the universe, we would have needed to be present at the creation of this universe...or somehow create a second verse...and that's under the assumption that our verse is the only one in the universe (which could hypothetically be a multi-verse without contradicting current mathematics).

Apparently you start with a belief that creation exist which has never been shown experimentally. IMO better accept autonomous reality without creation.

Knd regards,
Hurk4
 
  • #5
Handsome_Dick said:
... there is no way to come to a scientific explanation of the universe. All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses...
1] You seem to think we need to have visual verification with our own eyes in order to be able to come to a scientific explanation of the universe. This is no so. When we have a theory that has an answer for every question, we will have an excellent scientific understanding of the universe. Yes, it is a theory. So is the atomic model of matter. Do you disbelieve everyithn you cannot see with your own eyes?

2] Theories make predictions, which we can test, even 15Gy later. If those tests bear out the predictions, we have an acceptable theory. There's nothing hypothetical about it.



If I am reading you correctly, you seem to be in the camp of those with the belief that the world is made of "mere" theories, as if theories are an invalid process for understanding the world around us.

I suppose that's OK, if you want to stop advancement of the world somewhere in the 1500s. You know that your CD player is built upon "mere" theories, right?
 
  • #6
Handsome_Dick said:
Simply put, we can figure out what the universe looked like millionths of a second after expansion began; but we cannot EVER (through science or faith) figure out what it was at the very beginning, or how it began, or why it began, or when it even began...nor can we figure out if a 'who' was involved, or if there even is a 'why'.

It's a pipe dream to think we can establish a working theory to the beginning.

OK everyone, stop what you're doing, you can't solve this mystery, stop working on it, it's hopeless to even try, let's just say God did it and not worry anymore, agreed?
 
  • #7
Yes, but which God?
 
  • #8
Handsome_Dick said:
Unless we figure out time travel (laughable), there is no way to come to a scientific explanation of the universe. All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses

Perhaps you should learn what 'scientific explanation' means. Your statement shows you clearly haven't grasped this concept.
 
  • #9
Handsome_Dick said:
All the 'theories' we have on the universe's beginnings are nothing but hypotheses...

Last time I checked all theories are based on hypotheses.
 

1. What is the scientific explanation of the Universe?

The scientific explanation of the Universe is the Big Bang Theory. This theory states that the Universe began as a singularity, a point of infinite density and temperature, and expanded rapidly in a massive explosion approximately 13.8 billion years ago. This expansion continues to this day, and the Universe is constantly expanding and evolving.

2. How is the Big Bang Theory supported by evidence?

The Big Bang Theory is supported by a variety of evidence, including the observation of cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of light elements in the Universe, and the redshift of galaxies. These pieces of evidence all point to an initial rapid expansion of the Universe, which supports the idea of the Big Bang.

3. Are there any competing theories to the Big Bang?

Yes, there are some alternative theories that have been proposed, such as the Steady State Theory and the Oscillating Universe Theory. However, these theories have not been supported by as much evidence as the Big Bang Theory and are not widely accepted in the scientific community.

4. What is dark matter and how does it relate to the Universe?

Dark matter is a mysterious substance that makes up about 27% of the Universe. It does not emit or absorb light, making it invisible to traditional telescopes. However, it has a gravitational effect on visible matter, causing galaxies to rotate at higher speeds than expected. Scientists are still trying to understand the nature of dark matter and its role in the formation and evolution of the Universe.

5. Is the Universe infinite?

The answer to this question is still unknown. According to the current scientific understanding, the observable Universe is finite and expanding. However, it is possible that the Universe is infinite in size and that there are parts of it beyond our observable limits. This is still a topic of ongoing research and debate in the scientific community.

Suggested for: Scientific explanation of the Universe

Replies
38
Views
364
Replies
22
Views
1K
Replies
25
Views
1K
Replies
11
Views
1K
Replies
36
Views
4K
Replies
15
Views
509
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top