So what is your favourite theory for the beginning of the universe

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the various theories regarding the beginning of the universe, specifically highlighting the Cyclic model and the Big Bang Theory. Participants emphasize the importance of precise terminology in scientific discourse, arguing that terms like "creation" should be replaced with "beginning" to avoid ambiguity. The conversation critiques the lack of empirical evidence for certain models, particularly the Cyclic model, and underscores the necessity of testable hypotheses in scientific inquiry.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of cosmological theories, specifically the Big Bang Theory and the Cyclic model.
  • Familiarity with scientific terminology and its implications in formulating questions.
  • Knowledge of empirical evidence and its role in validating scientific hypotheses.
  • Awareness of the concept of singularity in cosmology.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Big Bang Theory on the concept of singularity.
  • Explore the Cyclic model and its critiques regarding empirical evidence.
  • Study the importance of precise language in scientific communication.
  • Investigate the historical context and evolution of cosmological theories.
USEFUL FOR

Students of cosmology, science communicators, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of scientific theories regarding the universe's origin.

11jdodds
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Personally I like Cyclic model, what do you think is the most interesting, and which do you think is the most likely.Title is meant to say universe

As phinds has said the 'creation' of the universe is the wrong word, therefore I would like to replace it with the word 'beginning'
 
Last edited:
Space news on Phys.org
11jdodds said:
Personally I like Cyclic model, what do you think is the most interesting, and which do you think is the most likely.Title is meant to say universe
As far as I'm aware, the cyclic model says nothing about the CREATION of the universe, so you've given an invalid answer to your own question. That's the problem with turtles all the way down.
 
phinds said:
As far as I'm aware, the cyclic model says nothing about the CREATION of the universe, so you've given an invalid answer to your own question. That's the problem with turtles all the way down.
Cheers mate, however I am sure you know what I mean (do you not).
Also how would you word the question?
 
11jdodds said:
Cheers mate, however I am sure you know what I mean (do you not).
Also how would you word the question?
Proper formulation of questions is very important in science. Sloppy terminology evolves from and/or leads to sloppy thinking and wrong answers (or answers that are not to the question you thought you were asking). I KNOW this sounds pedantic as hell, but it has been demonstrated on this forum over and over again.

I would state the question as "the currently accepted theory of cosmology is the Big Bang Theory but it is silent on the question of what was going on / what happened at t=0 (the "singularity"). What do you think was going on / happened?"
 
Thank
phinds said:
Proper formulation of questions is very important in science. Sloppy terminology evolves from and/or leads to sloppy thinking and wrong answers (or answers that are not to the question you thought you were asking). I KNOW this sounds pedantic as hell, but it has been demonstrated on this forum over and over again.

I would state the question as "the currently accepted theory of cosmology is the Big Bang Theory but it is silent on the question of what was going on / what happened at t=0 (the "singularity"). What do you think was going on / happened?"
Thanks
 
In science we do not vote.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: nikkkom, jim mcnamara and ChrisVer
11jdodds said:
As phinds has said the 'creation' of the universe is the wrong word, therefore I would like to replace it with the word 'beginning'
In what way do you see "beginning" as being different than "creation"? I am NOT trying to be hard to get along with here, I am trying to help you understand that your question is actually vague.

You would be better off asking people which model they prefer, the Big Bang, the Steady State, Cyclic, and so forth. The BB is silent on the subject of a creation/beginning, the Steady State is thoroughly discredited, and the Cyclic has zero empirical evidence and in any case is also silent on the creation/beginning since it just uses the nifty copout of "eternal". I think there are probably others which also have zero empirical evidence but some supporters
 
Uh, I just realized this thread is in the intro section. This kind of thread does NOT belong in the intro section. I have reported it and suggested that it be moved.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
In science we do not vote.

We test a hypothesis. No testable hypothesis means nobody currently knows. I could posit something stupid: 'Before the universe came to be, there was a giant walrus. She gave birth to the Universe'. Aside from being ridiculous, there is no known way to test that statement. If indeed 'before' existed. So therefore the scientific answer is: nobody currently knows.

[rant]
Too many folks think that they can have any view they want about Science, and that because they think it, it is true. Or at least worthy of consideration. This problem of subjective science (as opposed to objective science) runs from major political figures who potentially make serious life-altering decisions, to the guy living on the park bench down the street.
[/rant]
 
  • #10
jim mcnamara said:
there is no known way to test that statement
I will give it a try. Where is that walrus now ?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K