Theory vs fact

[Nightshift]

Is there anyone here who doesnt believe in the big bang theory or black holes?

I'm curious, there is some very good mathemeatical models that are the basis of many astronomical theories that are taunted around and discussed as if they are known fact. I have never observed nor met an observer of a black hole, indeed I like the theories behind black holes and everything suggests that they should exist, but correct me if I am wrong, no one has ever actually proven their existance nor the existance of any event horizon so why do we discuss them as if they are undeniable fact?

The big bang theory has a good foundation also but this is one I just can't subscribe to, it just doesnt make sense to me. Again though it is discussed in publications as if it is fact. This and many other theories.

I read about the British decision to withdraw from the Gemini telescope project based on a budget defecit and spiraling costs, this is indeed a shame but why would a government keep funding (at great cost) scientific research when the scientists all banter about theories that mean nothing to any one and are not proven fact. Is this the best that the governments billions can come up with? Is it really that the only fundamental functioning development of the space age is Velcro? I know to find answers you have to spend money but thats all we astronomers do, spend money.

The scientific community needs to start proving theories rather than endorsing them as fact, I fear that the funding cuts are becoming more widespread simply because astronomy isnt providing the population with any tangeable outcomes. Just more questions than we started with.

What's your thoughts on this?

Dennis.

[edwardsdj (Doug)]

So many people misunderstand science. Science deals in theories supported by observations. If you are looking for irrefutable truths, turn to religion.

If there are observations that contradict a scientific theory, then that theory will eventually be abandoned.

Black holes and the big bang theory fit with a vast body of observation evidence. Different theories may well emerge in the future that better describe the observations but at present there is no significant observational evidence to contradict either the General Theory of Relativity or the Big Bang theory.

People who endorse scientific theories as fact really don't understand science. Science attempts to describe nature. If nature doesn't fit with the theory, the theory is wrong. This is why science evolves over time as new and more powerful theories emerge.

My two cents

Have fun,
Doug

[Brian W (Brian)]

Hi,
As you are having trouble with the 'Big Bang Theory' do a little surfing and explore 'String Theory'. Not to say that it is absolutely right but it does give an interesting view of the Universe(s) we inhabit. However it is perhaps best to remember that there are very few 'facts' in science, and those that we have are very hard to prove. if you want to have some fun with a simple fact explore the mathematical proof that 1 + 1 = 2.
Brian

[edwardsdj (Doug)]

Ah, string theory. Now this is one that is supported by no evidence whatsoever. Hey, lets ramp up the number of dimensions to 10 or even 20 and look at how many extra degrees of freedom we have to play with. You can describe anything with a theory like that. You also get all these extra dimensions that you have to find a nifty was to close up again to remove those extra degrees of freedom to what we observe.

There is definately no experimental evidence for anything other than four space-time dimensions. To me this contradicts string theory immediately.

There is a very useful process in science called Occam's Razor. Anything supurfluous goes and the simplest explanation is what stands the test of time. When string theory started it was thought to be a simple explanation of what seemed like a very complicated situation. After a few decades of work on it it seems like a very complicated solution in deed.

To me the current obsession with string theory is one of the major reasons that fundamental physics hasn't made much progress in recent decades.

[Brian W (Brian)]

You are correct that there is no proof for string theory and that bringing in multiple dimensions does open things up a wee bit. The main trouble I have with the Big Bang is that, as I understand it, there is a beginning. I have trouble with what was before the beginning. String Theory needs no beginning. (again as I understand it). Applying the razor leaves me with at least the core of the simpler idea... the universe(s) are infinite.

To me (from a Buddhist perspective, not to proselytize or to get into a religious debate, just to let you understand my world view) the idea of infinity is quite acceptable.

However for me the bottom line is that cosmology attempts to explain what we experience and as important as it may be to truly understand what we see I am just happy to see.

String Theory may indeed be a dead end but probably not a waste of time in that it allows for and perhaps even demands out of the box thinking.

Brian

[edwardsdj (Doug)]

String theory was not the first to propose extra dimensions. Kaluza-Klein theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza-Klein_theory was first published in 1921 in an attempt to unify general relativity with electromagnetism in five space-time dimensions.

The problem with these theories is that by adding additional dimensions you create more freedom and many more possible solutions. Many of these solutions don't correspond to anything observed so the challenge is to "compactify" the extra dimensions to take the unobserved stuff back out again.

Sounds very complicated to me. If there was any evidence of the extra dimensions I'd become a subscriber to higher dimensional theories like string theory immediately.

[Kokatha man]

The scientific community needs to start proving theories rather than endorsing them as fact, I fear that the funding cuts are becoming more widespread simply because astronomy isnt providing the population with any tangeable outcomes. Just more questions than we started with.

What's your thoughts on this?

Dennis.

Interesting little discussion fellas - reminds me of a quote I used in an inscription for one of my public sculptures: "Knowledge expands our sense of wonder" aka "The more we understand, the less we know."

Someone told me that the Judeo-christian bible has something analogous: not subscribing personally to that ethos, I'm unsure as to the veracity of such (but maybe oneday I'll subscribe to the purchase of a secondhand 13mm ethos!)

However, I do know that within (our) Aboriginal lores this aphorism is widely articulated; hence my using it on the aforesaid sculpture. I have no problems with "The Big Bang" concept et al as an articulation/analogy of events and fail to see why some sort of stasis has to be inflicted upon it: the "what happened before the bang" perspective - to me it would seem more complementary to see such as "pulsing/oscillating" through infinity.

Having said such, it is a conceptualization: in our cultures it is one of the inferred associations/references within the ubiquitous spiral/concentric rings symbols.

As to spending to expose questions: too much policy and its' effects nowadays seems orientated towards suppressing said.

Regards, Darryl.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

The big Bang theory is a theory developed to best fit the know facts, to describe the current, future and past state of the universe as such it also deals with the origin of the universe. Lets not get into religion here, but when it comes to the big bang, asking what happened before the big bang, demonstrates you don't understand it. Nothing was before the big bang, not even time.
String "theory" on the other hand is an idea that tries to resolve shortcomings in the standard model of atomic physics. Particle physics and more importantly quantum physics has been spectacular at sorting out three of the four fundamental forces. However it has not been able to include gravity. String "theory" is trying to do that, the main problem with string theory, as I understand it, is it doesn't make any predictions that are testable. People are trying hard to come up with some though and maybe they will and maybe they will not.

I guess the important thing here for this thread though is to understand what a theory is in the scientific world as apposed to the normal world. In the everyday world a theory is generally seen as a speculative idea about how something may work. Where in the science world it's an idea based on facts. To take your no one ever seen a black hole a bit further, no one has seen a planet around another star or even proven that the sun is powered by thermo-nuclear fusion!! Hell no one has proven that plate tectonics will create mountains. I mean have you ever seen a mountain range form? If you want to understand the benefits of astronomy then just think about GPS the fact that Europe will not have it’s own version is of little concern really. I mean why spend all that money when there is already a system that works fine and guess what it’s free.

[Brian W (Brian)]

That is exactly where the B.B. T. loses me. to have something come out of nothing is to me not understandable. My limited brain functions require something to come out of something. However if you can mathematically prove to me that something can come out of nothing please do. But until that proof is supplied my 'leap of faith' goes towards something out of something.
Brian

[avandonk]

Here is a proposed method for experimentally testing string theory. It looks to be costly as it needs a very large array of radio telescopes to measure the neutral Hydrogen emmission perturbations. More here

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0128113207.htm

Would you board a modern complex aircraft designed by blind faith, or do you prefer the ones designed by scientific methods? Which would you trust with your life?


Bert

[sheeny (Al)]

I think I just have to re-iterate... science has few "facts"... plenty of theories though. And each theory is only as good as it matches observations, or predicts observable phenomena. So there are few "facts" at the cutting edge of science - that's why it works. If it isn't good enough, think of something better and test it.

I know how I like my planes built!



Al.

[avandonk]

Something comes out of nothing everywhere in the Universe all the time. They are 'virtual' particles that exist fleetingly due to quantum effects. It can be measured. Just google Casimir effect.

Hawking has postulated that these particle pairs near a black hole would lead to one being captured by the black hole and the other would then have no way of disappearing by recombining. Matter from nowhere and nowhen!

Bert

[Karls48 (Karl)]

I don’t think that Big Bang theory says there was nothing before it. It imply that because everything that is the universe we know come to existence with Big Bang we can not know what, if anything existed before Big Bang.
I do have problem to believe that space expanded and that it keeps expanding. That seems to imply to me that space itself is just another transformation of mater or energy.
Black holes, well if neutron stars exist I can not see reason that if very massive star collapses why it could not compress its core to form black hole

[Brian W (Brian)]

The Aero Coupe was an aircraft that was scientifically designed to be the safest light aircraft of its day because it would not stall. Problem was that it was so safe it killed an awful lot of pilots when it just dropped out of the sky because the pilot was flying to slow. Good theory bad practical.
Brian

[Brian W (Brian)]

This looks enlightening.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Something comes out of nothing everywhere in the Universe all the time. They are 'virtual' particles that exist fleetingly due to quantum effects. It can be measured. Just google Casimir effect.

Hawking has postulated that these particle pairs near a black hole would lead to one being captured by the black hole and the other would then have no way of disappearing by recombining. Matter from nowhere and nowhen!

Bert

I did as you suggested and looked up casimir effect. Could not find anything about something out of nothing but there was a lot about an attracting force and photons. Maybe i need to read more?
Brian

[Zuts]

Originally Posted by Brian W

I did as you suggested and looked up casimir effect. Could not find anything about something out of nothing but there was a lot about an attracting force and photons. Maybe i need to read more?
Brian

Hi,

Try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization it talks about one form of particle creation.

Paul

[Zuts]

Hi,

When i was a boy i had a penguin science dictionary which used to talk about the theory of anti matter particles. These days they can make the stuff by the gram.

Maybe string theory will be the same, who knows.

As far as only beleiving things that you can see and touch, what does that actually mean. I can see and touch my telescope but in reality it is composed of atoms in various quantum states and my view of it is only correct on the macro level. There are many other levels at which one could describe the reality of my telescope.

The common sense view is unfortunately a human perceptional view and generally only has meaning in human terms, it's not much use when dealing with the micro.

Paul

[joe_smith]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Would you board a modern complex aircraft designed by blind faith, or do you prefer the ones designed by scientific methods? Which would you trust with your life?
Bert

But with all the variables of keeping that modern complex aircraft in the air, you just have to have faith that nothing happens as all the scientific methods on the planet wont stop it falling out of the sky

[DJDD]

Originally Posted by KenGee

I guess the important thing here for this thread though is to understand what a theory is in the scientific world as apposed to the normal world. In the everyday world a theory is generally seen as a speculative idea about how something may work. Where in the science world it's an idea based on facts.

This is a good point. The word "theory" is bandied about too much in the popular media and this leads to confusion especially when a scientist is interviewed, etc.

I see two problems with the premise for this thread:

1. There are so many people conducting scienctific research now that it is impossible to keep up with, and know about, all the results; and

2. Let's face it, the universe is complex at all scales and we cannot assume that because something cannot be described to a lay person in simple terms that it is incorrect. Or, that because a particular lay person does not understand a concept that the concept is incorrect.

NOT pointing fingers at anyone so please do NOT take offense.

Just some examples:
(a) for point 1 (so many things to know)-
I read a New Scientist article some time ago about a researcher that had simultaneously observed the wave and particle nature of light! well, close, anyway, in that the particle nature was observed and the wave properties were inferred simultaneously. Not sure what has come of it but imagine if I had not read that, then would I think it was impossible? (leading to Point 2, perhaps).

And what about GPS- this leads to observational proof of the General Theory of Relativity. Now, until something better comes along, other than refinements, then the General Theory of Relativity gets my vote.

(b) for point 2
Someone in the thread remarked, "That is exactly where the B.B. T. loses me. to have something come out of nothing is to me not understandable. My limited brain functions require something to come out of something." and "But until that proof is supplied my 'leap of faith' goes towards something out of something.".

But the universe is complex and what one person does not understand another might, and this does not make the concept incorrect.

Example (b) also highlights Point 1 as a subsequent poster referred to virtual/real particle pairs, which are well-established fact but until one knew about them then it could be assumed that it is not a fact but a "theory".

I have been reading Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" so my head is in this space at the moment.

NOT pointing fingers at anyone so please do NOT take offense.

anyway, just my $1's worth (inflation) and a bit of a ramble.


cheers,
DJDD