Theory vs fact

[Brian W (Brian)]

(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.

That was me . No offense taken. My wife will tell you that I am often wrong, well perhaps not too often. I first responded to this thread with the suggestion that if someone was having trouble with the BBT they might enjoy looking at string theory. Not because I see it as answering everything and being absolutely correct but simply because it offers an interesting alternative. If the best and the brightest do not all agree it would be less than prudent for me to say I have THE TRUTH. Just seems to me that it is an interesting alternative.
Brian

[AGarvin]

That is exactly where the B.B. T. loses me. to have something come out of nothing is to me not understandable.

I think this is a common misunderstanding of BB theory. The theory is not about the origin of the universe, it's about the evolution of the universe. It explains how the universe evolves over time, not how it began. The name is also misleading as the theory really only states that the universe gets denser and hotter the further back in time you go. There simply isn't (yet) a theory on the origin of the universe.

The way I see it is that we have theories, such as general relativity, that best explain what we see, so we use them, and these theories often lead to predictions such as black holes. I don't however think the science community considers them as fact, just that they are the ones that for now best explain observation and therefore all we have until they are either refined or replaced. The question seems to be how much supporting evidence does a theory have?

A similiar question was raised on the BAUT forums a while ago and an interesting point was raised in that many theories should not be (but often are) considered explanations of physical reality. The example used was general relativity (GR) and the expanding universe. How we can say space is actually expanding when we don't even know what space physically is? We can't. We just have a theory that allows us to treat the distances between galaxies beyond gravities reach as increasing the further out you go and this matches observation. The words "space" and "expanding" however should not be taken literally as space itself doesn't have a clear physical definition.

Andrew.

[Bassnut (Fred)]

A problem this thread raises is the inadequacy of the English language in describing the meaning of obscure, counter-intuative concepts such as 10 dimensional space, the concept of "before" the BB, given time started then rendering "before" meaningless, and "something" out of "nothing". Math does this eloquently (apparently ;-). But for us plebs trying to get our heads around this, common "language" is woefully inadequate.

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Andrew,
I’ll have to disagree with you there, BB does indeed talk about origins, it may be polite in some circles not to mention that, but it does. The modern BB theory and variations all talk about space and time being created as the singularity expanding. Your correct to an extent in that the cause of the initial expansion is speculative, maybe quantum flux…. Or whatever. Maybe a refined GUT theory will shed some light on it. I talked about string theory just to explore the thread a bit. I think it will come to something.
No for the juicy part Space, what is space? Well the fact is we don’t know, just as we don’t know what time is. But don’t let that bother you; the fun part is trying to find out. As we do, don’t feel as though we can’t make some statements about what we do know and what we don’t, hell and don’t worry if we get it wrong ever now and then.
If your anything like me 20 years ago you could open a cars bonnet and work on it, now you just scratch your head on wait for the RAA. None the less you can still use the car to go to the shop and back. What I’m trying to say don’t think we need to fully understand something before we can make use of the knowledge we have got of it.
The truth is the pace of science has not slowed down. It’s actually become overwhelming. If we made a song and dance out of every discovery like we did in say the 19-century, Science would be a non-stop party.
While it may seem like we haven’t made must progress in the field of physics, scientist have filled in a lot of gaps. We have also narrowed the gap time between mathematical theories to experimental fact in many areas.
One last thing it’s important to also remember that theories can also be fact’s and can be treated as facts for all intents and proposes simple because scientist are human. It makes it much easy to work with an idea if you do..

oh PS As for somthing out of nothing, where do new ideas come from? Do thought's have more or less substance then space or time!!!!!

[Bassnut (Fred)]

"space" is certainly not nothing. One of the glaring paradoxes in Physics is the difference in calculated and "observed" energy pervading "empty" space, a difference in the order of 10 to the pwr of 100. Just goes to show how much we dont know ;-).

[AGarvin]

Hi Kenny,

I’ll have to disagree with you there, BB does indeed talk about origins, it may be polite in some circles not to mention that, but it does. The modern BB theory and variations all talk about space and time being created as the singularity expanding

I'll have to disagree with your disagreement . BB theory does not define the origin of the universe, under any variation, nor was it ever meant to. It explains the evolution of the universe from the Planck time onwards as this is the point that general relativity becomes a valid theory (BB theory is a solution to the equations of GR). Once you get below the Planck scale you need another theory (which we don't yet have) as GR doesn't go there.

There are many references to this. Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos is one source where he states:

A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn’t. The big bang is a theory, partly described in the last two chapters, that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it banged, or, frankly, whether it ever really banged at all

Here's another well referenced paper by Bjorn Feuerbacher and Ryan Scranton.

I does however talk about origins in the sense it explains the origin of the light elements, their abundance, cosmic structure etc ..... it just doesnt explain the origin of the universe itself.

Andrew.

[Brian W (Brian)]

oh PS As for somthing out of nothing, where do new ideas come from? Do thought's have more or less substance then space or time!!!!![/quote]

New ideas? Thats an interesting idea. I would suggest that it is only possible to have the thoughts / ideas that your culture has prepared you to have. One can only ask the questions that are acceptable to your world view. Any new idea I have ever heard of has been built upon a long long list of previous ideas. Fancy term for it is 'Interdependent origination'. Simply put every effect has a cause.

As for your second question I will leave that too better minds than mine.
Brian

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

All the theories are made up. We are actually ALL in the Trueman Show.

But seriously, I find all the theories interesting. It keeps our minds active. I don't have to agree with any of them, but an active mind is a healthy mind, and healthy minds are the ones that keep researching and testing theories.

It's good to study all sides, not just say "that's crap, I can't believe that". Read about it, expand your mind, then you may have some knowledge to back up 'why' do don't believe a theory. But 'not believing' doesn't disprove it either.

Who knows, every theory could be nowhere near the truth.

Just my 98c worth. (the exchange rate keeps fluctuating )

[Nightshift]

LOL, Im glad I started this thread, it certainly is a challenging topic to which most of us have differences of opinion on.

I do just want to say one thing though, it has been said a few times in these posts that

"these theories often lead to predictions such as black holes. I don't however think the science community considers them as fact,"

I disagree, when a scientific publication puts to press an article written by noted astronomical scientist(s), which they do in every months offerings, that makes comments like "Giant black hole is consuming" and "gravitational forces are so powerful they must come from a black hole" and my favourite one, "This Galaxy has at its centre a massive black hole", then the scientific community IS stating this as fact and consider that they do indeed exist.

Dennis.

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Hi Dennis
Can you explain reasons why do you think that Black holes do not exist? By its nature it is not possible to observe Black Hole directly. But there is number of instances when observations detected cloud of the gas spiralling towards nothing visible and emitting X – ray radiation as predicted for Black hole scenario. After all neutron stars do exist and can be verified. The Black hole is just remains more massive star that formed neutron star

[avandonk]

Nightshift can I simply say to you, why are you trolling with standard fudamentalist FUD?

What do you not understand about science? You imply that scientific theory is less believable than any dogma that has no basis in reality.

You are using semantics to imply that because science calls its best current belief systems based on experimental data 'theories' that they have no validity.

I am sorry if I have offended you if I am wrong.

If you are too ignorant to see that you are missing the the basic knowledge to even start to argue, again I am sorry.

To compare facts with theories is a pathetic attempt at clouding any real issues. It is purely an exercise in semantics.

Bert

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Nightshift said
“I disagree, when a scientific publication puts to press an article written by noted astronomical scientist(s), which they do in every months offerings, that makes comments like "Giant black hole is consuming" and "gravitational forces are so powerful they must come from a black hole" and my favourite one, "This Galaxy has at its centre a massive black hole", then the scientific community IS stating this as fact and consider that they do indeed exist.”

Well it’s a practical point really how do you think they should put it. Turn "This Galaxy has at its centre a massive black hole" into observation show there is a large mass at the centre of our galaxy that according to a our current understanding of physics must be a black hole!! Not only would that make every scientific article a chore to read, it would also convey to the reader that scientist where less then confident about they’re understanding. I mean where would this stop, should we have a statement like that every time we mention the theory of relativity? Or QED what about the so-called laws of gravity which we know are actually wrong!!.
No I think your being unreasonable to expect some sort of disclaimer in front of every scientific theory given that the premise is implied in the scientific method itself.

[Outbackmanyep]

I have a headache......

[AGarvin]

I disagree, when a scientific publication puts to press an article written by noted astronomical scientist(s), which they do in every months offerings, that makes comments like "Giant black hole is consuming" and "gravitational forces are so powerful they must come from a black hole" and my favourite one, "This Galaxy has at its centre a massive black hole", then the scientific community IS stating this as fact and consider that they do indeed exist.

I think when dealing with any theory one must understand what is really being said and not take it beyond the theories limits.

A black hole is a product of general relativity, and the singularity at the centre is not a physical thing, it’s a mathematical singularity; a point where the mathematics of the theory fail and the theory ceases. The theory predicts its existence, observation indicates its existence, but the theory says nothing about what it actually is in a real physical sense. Black holes are a prime example as we simply don’t yet have a theory to describe matter at these densities, hence the ongoing search for a theory of quantum gravity.

So when the “scientific community” says “it’s a black hole”, one must understand what is meant by the term “black hole”?

Andrew.

[xelasnave]

Well the reason why the "theory" is called big bang is that was the unkind name given by Fred Hoyle who as I understand stood in the "steady state" camp.
He did not mean it as any way complimentary but the name stuck.
So at that stage it was a competing theory whereas today the steady state has been kicked out primarily because of the cosmic background radiation finding.

I dont like the big bang becasue without "inflation" is sinks ...and "inflation" could hardley be called a testable theory... and it asks for a leap in logic I can not get my mind around... I dont buy all we see and more grew to such size in 30 odd seconds... but I dont think there is any experiement to establish inflation ... so it is an idea offerred to support the big bang.

black holes are "there" in theory as a result of a vast extrapolation in math ...so they look expecting them ... like so many things with any theory you can find what you expect if you are looking for it...and so I wonder about the marriage of facts to explaination sometimes.

I can not see any black hole capable of generating the jets they see and prefer instead a massive bianary star system which I believe will show the same apparent gravitation... certainly a binary system will generate the vortexual jets whether you go for the concept of frame dragging or not...

The lack of an understanding of gravity in working out any answer seems likely to fail... the (non existent) force of attraction will not hold galaxies in place and clearly there is an external pushing force ... yet no one is explaining this major aspect from which many other answers will come.other than to introduce a mythical unseen substance.."dark matter"... and it is supposed to make up a greater portion of everything and we can not see it..yeh well I dont buy it..if there is so much of it out there why do we not have a trailer load full of it..trying to solve the problems with general relativity sees the need for in effect more mass..hence dark matter is invented.. it is spoken about as if it is a fact..personally I doubt it... as even if you admit it ..it will not solve the problems it was invented to fix...in my view.

I can not see the big deal with string theory or general relativity as to me all they seem to do is to put "space" into a geometric form to describe how matter may behave within that "grid"..space time is a grid of space whereby we seek to fit the three dimentions we understand in to a context of vast distance where the speed of light becomes relevant to action at a distance...

but as far as I can tell nothing seeks to show how gravity works and how could it be related to the external push that makes galaxies spin faster than they should or holds them together as a unit... dark matter is offerred to fix the problems but if gravity is limited to C then no matter how much dark matter you add to a galaxiy the problem will not go away... the problem with the faster spin will still be there and you will still be forced to admit that the force holding the galaxy in place can only be indeed external.

AND so as not to upset anybody this is my philosophy as I am not a scientist, but my ideas are based on my humble observations of what is available to me..
alex

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

It is a human trait, dictated by our limited understanding of the cosmos. A Black Hole, Dark matter etc is called so because we cannot directly see the object, only its effects. It fits the present theories, but someday there will be an observation of some effect that does not fit and the theory will change. Its how we have advanced in our understanding and it will continue as long as our race exists. The facts are the effects, the reason for them is the theory.

Just my 2 bobs worth ( I'm still going metric)

Bill

[Nightshift]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Nightshift can I simply say to you, why are you trolling with standard fudamentalist FUD?

What do you not understand about science? You imply that scientific theory is less believable than any dogma that has no basis in reality.

You are using semantics to imply that because science calls its best current belief systems based on experimental data 'theories' that they have no validity.

I am sorry if I have offended you if I am wrong.

If you are too ignorant to see that you are missing the the basic knowledge to even start to argue, again I am sorry.

To compare facts with theories is a pathetic attempt at clouding any real issues. It is purely an exercise in semantics.

Bert

Wow Bert, lighten up, broaden your mind, go back to my first post and read it again, you missed an awful lot, threads like this one are not supposed to be confrontational, read the posts, they are really interesting, except yours, it's just rude. I never once said I didnt believe in black holes, I said, why are they pedalled as fact, when thy are not proven, as is many other scientific theories, in the absence of a better proven theory this one fits the current understanding, but I am not silly enough to have blind faith in it, and neither should any one else, imagine if it is wrong and no one is looking for the right facts, everything is questionable, question everything, its how we learn.

Dennis.

[Brian W (Brian)]

Originally Posted by Glenhuon

The facts are the effects, the reason for them is the theory.

Just my 2 bobs worth ( I'm still going metric)

Bill

I went metric and its a lot simpler when it comes to doing money math.

I am tempted to turn the above quote 180 degrees. I would suggest that as it is possible to discern the reasons for an effect that the reasons would be the 'facts'. I would also point out that it is extremely difficult to find all the effects proceeding from a given cause or causes which would make the effect the theory. The best you can say is that given cause or causes 'A' this effect or these effects have been observed this time. Never a guaranty that you have found all the effects and never a guaranty you will always find the same effect or effects the next time.

Brian

[Zuts]

Originally Posted by Brian W

The best you can say is that given cause or causes 'A' this effect or these effects have been observed this time. Never a guaranty that you have found all the effects and never a guaranty you will always find the same effect or effects the next time.

Brian

The fact is that scientific experiments which 'prove' a theory are only deemed to be good experiments if they are independently verifiable and reproducible.

This is 180 degrees to what you posit, i.e if 'never a guaranty you will always find the same effect or effects the next time' was true of a particular experiment which 'proved' a theory then that particular experiment would be discounted.

Paul

[xelasnave]

Here is a site if anyone is interested

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

alex