Big Bang Theory no longer a theory?

[THE Bigzoman]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/i...ational-waves/

IF this holds to skepticism in the scientific community, it will provide a great leap in human understanding of the universe.

[zorkuus]

A theory will always remain a theory in science.

[Rukentuts]

It's not scientific law, so it's a theory. Theories have proven evidence that has been thoroughly replicated.

[Aeriel]

Depends on whether they can evidence gravitons as well. Gravitons might be capable of altering space enough to give a similar pattern depending on how they actually interact with matter/space/time/energy/etc. Anywho. Interesting series of detections though. Ten years later and LIGO still hasn't shown much...

[THE Bigzoman]

It's not scientific law, so it's a theory. Theories have proven evidence that has been thoroughly replicated.

Not entirely familiar with the terms. But a discovery of this nature could make it transcend proven/replicated evidence into just fact.

[Aeriel]

Not entirely familiar with the terms. But a discovery of this nature could make it transcend proven/replicated evidence into just fact.

Accepted fact can still be a theory. Something must be repeatedly proven in all possible scenarios to pass from theory to law. For instance: Einstein's Theories of Relativity have been repeatedly proven, but there are still postulates that have not been proven. It is still a theory, not a law.

[zorkuus]

Not entirely familiar with the terms. But a discovery of this nature could make it transcend proven/replicated evidence into just fact.

Theories don't become facts, they contain them. And a theory never transcends into anything else either because a theory is the highest science can achieve, it can only become a more well understood theory.

Something must be repeatedly proven in all possible scenarios to pass from theory to law

Again a theory may contain laws, it doesn't become a law. A theory is the framework where everything conserning a subject is put together... laws, facts, evidence etc.

[Kraenen]

a theory is the best thing in science. there's no such thing as "just a theory" in science. If it's a theory, it by definition has strong, replicated, empirical support. I think "laws" are forgetting basic skepticism and passing into a particular realism that assumes to know inner workings of the natural world.

[thatmikeguy]

How is there any sort of "bang" without any parts? If you go back far enough, where do those first parts come from? Nothing? Another bang?

[Aeriel]

Theories don't become facts, they contain them. And a theory never transcends into anything else either because a theory is the highest science can achieve, it can only become a more well understood theory.

There are physical laws. Law of Universal Gravitation. Law of Conservation of Mass. Law of Conservation of Momentum. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics. Murphy's Law.

However, repeated testing in extraneous conditions "proves" them beyond theory. Also electrons/protons/neutrons/photons have gone beyond being "theoretical" and into factual. It's kind of a matter of how much contention there is on a subject, but that's the simplest term. The 5 sigma test is the clearest way of passing theory.

- - - Updated - - -

a theory is the best thing in science.

A theory is an accepted hypothesis. However, a theory can be readily disproven by a second test.
Basically it goes like this (an arrow representing a round of testing):
hypothesis -> theory -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> law

[THE Bigzoman]

How is there any sort of "bang" without any parts? If you go back far enough, where do those first parts come from? Nothing? Another bang?

An infinite loop of resources. Or possibly aliens.

[Vivapin8]

How is there any sort of "bang" without any parts? If you go back far enough, where do those first parts come from? Nothing? Another bang?

From the Multiverse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

[zorkuus]

However, repeated testing in extraneous conditions "proves" them beyond theory.

What is the law that "proves" the germ theory of disease beoynd theory?

[THE Bigzoman]

From the Multiverse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

The MEGAVERSE "In Luna voice"

[Kraenen]

There are physical laws. Law of Universal Gravitation. Law of Conservation of Mass. Law of Conservation of Momentum. The Three Laws of Thermodynamics. Murphy's Law.

However, repeated testing in extraneous conditions "proves" them beyond theory. Also electrons/protons/neutrons/photons have gone beyond being "theoretical" and into factual. It's kind of a matter of how much contention there is on a subject, but that's the simplest term. The 5 sigma test is the clearest way of passing theory.

- - - Updated - - -



A theory is an accepted hypothesis. However, a theory can be readily disproven by a second test.
Basically it goes like this (an arrow representing a round of testing):
hypothesis -> theory -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> -> law

I'm curious, what makes a theory turn into a law except for replication/validation?

[Aeriel]

How is there any sort of "bang" without any parts? If you go back far enough, where do those first parts come from? Nothing? Another bang?

The theory is that all matter was compressed to a single point, or consider it as energy is infinite and matter is 0. Eventually the universe will continue to expand until no matter interacts with any other, and energy becomes 0. At this point the universe begins to contract again, until all matter becomes a single point again. Then BANG another universe is born.

People need to watch more Futurama!

[belfpala]

A theory never becomes not-a-theory just because it's verified by observation.

A theory never becomes a Law. A Law says "stuff falls down." A theory says "massive bodies attract each other."

[THE Bigzoman]

The theory is that all matter was compressed to a single point, or consider it as energy is infinite and matter is 0. Eventually the universe will continue to expand until no matter interacts with any other, and energy becomes 0. At this point the universe begins to contract again, until all matter becomes a single point again. Then BANG another universe is born.

People need to watch more Futurama!

The question was never intended to put scrutiny upon the theory and the merits behind it. The core of the question, when asked, is why is there something rather then nothing.

[Aeriel]

I'm curious, what makes it turn into a theory into a law except for replication/validation?

Full acceptance as a rule. There's A LOT of contention on that one. If it is repeatedly demonstrated, and no one can come up with exceptions, then it becomes a law. But yeah. Get a group of any kind to agree on something. That's what there are so few physical laws. Also a theory that can be proven without postulates and corollaries tends to have a better chance.

[Vivapin8]

The MEGAVERSE "In Luna voice"

Also check the CMB cold spot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot

A controversial claim by Laura Mersini-Houghton is that it could be the imprint of another universe beyond our own, caused by quantum entanglement between universes before they were separated by cosmic inflation.[16] Laura Mersini-Houghton said, "Standard cosmology cannot explain such a giant cosmic hole" and made the remarkable hypothesis that the WMAP cold spot is "… the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own." If true, this provides the first empirical evidence for a parallel universe (though theoretical models of parallel universes existed previously).