Why is the big bang theory is doubtful?

Answer 1

The Big Bang theory is just that, a theory. Hence, the Big Bang theory. It has not been proven any more than the creation theory has. We have no irrefutable proof that it ever happened. This is what makes the theory so exciting as an inspiration for other work. The quest is for evidence that supports or refutes the theory as we understand it; that is how science works. Sometimes refuting evidence is found when it was not being actively sought, causing crises in the scientific community. Technically speaking, creationism cannot be classed as a science theory. Scientific theories must, in principle, be able to be refuted by some experimental or observational means. This doesn't mean that all theories must be refuted. But there must be some methodology or framework that could in principle lead to a refutation, if the theory is in fact not true. Related to this is the fact that for adherents of creationism, creation is the one and only option; in principle, it is denied from the start that there could even possibly be a valid refutation of what is assumed to be true based on faith.

ADDITIONAL EDIT: I want to point out a flaw in this answer. The word theory has a very different meaning to scientists. Theory means in the scientific world: A model that is repeatably supported by evidence and fully explains all known phenomena. A theory is not just a series of lgoical guesses, this is a hypothesis, a theory is the pinnicle of scientific creadibility. The big bang theory is supported by multiple feilds of science and there is no expereimental data of any kind to suggest it is flawed. There is in fact a large amount in accordance with it. This does not mean it is infallible, theories are often revised in the light of new data. However, theory means it is very very well founded, creationism is not a theory under the scientific meaning of the word. It is a belief.

Answer 2

The big bang is a theory. That said it is the most likely theory scientists have formulated for the creation of the universe, not just our specific part of the universe i.e. Earth, but the whole universe. The Earth was created much later, billions of years after the big bang, during the formation of our solar system.

Answer 3

It's a theory.

In scientific terminology, laws describe observed facts: Two massive objects attract each other with a certain force... that's described by Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. An object orbiting another object sweeps out equal areas in equal times... that's Kepler's Second Law. They're purely mechanics and generally mathematical: "this equation describes what happens when".

Theories, on the other hand, are often concerned with WHY rather than WHAT. Things don't become theories until they've been tested and determined to fit the observed facts.

Answer 4

The Big Bang Theory is not "just a theory" in the same way the theory of gravity is "not just a theory"

The definition of a scientific theory is what confuses many ignorant people. In science, a theory is a body of information that explains natural phenomena, and is very well supported by evidence.

We have observed the Universe continuously expanding. We have also observed the cosmic microwave background radiation leftover from the Big Bang.

The Big Bang Theory is the prevailing model for the development of the early Universe and almost the entire scientific community accepts it due to the overwhelming evidence. Thus, it is safe to say that, even though we have never directly witnessed it, the Big Bang Theory is "more than just a theory". However, it has not been proven that it is correct, so it is not fact, it is still a theory.

Answer 5

Yes, that's why it's called a theory.

It's important to realize, however, that science uses the term "theory" in a different way than the general public. The popular meaning of "theory" is akin to "wild guess", while in science a theory is a posited explanation that is testable, backed by evidence, and predictive.

It's also important to realize that "big bang theory" does not purport to explain, in Alan Guth's words, "what banged, what happened before it banged, or what caused it to bang". It is best considered as a theory that, given the observational evidence that a bang apparently occurred, how do we get from the initial conditions implied by that bang to the current state of the Universe today?

Answer 6

Absolutely. You can always question *any* theory. The way to do that is to point out observations that it cannot adequately explain or show that predictions it makes do not conform with observation. Alternatively, you can advance a theory that explains the observations at least as well (and preferably better) and makes testable predictions that are at odds with Big Bang theory.

Remember that science is based on observation and evidence, and scientists are constantly looking for new observations and new tests which must fit with the theory. If not, the theory will either be modified or replaced.

Answer 7

Big bang theory has almost no doubt. The vast majority of physicists and astronomers accept the big bang theory (or slight variations thereof). All evidence yet observed supports a big bang model of the universe.

Some of the strongest evidence in support of a big bang is the data from the WMAP satellite. Big Bang theory predicts a cosmic microwave background with a perfect Planck blackbody spectrum. WMAP was able to observe exactly that during its scientific life from 2004-2007. The new Planck satellite, which is expected to release its first set of data soon, is likely to further confirm WMAP's results.

The Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB, is a nearly-isotropic 2.725 K signal which formed during the epoch of recombination (when the universe went from being mostly ionized to mostly neutral) approximately 300,000 years after the big bang.

The early universe was dense and hot. So hot, in fact, that it was impossible for neutral atoms to form; instead nearly all baryonic matter was in the form of ions, or charged particles. In an ionized universe, photons (light particles) travel only a short distance before being scattered by an ion. As the universe expanded and cooled, it became possible for neutral atoms to form. This is known as the epoch of recombination and occurred approximately 300,000 years after the big bang. Once the universe became neutral, photons could travel great distances without being scattered. In fact many photons have never been scattered since the universe became neutral. These photons have been traveling in a straight line ever since that "surface of last scattering" approximately 300,000 years after the big bang. By observing thsese photons, we can see a "picture" of what the universe looked like at the time of the surface of last scattering.

Answer 8

A theory [See related question] is a theory: until proven otherwise. In past years, it would have been called a LAW!! Boyles law, Newton's law of universal gravitation etc. However, theory in later years has been used instead of law, and as such, people have taken that to mean unproven.

Admittedly, it is impossible to prove that the big bang happened, nor that a god created the Universe - in The Bible, the Earth was created before the Sun - impossible to happen. A chocolate teapot on the far side of the Sun is a possibility but it can be proven not to exist.

So far, no other scientifically theory has come close to explaining the existence of the Universe, nor denouncing it - bar religion, which is based on nothing more than few old bits of rags and the passing of word by mouth.

So, given the facts of the big bang, there is no other theory (law) that has stood the passage of time, and has not been disproved.

For all we know, the Universe was sneezed out of the nostrils of a mutant star goat - it has the same credibility if you want to believe but can you back it up???

The big bang is the most credible and scientifically "proven" reason for the "existance" of the Universe.

If you feel otherwise, please add to the discussion area of the question.

Answer 9

"The theory of the universe" is a very nebulous phrase.

The Big Bang theory is one explanation of how (not why) the Universe began.

Answer 10

Not exactly, it is a theory about the origin of the Universe; which does include the Solar system...