
Big Bang Theory vs. Steady State Theory
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 952
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 5:51 am
Big Bang Theory vs. Steady State Theory
I notice wikipedia has an entry for Big Bang (theory) and for Steady State Theory. Strictly speaking, can both of these be theories, as in "a coherent group of tested propositions, commonly regarded as correct?" Doesn't one, both, have to be a hypothesis? I'm hoping a scientifically inclined person here can give me a clear, and not too erudite, answer. 

-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 6660
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am
Re: Big Bang Theory vs. Steady State Theory
The expansion of the universe was well as the microwave radiation in the background are more evidence for the Big Bang universe than the Steady State one. I am not sure anyone subscribes to the Steady State these days.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 1900
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:00 am
Re: Big Bang Theory vs. Steady State Theory
They are both theories because they were each at one time the prevailing theory. Steady state no longer is, while Big Bang is at the forefront.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 14190
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am
Re: Big Bang Theory vs. Steady State Theory
Here's another excellent example:
Caloric theory
The issue of why people stopped using caloric theory to talk about heat is historically quite complex,
Bur there is some truth in the simple version I was taught at school: crudely, there is only supposed to be a fixed amount of caloric available. You can move it around, but it doesn't come out of nowhere. Experiments showed, however, that if you turned a blunt borer in the barrel of a cannon immersed in water (so blunt that it just rubbed round and round without doing any boring, but heated up the metal of the cannon through friction), you could heat an unlimited amount of water by just running the machine forever. Hence, apparently, caloric could be produced from nowhere, which contradicts a key assumption of the theory.
According to some views of the nature of science, the fact that caloric theory made a prediction that could be proved wrong in this way did at least show it was a respectable scientific theory, even though it was a wrong one. People who hold this view would say that this is one of the differences between scientific propositions and religious ones, e.g.
A: God will make you better if you pray to be healed.
B: I prayed and I didn't get better, so your statement about God was false.
A: Well, that must be because you did not really pray to him with full faith in his healing power (etc. etc. ad infinitum)
A will never retract his proposition, whatever the counter-evidence. He just goes on and on adding ad hoc conditions to defend it against all threats from actual facts. In science one might be allowed to modify a theory to take account of new evidence a few times, especially if the result is a more general and interesting theory. But if you just keep tacking on extra conditions to deal with every new objection, the time will come when your colleagues will lose interest, you will cease to win research grants, and your articles will cease to be published in good journals.
Caloric theory
The caloric theory is an obsolete scientific theory that heat consists of a self-repellent fluid called caloric that flows from hotter bodies to colder bodies. Caloric was also thought of as a weightless gas that could pass in and out of pores in solids and liquids. The "caloric theory" was superseded by the mid-19th century in favor of the mechanical theory of heat, but nevertheless persisted in some scientific literature—particularly in more popular treatments—until the end of the 19th century.
The issue of why people stopped using caloric theory to talk about heat is historically quite complex,
Bur there is some truth in the simple version I was taught at school: crudely, there is only supposed to be a fixed amount of caloric available. You can move it around, but it doesn't come out of nowhere. Experiments showed, however, that if you turned a blunt borer in the barrel of a cannon immersed in water (so blunt that it just rubbed round and round without doing any boring, but heated up the metal of the cannon through friction), you could heat an unlimited amount of water by just running the machine forever. Hence, apparently, caloric could be produced from nowhere, which contradicts a key assumption of the theory.
According to some views of the nature of science, the fact that caloric theory made a prediction that could be proved wrong in this way did at least show it was a respectable scientific theory, even though it was a wrong one. People who hold this view would say that this is one of the differences between scientific propositions and religious ones, e.g.
A: God will make you better if you pray to be healed.
B: I prayed and I didn't get better, so your statement about God was false.
A: Well, that must be because you did not really pray to him with full faith in his healing power (etc. etc. ad infinitum)
A will never retract his proposition, whatever the counter-evidence. He just goes on and on adding ad hoc conditions to defend it against all threats from actual facts. In science one might be allowed to modify a theory to take account of new evidence a few times, especially if the result is a more general and interesting theory. But if you just keep tacking on extra conditions to deal with every new objection, the time will come when your colleagues will lose interest, you will cease to win research grants, and your articles will cease to be published in good journals.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 10274
- Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm
Re: Big Bang Theory vs. Steady State Theory
deacon blues wrote:I notice wikipedia has an entry for Big Bang (theory) and for Steady State Theory. Strictly speaking, can both of these be theories, as in "a coherent group of tested propositions, commonly regarded as correct?" Doesn't one, both, have to be a hypothesis? I'm hoping a scientifically inclined person here can give me a clear, and not too erudite, answer.
I'm not sure that the steady-state model ever got beyond the hypothesis stage. At some point, both the steady-state and the big bang were alternative hypothesis. When the data started rolling in, it confirmed the big bang and rejected the steady state. i'm not sure that the steady-state model was ever fleshed out in terms of how the continual creation of matter could occur.
I'm also not sure that "correctness" belongs in the definition of theory.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951