Lecture: Big Bang Theory (Science Gallery, Dublin, 10 June)

bnt

Since questions of the origin of the Universe come up here occasionally, I thought that I should post details of this lecture here. It's being organised by the Alchemist Cafe, and is to be held at the Science Gallery in Dublin (near Pearse station). 10 June, 8PM, Finger Food. :pac:

The Big Bang: fact or fiction?
Dr Cormac O’Raifeartaigh of the Waterford Institute of Technology discusses the origins of our universe. How old is the it? How did it come into being?
The Big Bang model of the origin of the universe is one of the most famous of all scientific theories. But is it just a theory or established fact? The evidence for the Big Bang will be reviewed in this session, and the limitations of the model explained. Recent discoveries that have revolutionized our view of the universe will also be discussed.

The speaker has a website: here.

Zillah

"Just a theory". Ugh. Not encouraging.

pljudge321

I think technically it should be referred to as the Big Bang cosmological model, referring to it as a theory just reinforces the perception that all the scientific theories are "just theories", rather then the facts that they are.

Well, technically, it is a theory. In the same way that evolution, cell theory, atomic theory, plate tectonics, relativity and QFT (etc. etc.) are all theories. The problem doesn't lie with the word theory; it lies with peoples miscomprehension of the meaning of the word in a scientific context. The person giving the lecture mentioning the word in his introduction or whatever hasn't done anything wrong.

pljudge321

I'd disagree with putting the big bang on the same level as the other theories you have mentioned. There are still many fundamental parts of the model that have yet to be resolved before elevating it to the same league as atomic theory or evolution.

I suppose it would be analogous to abiogenesis, we know it happened, we just don't know exactly how, we have detailed models, but they aren't all encompassing and some of the fundamental questions still have to be answered

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd view it to be damaging to the public's perception of science to place uncompleted models, where there is still serious fundamental debate going on, in the same league as say, electromagnetism or plate tectonics as you have mentioned.

Zillah

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

Well, technically, it is a theory. In the same way that evolution, cell theory, atomic theory, plate tectonics, relativity and QFT (etc. etc.) are all theories. The problem doesn't lie with the word theory; it lies with peoples miscomprehension of the meaning of the word in a scientific context. The person giving the lecture mentioning the word in his introduction or whatever hasn't done anything wrong.

My complaint was with the phrase "just" a theory, as if to imply a theory is merely a guess or hunch.

pljudge321

pljudge321 wrote: »

I'd disagree with putting the big bang on the same level as the other theories you have mentioned. There are still many fundamental parts of the model that have yet to be resolved before elevating it to the same league as atomic theory or evolution.

I suppose it would be analogous to abiogenesis, we know it happened, we just don't know exactly how, we have detailed models, but they aren't all encompassing and some of the fundamental questions still have to be answered

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'd view it to be damaging to the public's perception of science to place uncompleted models, where there is still serious fundamental debate going on, in the same league as say, electromagnetism or plate tectonics as you have mentioned.

I didn't say that it was on par with the other theories I mentioned. I said that it's a scientific theory in the same way that all of the others are (i.e. a model which combines various laws and theorems etc. into a somewhat predictable system).

But, I agree that it isn't on par with the others. It's just that wasn't my point.

Zillah wrote: »

My complaint was with the phrase "just" a theory, as if to imply a theory is merely a guess or hunch.

Oh right, I see. Yah I agree with you.

Abraham

Has a theory more cred than a belief ?

The Mad Hatter

Zillah wrote: »

My complaint was with the phrase "just" a theory, as if to imply a theory is merely a guess or hunch.

Whether that phrase was included or not, that's how most people would understand the word.

CerebralCortex

Abraham wrote: »

Has a theory more cred than a belief ?

In what context? In the scientific context there is no comparison. The two terms are unrelated.

Zillah

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Whether that phrase was included or not, that's how most people would understand the word.

And most people would be completely wrong if we're talking about a theory in the scientific sense. Hence using expressions such as "just a theory" only reinforces this ignorance.

Goduznt Xzst

Perhaps the phrasing is a hook for the doubting public? The use of "just a theory" could be used as a form of quotation of the common opinion held by people who don't accept the big bang theory.

Regardless, I'd imagine his conclusions will be a sight more telling. Is anyone planning on going to this?

bnt

That's my thinking too - get bums on seats by generating interest. Based on the speaker's credentials, I'm pretty confident that Creationism is not on the agenda.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

And most people would be completely wrong if we're talking about a theory in the scientific sense. Hence using expressions such as "just a theory" only reinforces this ignorance.

He asks the question: "But is it just a theory or established fact?" Pretty harmelss no??

Goduznt Xzst

Soul Winner wrote: »

He asks the question: "But is it just a theory or established fact?" Pretty harmelss no??

Well, it's more harmful than merely saying:

"But is it a theory or established fact?"

The inclusion of "just" gives the connotation that a theory is of little or less worth. But again, I think it was used to bait people who do hold the opinion that it is "just a theory"

Soul Winner

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Well, it's more harmful than merely saying:

"But is it a theory or established fact?"

The inclusion of "just" gives the connotation that a theory is of little or less worth. But again, I think it was used to bait people who do hold the opinion that it is "just a theory"

Well theories are just theories until they can be verified by multiple experimentation and testing. I agree that the word theory with regards to the Big Bang Model is a weak word as there are many observations that have verified and re-verified it.

CerebralCortex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well theories are just theories until they can be verified by multiple experimentation and testing. I agree that the word theory with regards to the Big Bang Model is a weak work as there are many observations that have verified and re-verified it.

Yes and I thought the still remained theories until a new method of experimentation updates to a newer or revised theory?

bnt

Quick bump / reminder: this is on tonight, 8PM at Science Gallery. Be there, or be somewhere else.

robindch

bnt wrote: »

be somewhere else.

...like the other excellent lecture on this evening, just across the road from the Science Gallery:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055580824

bnt

Well, I went to the Big Bang Theory lecture. I knew the basics, but I haven't been keeping up with recent developments, so it was nice to get a plain language overview of the Inflation theory and the Flatness Problem.

There was only one Creationism-related question from the audience, along the lines of "Could 'God' have kicked off the Big Bang?" The lecturer's answer was polite, but he basically said (paraphrased) "anyone can speculate, but when you start proposing that 'a god did it', I have to ask 'which one?', since there are conflicting religious origin stories". In short, he had no truck with Creationism.