Why can't we call the big bang theory a fact??

Question

i don't want to hear anything like (emphasis on theory)

i need to know why

Answer 1

well do you know someone who was alive then to tell you about it?...i didn't think so  

Answer 2

because nobody was there to witness it as far as we know.

Answer 3

In the sense that the words are used in science, theories don't become facts.

A fact is a piece of information, such as g = 9.8 m/s^2. A theory is a logical construct that links facts together, explains processes, and makes predictions. The Big Bang theory is a complicated set of ideas that describe and explain the origin of the universe back as far as the Planck time, and which can be used to propose experiments whose results, in turn, can validate or falsify the theory.

Answer 4

While it is generally accepted, all the religious die hards we can't call it a fact. Also due to the fact that no one has seen the big bang happen. And lastly there is a couple issues with the big bang, see the source to read them.

Before anyone gives me thumbs downs I am a believer in the big bang and evolution

Answer 5

Theory is only a scientific model that attempts to explain past observations and experimental data, and predicts future behaviors of whatever it pertains to.

As such, let's take Copernicus's model of the Solar System. He was one of the early western astronomers to state that the planets orbited the Sun. Copernicus's theory was pretty good. It was a good fit for why the planets moved in the sky as they did, and was pretty good at predicting where they would be in the future. But it had flaws - Mars was a pesky lil' critter that didn't want to fit the pattern that the Copernican theory said it should.

The flaw was in the fact that Copernicus said the planets moved in a circle around the Sun. The truth is that they move in ellipses around it, and that the Sun also wobbles around its common center of gravity with the planets as they go around it.

So while Coppernicus had the big detail right - Earth not at the center - he missed other details, so his "theory" (there's not really an official Copernican theory that I remember at the moment) was updated.

Your mistake is a very common one. Most people hear the word "theory" and it means the same to them as what scientists refer to as a "hypothesis." They hear snazzy lines on TV such as "if my theory is correct" - the actual word there should be hypothesis.

A theory is more of a complete system of ideas and formulas and predictions and models, whereas a hypothesis is "if I drop a hammer and feather on the moon at the same time, they'll hit the ground at the same time because of the vacuum." This would be one detail in the grand scheme of things which we know as the theory of kinematics as proposed by Isaac Newton.

That's why a theory is never a fact - a theory is bigger than any single fact. Facts support the validity of a scientific theory. If facts are uncovered which go against the theory, then the theory must be updated, or thrown out in favor of a better one.

e.g. Quantum theory is not good at predicting gravity, but is great with the other three forces. Relativity is a good theory about time and gravity, but is not good at predicting things on a very small scale. Both lack something in the quest for the so-called "theory of everything" (the "unified field theory.")  -- String theory and M theory are trying to develop into the theories that can achieve this feat, but they're not complete yet.

So the big bang theory is NOT the hypothesis that the universe was started by the 'explosion' of a very tiny point in space. Big bang theory is in stead a system of views about the universe (curved space, relative time and distnance and velocity, the possibility of black holes, etc etc etc) and it is named for one of the most famous features of a universe that fits its model - an explosive birth from nothing.

Even if Big Bang theory is discarded as inacurate, it could very well have nothing to do with the big bang event itself - that one fact could be true while the theory as a whole falls short of reality.

Answer 6

A "fact" is something that we can see, touch, probe, recreate, etc.

We do not know what really happened at the beginning.

What we did is create a condition (a hypothesis:  What if the universe began this way?) and then applied the rules of physics (and chemistry and so on) to this condition.

This gives us predictions:  after so much time, these interactions would have taken place and we should observe this kind of object.

We then compare with what we observe.

That is how a theory works.

When we try all the theories that have been invented to try and explain how the universe works, we find that the Big Bang theory is the one that works the best.  It is the most useful.

However, there are still differences between what it "predicts" and what we actually observe.  So it still needs refining.  It is not yet a "fact".  It does not yet provide a 100% accurate description of what we see.

But it is a lot better than any other that we have seen so far (including the "religious theories").

Answer 7

Because a theory is a different thing from a fact. Theories explain facts. We can refer to the big bang as a fact, if you like, but the theory remains a theory.

Answer 8

well, it has still not been proven. But you could surely say that is an experienced, educated guess.

the knowledge that we have of the universe is only from a fraction of a section after the big-bang.

So I believe only when we get the information about that fraction of a second, will the big bang become a proven fact.  

Answer 9

the expansion of the universe is a fact.

cosmic microwave background radiation is a fact.

the distribution of matter in the universe is a fact.

the big bang is the theory that ties these facts together. if we run time backwards from what we see, everything converges on a singularity in the distant pass. since we cannot directly observe that singularity, only its after-effects, we cannot declare it a fact.