Wouldn't the Big Bang theory be considered a hypothesis and not a theory? (Intermediate)

Wouldn't the Big Bang theory be considered a hypothesis and not a theory? In my research done by free will I realized that not much proof has acually been given of this major event in space.

Actually I disagree with that. I think that there is now a lot of evidence in favour of the Big Bang Theory. The difference between a hypothesis and a theory is according to my dictionary:

HYPOTHESIS implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation.

THEORY implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth.

I think that there is enough evidence for the Big Bang that it should be called a theory.

1. We can observe radiation left over from the Big Bang in the form of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and even see fluctuations in that from which it is believed the galaxies formed.

2. The expansion of the universe implies that at some time in the past everything must have been a lot closer together and hotter, which sounds a lot like the Big Bang to me!

3. In GR (General Relativity), there is a theory called the singularity theory which can be used to prove that there must have been a singularity (ie. a Big Bang) at some point in the past for every possible way we know to describe the Universe.

There is probably more evidence I could quote if I thought about it some more, but at least this will give you something to think about.

This page was last updated June 27, 2015.

About the Author

Karen Masters

Karen Masters

Karen was a graduate student at Cornell from 2000-2005. She went on to work as a researcher in galaxy redshift surveys at Harvard University, and is now on the Faculty at the University of Portsmouth back in her home country of the UK. Her research lately has focused on using the morphology of galaxies to give clues to their formation and evolution. She is the Project Scientist for the Galaxy Zoo project.

Twitter:  @KarenLMasters
Website:  http://icg.port.ac.uk/~mastersk/