CNN/AP: Americans win Nobel physics prize for work on big-bang theory

[DeepModem Mom]

Americans win Nobel physics prize
October 3, 2006

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- Americans John C. Mather and George F. Smoot have won the 2006 Nobel Prize in physics for work that helped cement the big-bang theory of the universe.

Mather, 60, works at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and Smoot, 61, works at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif.

Their work was based on measurements done with the help of the NASA-launched COBE satellite in 1989. They were able to observe the universe in its early stages about 380,000 years after it was born. Ripples in the light they detected also helped demonstrate how galaxies came together over time.

"The very detailed observations that the laureates have carried out from the COBE satellite have played a major role in the development of modern cosmology into a precise science," the academy said in its citation....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/10/03/nobel.physics.ap/index.html

[Orrex]

1. Of course, it's *only* a theory

:sarcasm:

Congratulations to Mather and Smoot--this is exciting news about some excellent work!
:woohoo:
:applause:

[Duppers]

14. Ha! May I elaborate on the word "theory"?

My little speech about the word theory being misunderstood. (Your post jogged my memory)...


The word "theory" has two definitions. The term THEORY, in the scientific setting is used as a synonym for MODEL, even after the model has been proven.

Many laymen fail to understand this distinction.

Confusion arises because the word theory means fundamentally different things in science and in everyday language.

In casual conversation, a theory is a kind of educated guess, an informed and insightful hunch. You might have a theory on why your car won't start, why some sport figure did what he/she did, etc. And these would be just theories-tentative explanations that may later be supplanted by real, complete answers.

But in the sciences, theory has historically meant something very different. The best, most thoroughly tested, best corroborated models that describe how things work are called theories.

The model that describes matter as being composed of atoms is called the Atomic Theory of Matter. The model that describes disease as being caused by microorganisms is still called the Germ Theory of Disease. The model that describes electricity and magnetism as being related and travel in waves (even though this is one of the fundamental models of modern physics) is still called the Theory of Electromagnetism. The same goes for most of our best ideas in the sciences: the theory of relativity, quantum theory, etc.

Someone once erroneously describe how science progresses. "Ideas start out as theories," he said. "Then as more data are gather and if the theory holds up, it becomes a law." This misinformed person then went on to say, "therefore, evolution is suspect because it is still just 'a theory.'" Wrong!

Although this progression sounds reasonable enough to the layman, it's NOT how it works at all. The problem is that IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED in this manner in the entire history of science.

Historically, scientific theories and scientific laws have never transformed from one into the other. There is not a single historical instance when scientists got together and had a little graduation ceremony and voted "a theory" into "a law." The Second Law of Thermodynamics was never the Second 'Theory' of Thermodynamics. Newton's First Law of Motion was never, ever Newton's First 'Theory' of Motion, etc.

Oddly enough, what scientists usually call laws are actually subordinate to theories. When scientists talk about laws, they are usually referring to a specific mathematical relationships between quantities, such as Coulomb's Law, Hooke's Law, the Law of Gravity, etc.
Each of these Laws are simply part of an over-arching theory. For example, the Law of Gravity (the inverse-square law) is really just a mathematical detail of the THEORY of Gravity.

So, yes, evolution and the big bang are "just" theories. But in the sciences, it just doesn't get any better than that!!



Other "theories":

- The Gravitational Theory of Planetary Motion is 'just a theory.'

- The Germ Theory of Disease is 'just a theory.'

- The Kinetic Theory of Heat is 'just a theory.'

- The Atomic Theory of Matter is 'just a theory.'

- The Electromagnetic Theory of Light is 'just a theory.'

- The Cellular Theory of Life is 'just a theory.'

- And the Big Bang is 'just a theory.'



Tell 'em this the next time they say it's ONLY a theory.

[nam78_two]

2. Recommended/nt

[SpiralHawk]

3. Big bang theory? Is this about republicon pedophiles?

Or is it about the Bush White House male prostitute, Jeff Gannon?

I had a republicon education, so I ain't too smart about stuff like this here Big BANG idear.

What page of the Bible should I check to get straight?

[NorthernSpy]

9. why, Chimpy himself wrote his senior thesis on "The Big Bong Theroy"...

Bush, George W. "The Big Bong Theroy: too good to be true."
Yale. (1968)

That, and page one of the Bible should be plenty to wise you up on the astrophysics score.

[SpiralHawk]

10. Big Bong Theroy! ROFLMAO

The famous BushCo Bong -- excavated at the Imperial Pig Farm Upon Crawford

[LiberalEsto]

4. Mather's mom

is a long-time friend of ours.

Apparently Smoot may have ripped off some of Mather's work in the past and won some kind of prize with it. I'm glad John Mather is getting the recognition he deserves.

[1932]

6. And Smoot's mom

says that Mather wouldn't have a Nobel Prize if her son hadn't built on Mather's work.

:)

[Duppers]

15. a former co-worker of my husband's

works two office doors down at Goddard.

Congrats to them both. This is a BIG deal...truly great. :)

[kenny blankenship]

5. Only to learn they have been deported by the Christlamist Extremist gov't

of Imam George W. Bush for "slanders against Creation," and will not be allowed to return home to America.

[OregonDem]

7. I wonder when the ID proponents will get a Nobel Prize?

I'm sure they can scientifically support their theory of the creation of the universe. Why is the scientific community suppressing the advancements being made by creationists in biology, physics, medicine, geology and astronomy? And why is it that we teach facts in science classes when facts are so one-sided? By teaching facts-only science to our kids we are suppressing theories that are alternatives to these facts.

[enigma000]

8. Who counts the ballots? Diebold?

Americans aren't that smart.

[Duppers]

13. excuse you!!!!

what planet do you live on??? And how many scientists do YOU know???

MOST americans aren't that smart, buddy, but we've have some brilliant physicists here, my hubby included!

[Dudley_DUright]

11. Dang, didn't win again this year!

Oh well, there is always next year. :-)

A very well deserved prize for Smoot and Mather. For those interested in the history of the development of the COBE satellite, George Smoot wrote a book about it titled "Wrinkles in Time" that is very readable for a general audience.

http://www.amazon.ca/Wrinkles-in-Timeco-George-Smoot/dp/0380720442

on edit: If anyone wants to see some very high resolution maps of the Cosmic Background Radiation distribution from the WMAP satellite (COBE's successor), you can find them here:

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

[DeepModem Mom]

12. Thanks for these links, Dudley! nt