# I have a few problems with these theories on the universe. Why am I wrong? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 18, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372 "2012-11-18T02:54:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/41 "2012-11-20T01:47:27Z")
> [@For You](#): > > I think you misunderstand the meaning of “infinite number”. If there is an infinite number of permutations of every possibility reflected in manifestations of the multiverse (various universes), then there is not _ **a** _ universe in which you are Cecil, but an infinite number of them. One is not a fraction of infinity, the only fraction of infinity is infinity. Please explain that in a little more detail, I get there no Cecil is me verse. I just want to get my head around the infinite a little better. Thanks **Capt** ---
**Author:** ![Yumblie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/76d3ee/32.png) [@Yumblie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yumblie)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/42 "2012-11-20T02:18:06Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > I know this is an SR side comment, but since I’m just learning to think about dark matter, I hiccuped all the harder at this, which I thought I had down, sort of. > > The mass of some freshly-smashed elementary particle is measured by the energy at which it can be nudged onto the stage and show itself, right? Mass and energy relate absolutely, as it were. Say it takes 15Gv for one particle to show up, to move it from non-separateness to uniqueness, to, well, particularity. That’s its “rest mass,” once we realize (account for, subtract) the fact that “it” had been traveling at such a speed, or “it” would be a 15-Gver standing still relative to you? > > Perhaps we could give an ::SR:: header within this thread to clear up this perennial weed. Right, any frame of reference would measure the same rest mass for any given particle. If two protons collide with energy (as it appears in the lab frame) 15 GeV, and a 15 GeV particle popped out, it would just sit there, at rest. If we watched it from a moving frame, the two protons would be colliding with a different kinetic energy, dependent on our frame’s velocity. And so the resulting particle would pop out with extra energy. But that extra energy would be due to us measuring it in a moving frame. Once we take that into account, we would get the same rest energy. ---
**Author:** ![sohvan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/96bed5/32.png) [@sohvan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sohvan)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/43 "2012-11-20T15:00:14Z")
There are some rather disturbing implications to the Many-worlds interpretation. It would mean there are universes so horrifying our imagination is insufficient to describe them. Of course the opposite would be true as well. Our universe isn’t all that bad all things considered. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/44 "2012-11-20T15:36:48Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > An important note, by the way: The Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is _not_ a scientific fact, nor a theory, nor really even a hypothesis… Ordinarily I would defer to your greater knowledge. However, the [Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hugh-everett-biography)article cited in post #14 repeatedly refers to MW as a “theory”, in one case (p4) quoting Wheeler’s use of the word. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/45 "2012-11-20T16:05:38Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > You are referring to the Many Worlds Theory of Quantum Mechanics, discovered by Hugh Everett III > in the 1950s and published as his PhD thesis (John Archibald Wheeler was his thesis advisor). > > [Scientific American Article](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hugh-everett-biography) > > The logic of theory is 100% airtight. That does not mean the theory is correct; our technical ability > is not yet up to the project of testing it. As I understand it, the Many Worlds interpretation is by its nature entirely untestable. It is arguably a philosophical speculation as much as a scientific one. > [@dtilque](#): > > The main reason the steady state universe was abandoned was that there was nothing in it that would generate the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Well, we could posit that the CMBR is generated by an unseen form of matter or energy with heretofore-unknown properties. What would we call such a thing, though? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![dracoi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@dracoi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dracoi)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/46 "2012-11-20T17:30:42Z")
> [@Capt\_Kirk](#): > > Please explain that in a little more detail, I get there no Cecil is me verse. I just want to get my head around the infinite a little better. > > Thanks > > **Capt** Let’s say we started with only one Cecil-is-you universe to begin with. Since the universes keep splitting for every quantum probability at every quantum of time, even a second later, that single universe will have spawned uncountable googols of other universes. Enough that I’d call it infinity, even if it was something less. Furthermore, each of those googol universes is spawning another googol universes every second, growing exponentially. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/47 "2012-11-20T17:51:57Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > As I understand it, the Many Worlds interpretation is by its nature entirely untestable. It is arguably a philosophical speculation as much as a scientific one. According to the following 17-year old site, whose bona fides I cannot vouch for, MW can in principle be verified experimentally: [Many%20Worlds%20FAQ"][http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/many\_worlds\_FAQ.html](http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html)]Many Worlds FAQ]([http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/many\_worlds\_FAQ.html](http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html)) See Q37. Reliance on AI gives me pause. Even if MW is untestable, though, Big Bang cosmology seems to me no less so. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/48 "2012-11-20T19:00:12Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Neither can I. However, once you’ve got one infinity, another infinite number of infinities doesn’t make much of a difference, does it? Most folks can’t get past infinity to begin with, so to speak. I doubt the OP would be comfy with any of the consequences of a single but infinite universe. Frankly, I’m not too comfy myself! It’s hard to apply the mathematician’s concept of infinity to the real world; we can’t expect it to match “common sense” expectations. > [@colonial](#): > > According to the following 17-year old site, whose bona fides I cannot vouch for, > MW can in principle be verified experimentally: > > [Many Worlds FAQ"](http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html) [link fixed] > > See Q37. Reliance on AI gives me pause. Well, I doubt we’d need enough AI to pass the Turing test. I wonder how much intelligence would be required, or why intelligence but not simply “intelligent data recording” would be required. > [@](#): > > Even if MW is untestable, though, Big Bang cosmology seems to me no less so. Well, Big Bang cosmology (in its many forms) led to many predictions of what we’d observe today. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is a great example. The theory led to a scientist to realize it should be measurable. At the same time, someone was trying to figure out what his super sensitive detector was detecting when he wasn’t pointing it at anything. Bingo, he (the latter, not the former) got a Nobel Prize. ---
**Author:** ![Saltire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saltire/32/553_2.png) [@Saltire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saltire)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/49 "2012-11-20T19:22:02Z")
Someone once said that the multiverse theory is economical in terms of assumptions, but very expensive in terms of universes. ---
**Author:** ![Learjeff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/94ad74/32.png) [@Learjeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Learjeff)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/50 "2012-11-20T19:36:20Z")
> [@Saltire](#): > > Someone once said that the multiverse theory is economical in terms of assumptions, but very expensive in terms of universes. Well put! ---
**Author:** ![James52637](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@James52637](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/James52637)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/51 "2012-11-20T19:43:39Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > 1. Read Brian Greene’s [url=“[The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos: Greene, Brian: 9780307278128: Amazon.com: Books](http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Cosmos/dp/0307278123/ref=la_B001H6INP0_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1353211631&sr=1-2)”]… > The problem is that I can’t tell whether you’re interested in doing the work to change this or you just want to whine that science is hard. If you want to do the work, stop watching television. There’s not a single program that contributes any real understanding. Read some books. We’re living in a Golden Age of popular science written by working scientists. Take advantage of it. Oh, so he should just ignore the information most readily available to him? Television presents the most accepted and agreed with facts, not Jumbo Joe’s dimensional relativity hypothesis of mirroring planets _cough_ and syntax multiplying dog treats floating around in dark matter perplexed by intrinsic bologna. Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with Television. It’s wrong a lot, but it presents EASILY available information for people to think about. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/52 "2012-11-20T19:54:03Z")
> [@colonial](#): > > Ordinarily I would defer to your greater knowledge. > > However, the [Scientific American](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hugh-everett-biography)article cited in post #14 repeatedly refers to MW > as a “theory”, in one case (p4) quoting Wheeler’s use of the word. Did it ever refer to it as a ”_scientific theory_” . Note that the common use of the term “theory” is not the same as the scientific use of the term. > **[Scientific theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory)** > > A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be or that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scienti A s... Commonly confused by many, but SA should have known better, sloppy editing on their part.. They used the term “idea’ more often, but the best term to use is “interpretation”, such as in the \*Copenhagen interpretation \*. Other call it a “thesis”. Also a good term. In any case, “Many worlds” is not a ‘scientific theory” . ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/53 "2012-11-20T19:54:44Z")
> [@James52637](#): > > Oh, so he should just ignore the information most readily available to him? Television presents the most accepted and agreed with facts, not Jumbo Joe’s dimensional relativity hypothesis of mirroring planets _cough_ and syntax multiplying dog treats floating around in dark matter perplexed by intrinsic bologna. Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with Television. It’s wrong a lot, but it presents EASILY available information for people to think about. What television doesn’t do well is provide the background and context needed to understand sophisticated and complicated topics. I’ve tried watching the shows put on by scientists like Brian Greene and they are worthless compared to the books. How do I know? Because the OP watched them and got nothing of value out of the experience. Nobody has ever found a way to do advanced science in an hour television show. My advice stands. Put down the remote and pick up a book. They’re readily available, too. ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Why](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/96bed5/32.png) [@Doctor\_Why](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Why)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/54 "2012-11-20T20:02:39Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > So take heart, **RaftPeople** , **Der Trihs** and all other sometimes-stupid posters! Somewhere among the multiverses there is a smart post for every stupid post, and a stupid post for every smart post! If you find yourself making stupid posts, **RaftPeople** , just wait patiently and your smart-post-time will come. Someday you will make a post, and the universe will cleave in twain, and you will find yourself in the side of your smart post! (But of course, there will still be the other one of you finding yourself making yet another stupid post.) The problem, though, is that **RaftPeople** is in one of the universes where every post comes out stupid. Much like there’s a multiverse where every coin flip comes out heads. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/55 "2012-11-20T20:24:26Z")
> [@Doctor\_Why](#): > > The problem, though, is that **RaftPeople** is in one of the universes where every post comes out stupid. Much like there’s a multiverse where every coin flip comes out heads. Moebius Discs! ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Why](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/96bed5/32.png) [@Doctor\_Why](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Why)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/56 "2012-11-20T20:36:14Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Moebius Discs! That is genius. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/57 "2012-11-20T20:53:18Z")
First, let’s see if we can get the damn link to work: [Many Worlds FAQ](http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html#unique) It works with the post preview. > [@Learjeff](#): > > Well, I doubt we’d need enough AI to pass the Turing test. I wonder how much intelligence would be required, or why intelligence but not simply “intelligent data recording” would be required. From MW FAQ Q37, AI discussion in\*\* underlined bold \*\*(repeat caveat: I have no idea if the author is an authority): > [@](#): > > Many-Worlds predicts that the Everett-worlds do not interact with each other because of the presumed linearity of the wave equation. However worlds _do_ interfere with each other, and this enables the theory to be tested. (Interfere and interact mean different things in quantum mechanics. Pictorially: Interactions occur at the vertices within Feynman diagrams. Interference occurs when you add together different Feynman diagrams with the same external lines.) > > According to many-worlds model worlds split with the operation of every thermodynamically irreversible process. The operation of our minds are irreversible, carried along for the ride, so to speak, and divide with the division of worlds. Normally this splitting is undetectable to us. To detect the splitting we need to set an up experiment where a mind is split but the world _isn’t_. We need a reversible mind. > > The general consensus in the literature, is that the experiment to detect other worlds, with reversible minds, will be doable by, perhaps, about mid-21st century. That date is predicted from two trendlines, both of which are widely accepted in their own respective fields. To detect the other worlds you need a reversible machine intelligence. This requires two things: reversible nanotechnology and AI. > > 1. Reversible nanoelectronics. This is an straight-line extrapolation based upon the log(energy) / logic operation figures, which are projected to drop below kT in about 2020. This trend has held good for 50 years. An operation that thermally dissipates much less than kT of energy is reversible. (This implies that frictive or dissipative forces are insignificant by comparison with other processes.) If more than kT of energy is released then, ultimately, new degrees of freedom are activated in the environment and the change becomes irreversible. > > 2. **AI. Complexity of human brain = approx 10^17 bits/sec, based on the number of neurons (approx 10^10) per human brain, average number of synapses per neuron (approx 10^4) and the average firing rate (approx 10^3 Hz). Straight line projection of log(cost) / logic operation says that human level, self-aware machine intelligences will be commercially available by about 2030-2040. Uncertainty due to present human-level complexity, but the trend has held good for 40 years.** > > Assuming that we have a reversible machine intelligence to hand then the experiment consists of the machine making three reversible measurements of the spin of an electron (or polarisation of a photon). (1) First it measures the spin along the z-axis. It records either spin “up” or spin “down” and notes this in its memory. This measurement acts just to prepare the electron in a definite state. (2) Second it measures the spin along the x-axis and records either spin “left” or spin “right” and notes _this_ in its memory. The machine now reverses the entire x-axis measurement - which must be possible, since physics is effectively reversible, if we can describe the measuring process physically - including reversibly erasing its memory of the second measurement. (3) Third the machine takes a spin measurement along the z-axis. Again the machine makes a note of the result. > > According to the Copenhagen interpretation the original (1) and final (3) z-axis spin measurements have only a 50% chance of agreeing because the intervention of the x-axis measurement by the conscious observer (the machine) caused the collapse of the electron’s wavefunction. According to many-worlds the first and third measurements will_always_ agree, because there was no intermediate wavefunction collapse. The machine was split into two states or different worlds, by the second measurement; one where it observed the electron with spin “left”; one where it observed the electron with spin “right”. Hence when the machine reversed the second measurement these two worlds merged back together, restoring the original state of the electron 100% of the time. > > Only by accepting the existence of the other Everett-worlds is this 100% restoration explicable. > [@Learjeff](#): > > Well, Big Bang cosmology (in its many forms) led to many predictions of what we’d observe today. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is a great example… There is plenty of evidence for BB, but it cannot be manipulated in a laboratory like the radio waves predicted by Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Theory (or whatever it was until Hertz discovered what had been predicted). ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/58 "2012-11-20T21:30:55Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Did it ever refer to it as a ”_scientific theory_” . Note that the common use of the term “theory” is not the same as the scientific use of the term. > > [Scientific theory - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) > > Commonly confused by many, but SA should have known better, sloppy editing on their part.. They used the term “idea’ more often, but the best term to use is “interpretation”, such as in the \*Copenhagen interpretation \*. Other call it a “thesis”. Also a good term. > > In any case, “Many worlds” is not a ‘scientific theory” . These are the choices on who I have to go with here as far as the appropriateness of using the word “theory” for MW: (A-B-C-D collectively) Hugh Everett III PhD, John A. Wheeler PhD, Juan Maldacina PhD, and the venerable _Scientific American_ vs (E) Wikipedia as interpeted by DrDeth (A-B-C-D) win, and (E) loses. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/59 "2012-11-20T22:28:29Z")
At least a half-dozen logical fallacies. Argument from authority is the most obvious. Let me make myself clear . Chronos and myself were referring to the term “scientific theory”. Not a theory that is scientific. The term has a precise meaning, if you don’t like wiki here are a few more: > **[Difference Between a Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, and Law](https://www.thoughtco.com/scientific-hypothesis-theory-law-definitions-604138)** > > Learn the language of science and find out the difference between a scientific law, hypothesis, and theory, and how and when they are each used. > **[What Is a Scientific Theory?](https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html)** > > A scientific theory is based on careful examination of facts. [http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific\_theory](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory) [http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1953-03119-000](http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1953-03119-000) [http://suppescorpus.stanford.edu/articles/mpm/84.pdf](http://suppescorpus.stanford.edu/articles/mpm/84.pdf) By showing that you don’t know the difference between the laymans definition of “theory’ and the scientist’s definition, this put you in the group that sez “Well, evolution is just a theory”. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2012, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372/60 "2012-11-20T23:04:40Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > At least a half-dozen logical fallacies. Argument from authority is the most obvious. You are totally incorrect. Argument based on _expert authority_ speaking on a subject _within its area of expertise_ is not a fallacy. Rebuttable on the merits, perhaps; fallacious, no. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Let me make myself clear . Chronos and myself were referring to the term “scientific theory”. Not a theory that is scientific. The term has a precise meaning, if you don’t like wiki here are a few more: I like Wiki, just not as much as _Scientific American_ et al > [@DrDeth](#): > > [Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions](http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm) > > [What is a scientific theory? | Live Science](http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html) > > [http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific\_theory](http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory) > > [APA PsycNet](http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1953-03119-000) > > [http://suppescorpus.stanford.edu/articles/mpm/84.pdf](http://suppescorpus.stanford.edu/articles/mpm/84.pdf) > > By showing that you don’t know the difference between the laymans definition of “theory’ and the scientist’s definition, this put you in the group that sez “Well, evolution is just a theory”. :rolleyes: Your first link informs us with a whiff of circularity that “A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing… One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis”. Maybe I’ll get to the others later, maybe not. But anyway, fine-- although Everett and Wheeler are unfortunately no longer with us, Malcadina is. Wiki tells us he can be located at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ. I am sure he and the _Scientific American_ would appreciate your correction, even at this late date. By belaboring this foolery you place yourself in the group that sez “Well, General Relativity was not a theory, it was a hypothesis (or something) until they had a chance to examine a full eclipse of the Sun.” The distinction is utterly useless in normal parlance, and I suspect of limited utility elsewhere, except to certain classes of internet chatroom pedant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-a-few-problems-with-these-theories-on-the-universe-why-am-i-wrong/641372.md?page=4)