Recently, I discovered and admitted, I am ignorant about many, if not all, things concerning the very principles of the universe, as this branch of science doesn't seem to have laws that are solid as a rock (or, the laws may be perfect, but certainly not the interpretations).
After being a bit rude to forumcontributors who, lucky as they are, know and understand the truth, I have been slapped around my ears by the moderator with following amazingly good references on the web :
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 + http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/publications.html

Charles H. Lineweaver and Tamara M. Davis deserves much respect for their very understandable overview of misconceptions about the Big Bang and expanding universe, it's certainly makes more sense than 'the truth' I learned at school long time ago, or 'the truth' I found in encyclopedia, or many truths I read or heard before. It resulted in a very vague view with many bits and pieces from various and contradictory explanations, rather than coherent logic, which I am used to have in other branches of science.
But is it any wonder if you read quotes 1 and 2 ?
However, as it comes to the quotes 2 and 3, also Lineweaver is only one of the countless interpretations, and even if I'm willing for the time being to accept his findings as most acceptable, it still is only one of the possible truths, and keep an open mind.

Quotes Lineweaver :
1. "The expansion of the universe is like Darwinian evolution in another curious way: most scientists think they understand it, but few agree on what it really means."
2."Renowned physicists, authors of astronomy textbooks and prominent popularizers of science have made incorrect, misleading or easily misinterpreted statements about the expansion of the universe."
3."Some newer theories such as string theory do postulate,extra dimensions, ...."

My questions are :
1. How many "mainstream-theories" are accepted as such nowadays ?
2. Do other theories have as well publishers like Lineweaver & Tamara, presenting a brief overview with common misconceptions ?
3. Will a be banished till the end of my days from participating this forum if I refer to, or ask more about other theories ?
3. Are there, besides Einstein and Hubble, other scientists (deceased or living), who are most likely being refered to in any theory concerning Big Bang and expansion of the universe ?
4. Which theorie(s) is nowadays being teached at schools in which country (or, what I doubt, in the whole world) ? With 'teaching at schools', I mean : what kind of global knowledge about the universe are your children and youngsters getting to read and learn in official published schoolliterature, I do not mean university or whatever it is called in your country.

Thank you for your time and willingness to give it a thought and maybe an answer.
Christian Muys
Europe-Belgium.

(P.S.: If you please, could you try to avoid abbreviations in your answers, I'm not a native English speaker, I only can lookup fully written words in a dictionairie, thanks.)

Hear hear well said

Yes, be carefull

I assume you mean "mainstream theories of cosmology"?
If that is the case, the answer is: One. Big Bang cosmology.
While there are plenty of other theories of cosmology, none of them explain the observational evidence nearly so well as the big bang.
If you did not mean to limit your question to cosmological theories, please say so.
Certainly not. Stifling discussion of different ideas would be the death of science. You will be expected to remain civil, and if you claim an alternative theory is correct you will be expected to back this up. Beyond this, however, ask whatever questions you like, refer to whatever theories you like.

__________________
"Last Thursday, in a major breakthrough for the science of astrology, everyone born under the sign of scorpio was run over by milk trucks...."

Thank you, Sock puppet, where would you say 'string theory' comes in ? Is there a relation with a cosmology theory ?

String theory is a subset of "M" or "Brane" (Membrane) theory. Actually, calling either one, as currently formulated, a "theory" is giving them the benefit of the doubt. Right now, "hypothesis" would be closer to the truth. If they pan out, they have the potential to be the long sought "Theory of Everything". If not, they will just be another (in a long list) fascinating dead ends.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

As Wikipedia says, correctly in my view, "String theory remains to be confirmed. No version of string theory has yet made an experimentally verified prediction that differs from those made by other theories. In this sense, string theory is still in a "larval stage": it is not a proper physical theory. It possesses many features of mathematical interest and may yet become important in our understanding of the universe, but it requires further developments before it is accepted or discarded. Since string theory may not be tested in the foreseeable future, some scientists have asked if it even deserves to be called a scientific theory..."

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I've been wondering about this as it has come up publicly, at least by one physicist.

However, string theory and M theory both predict a fixed number of spacial dimenstions due, as little as I understand it, to the number of vibrational modes necessary for the number of particles known. A year from now, the biggest solenoid I ever saw will be testing for other dimensions.

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

First, as I understand it, "string theory" is now not so much a theory as a "landscape". What does this mean? That there are a very great many different theories which could all be called "string theory". How many? At least 10⁵⁰⁰. In my book a theory needs to be internally consistent (as well as consistent with all relevant, good observational and experimental results). Has string theory - any string theory - been shown to be internally consistent? I think so, in some cases (but those that have have been so shown are inconsistent with relevant, good observational and experimental results), but generally no. Is this physics? Is this science??

Second, "M Theory" is often called a theory, but, as I understand it, there is no such theory - there are only conjectures, suppositions, and rough sketches* of what such a theory might contain. Or, if you prefer, no one has (yet) written down any "M Theory" equations. Is this physics? Is this science??

I recently read "The Trouble with Physics", by Lee Smolin ... my comments above are a (very rough) summary of some of what that book contains.

If any reader of this post is aware of any errors in my post, I would appreciate that they be pointed out.

*Of course, these sketches are mathematical ...

I am more than pleased to see that none of you could be called defenders of that mysterious theory, but do follow the evolution of it very close.
George, thanks for the link, I didn't realise CERN was so close connected with your domain. But do I feel, after reading the link, that 'mainstream'-scientists are not that quite satisfied with the present laws (or interpretations) ?
If I see mentioning a name (Lee Smolin), may I presume that person is in his own domain someone respected ? Are there certain persons attracting much attention among the scientific community ?

First off, Christian. Welcome to BAUT.

Well, it depends on what you mean by defenders. To be honest, there might be one or two here that know enough about it mathematically to have an informed opinion. The rest of us have to depend on third party explanations.

Again, depends on which laws, theories or interpretations of theories or parts of theories you are talking about

It depends on the domain. There are many ATM persons mentioned whose views may get them labled as a nut, by mainstreamers. Many web pages with oddball theories fall into this category. There are some whose ideas may not be all that respected by the mainstream, for whatever reason, but either their ideas have enough support or they are so respected in an area, that they are given the benifit of the doubt. Einstein's search for a unification theory in his later years may fall into this category . There are some whose views are respected by the mainstream in one area, but not in another. Hannes Alfven might be an example. It's difficult to generalize. The best way, is to check out the person and their views. Of course, it helps if you can follow the technical aspects and come to your own conclusion. Lee Smolin is mentioned as he was an early advocate for string theory, but has recently started questioning whether there is or even if there could be something to string theory.

In what areas? Some attract attention and don't deserve it or the attention is misplaced. Others, don't get the recognition they deserve for their contributions.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Thanks Tensor,
As you allready discovered, I am a rookie in this domain of science, and have to rely on, and try to search for trustworthy sources, whatever that should be. Internetsources are great for many reasons, but scary as it comes to reliablity. If a Nobel-nominated person would state at least his/her interest in string theory, or famous written publishers like the magazine Nature (or you name it) drew attention to it, it would be easier to have a minimal confidence, and it certainly would stimulate people with the proper skills to do (even more) efforts.

I won't try to follow their technical aspects, I'm not able to, but I would like to look at their opinion 'against' the mainstreamtheorie, what they think there is wrong or what there is missing.

Thanks Nereid and Tensor for giving some names involved in string theory. By the looks off what I read in several reviews about their publishing, I'm convinced I'm not quite ready to comment them.
If there is no way of verifying those theories, then indeed, it's not easy to accept it as a science. I do not longer expect to read any understandable overview of string theory either.
But it is still a good thing there are many efforts to keep searching.

By the way, is there any way of telling how string theory started ? Has it been pure theoretically, or has there once something happened or occured, that triggered the need for such strange thoughts ?

I'd start with The Official String Theory Website, if I were you.

It should clear up some misconceptions and misrepresentations you might encounter here or elsewhere.

__________________
"Where the telescope ends, the microscope begins. Which of the two has the greater view?" - Hugo

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill

I almost can't believe it, but indeed, the site is very readable even for someone like me, without much background. Will take some time until I have it all read.
Many thanks A.DIM

Christian, Hannes Alfven is not involved in string theory. I was just using his name as a reference to show where his contributions in one area did not neccesarily carry respect in another.

I will give you another name. Brian Greene. His book "The Elegant Universe" should be understandable to you. It covers the starts and stops of string theory. Between that book and A Dim's link, you should have a pretty good idea, at the layman level, for string theory.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

My fault, I have no excuse for mixing up plasma cosmology with string theory or anything else, even after reading too many difficult and contrary things in too short time.
You are all very patient with me.

These, and previous references should keep me busy for a long time.
Gives you all a break from my stupid questions and remarks,... temporary :-)

The long time posters here will be very patient with those that are polite, and ask questions, no matter how silly the person asking thinks the question is. You fall into that polite, questioning category, and most here will be glad to help out.

That should be "temporarily" (I know you are not a native English speaker, so I thought I would provide a correction, to help you along). If you have questions as you follow the references, jump on in and ask.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

A (belated) answer to some of these questions.

If we restrict our domain to cosmology, then there is, today, just one mainstream 'theory' - the 'big bang theory' (BBT).

However, this is really an oversimplification, because BBT is not one theory but rather a model, or a set of overlapping models, built from a set of theories.

The fundamental theories at the heart of BBT are General Relativity (GR) and quantum theory. The latter is applied to cosmology (in the BBT) through 'the standard model of particle physics'.

There is no serious competition, in cosmology, to the BBT (these two threads may give you an idea why).

However, there are many different models - some incorporate just the standard model of particle physics, some build in extensions; most include some kind of 'inflation' (but how and what may vary); and so on.

The two fundamental theories incorporated in BBT are mutually incompatible, so no modern theory of cosmology can be complete.

Several attempts to unify GR and quantum theory have been made, and, to date, none has succeeded (and several have failed). One difficulty is that the physical regimes in which most (any?) of these theories could be tested is far, far beyond our capabilities to create, in an Earth-bound lab (so we have only the universe itself, as our 'lab'). Of the theories you will read about, string theory (and M theory) is by far the best known, to theoretical physicists, cosmologists, and the general public. However, as I said earlier, it has some problems.

In terms of what's in the popular press, I feel the greatest error is conveying the idea that 'the universe began as a singularity' or 'the Big Bang theory says that the universe began as {insert words here}', etc. This is an error because none of the BBTs can possibly do that! ... unless they explicitly incorporate at least a quantum theory of gravity, and also make some rather sweeping assumptions about the state of matter/energy/etc in regimes we know essentially nothing about.

Myself, I feel these popularisations are almost dangerous, because they contain the antithesis of science (speculation untrammelled by observational or experimental tests) presented as being as sound as the physics you can use to build a laser (for example), or describe what happens in a supernova.

That does certainly answers my questions, even those I didn't knew I had, and will take lots of time to assimilate.
Please do find my gratitude to yourself and the other contributors, in the publicity I tried to make on other forums. The willingness to listen to and answer each other as well as ignorant people, with your highlevel knowledge and experience on BAUT, is overwhelming.
Keep up the good work, and prepare for a horde foreign newbies, writing in funny English :-)