2. If the scientists only performed 1 experiment but it supported their hypothesis, why can it not be considered a theory?
Your teacher is misleading you. It could be accepted as a theory IF there were no contrary hypothesis with supporting evidence, AND this experiment had been subject to peer review.
Normally, it takes much more evidence and support than one experiment.
it's true if it was supported
To understand why a single experiment cannot be considered a theory, let's first clarify the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.
A hypothesis is an educated guess or a tentative explanation based on limited evidence, observations, or previous knowledge. It is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon that can be tested through experiments or further investigation.
On the other hand, a theory is a well-substantiated explanation that has been extensively tested and supported by multiple lines of evidence. It is a widely accepted and highly reliable explanation of a natural phenomenon or a set of related phenomena.
Now, coming back to your question, if scientists only performed a single experiment and it supported their hypothesis, it would be premature to consider it a theory. The reason is that a theory requires extensive testing, validation, and repetition of experiments by multiple researchers.
Scientific theories are built upon a large body of evidence collected over an extended period, often involving numerous experiments by different scientists in different conditions. These experiments must consistently support the same explanation to gain credibility and ultimately become a theory.
Therefore, even if an experiment successfully supports a hypothesis, it is just the beginning and needs further testing and evidence to develop into a well-substantiated theory. The scientific process requires a rigorous approach with multiple experiments and evidence to establish a theory.