Talk:Big Bang/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

→

Issue with primacy and supremacy of the theory in the lead

There is an issue here of the primacy and supremacy of the Big Bang as a description of the universe. The sentence as it previously read made two problematic assertions:

The big bang is "a" theory. The indefinite article is technically correct (there are other theories) but it is misleading because the Big Bang is the only theory left in mainstream contention. We should be clear about this from the start in the wording.
The big bang is described by its features but not by its popularity as a description. That is to say that the current lead doesn't do a good job of indicating that the big bang is science's best explanation of the universe as it currently exists. This needs to be explained fully and completely from the get-go.

These issues are important because there are a number of people who dispute mainstream science who do not believe the big bang should have supremacy and primacy. Unfortunately for them, the supremacy and primacy of this theory is not up for debate in this article.

Nondistinguished 23:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The theory itself should be up for debate - if the Big Bang is so sensitive to parameters relating to dark energy (which was only proposed after the 1997 discovery of accelerating redshift in QSOs, thanks to the long lost cosmological constant) and dark matter which particle physicists have been searching for but never found since the 1980s, shouldn't at least these two very weak points (with no experimental evidence of their existence) be a question mark on the validity of what the Big Bang proposes? Does non-baryonic matter exist in the laboratory (as the cosmological principle says it should) or is it just an "epi-cycle"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.51.36 (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section is now way too long - it should ideally be ~ 3 paragraphs. I'd trim it down myself, but I haven't the time (and won't have for the next few weeks). Could someone give it a good prune, please? Mike Peel 21:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have put up a new more concise lead section. Please let me know what you think. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Some dolt messed around with the first paragraph under the "History" header. Not to sound too much like a luddite, but I'm not sure how to change this. Just wanted to alert you to childish rubbish.

The text in question is as follows:

"The Bang Theory was a giant fart type wind that hit a bang that scienteists explained to judges to be the begining of man kind. Jemilio Hmesa discovered that the world could have been started by this fart from a bang that created us. The reason he came up with this discovery was he was trying to find a way to prove god's unexistince but as you can see its a bunch of crap." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.165.214 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Observational evidence

Under Observational evidence the article claims that red shift proves the big bang, it does not, all it proves is that the universe is expanding, and that could be the of god, for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.20.206 (talk • contribs)

This could be the what of god exactly? You seem to have missed out the most important word there. More generally, this being an encyclopedia, we would need a reliable source for this information, not least to confirm its notability. Cheers, --Plumbago 07:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I think 82.46.20.206 means this sentence: "The earliest and most direct kinds of observational evidence (sometimes called the three pillars of the Big Bang theory) are the Hubble-type expansion seen in the redshifts of galaxies..." Please note the difference between the words "evidence" and "proves". Art LaPella 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Inflation and the CMB

I have just applied a fairly significant edit to a new paragraph added on the CMB and inflation. There is indeed an important role for inflation in explaining the exceptional smoothness of the CMB, but the previous description had some subtle technical issues. It's not actually correct to speak of inflation as "expanding faster that light". The rate of expansion is not a velocity in the normal sense of the word. Even with a conventional linear expansion, there are galaxies that are receding faster than the speed of light, and which are still visible. The distinguishing feature of inflationary expansion is that photons from a galaxy that is receding from an observer faster than the speed of light can never actually "overtake" the expansion and reach that observer. But with other expansion rates, photons can actually pass from a galaxy to an observer, even when the galaxy is receding faster than the speed of light from that observer.

The edit I applied can be reviewed here.[1] —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Three different dictionaries (Webster, Random House, and American Heritage) say it's "big bang" and not "Big Bang." Is there an authority that states otherwise? ←Ben^B4 16:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The five scientific and technical dictionaries listed at the bottom of [2] capitalize "Big Bang". The general dictionaries listed there don't, with a couple exceptions including wikt:Big Bang. (Ignore the unrelated references to Big Bang (financial markets).) Google [3] shows Big Bang is capitalized more often than not, but not much more often. My policy has been to try to keep the capitalization or non-capitalization of the phrase consistent within each Wikipedia article, but after looking around I see it hasn't stayed that way. Art LaPella 02:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you use Google to compare capitalizations? ←Ben^B4 20:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Not automatically. Click the link I provided above after the word "Google", which I produced by Googling the phrase "Big Bang" ("big bang" would have produced the same results). The page shows 7 hits whose sample text has the capitalized phrase "Big Bang" bolded, one hit with the uncapitalized "big bang" bolded, one showing it both ways, and one that doesn't show the phrase in the sample text at all. If you then click "Next" several times at the bottom of the screen for more hits, you will find a greater proportion of uncapitalized "big bang"'s than on the first Google screen, but capitalized "Big Bang"'s continue to predominate. Note I'm using the sample text, not the blue title text where everything is likely to be capitalized. I also disregard titles embedded in the text for the same reason. I also disregard Google hits related to Big Bang (financial markets). Art LaPella 22:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of this article is much too opinonated. ex.)The first line of this article states, "The Big Bang is". While the first line of the article on creationism states, "Creationism is the belief". Although it explains that the Big Bang theory is just that, a theory, it lacks a neutral stance on the topic. 71.58.51.134 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.51.134 (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You might have noted that Big Bang#Philosophical and religious interpretations links to Philosophical and religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory which briefly mentions creationism, so the issue is whether that is enough recognition of creationism without violating WP:Undue weight. You might also have noted that this issue comes up regularly throughout the talk page archives listed at the top of this page and related pages. The existing article is the result of much, much debate on this repetitive issue, and it would be very difficult to say anything new about it. Art LaPella 03:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Probable diameters of the Universe

I think that in addition to the measurements in fractions of a second, seconds, minutes and other time units, and the measurements in energy levels, also some information should be offered on possible diameters of the universe at a given moment. For instance, when it says:

“A few minutes into the expansion, when the temperature was about a billion (one thousand million; 109; SI prefix giga) Kelvin and the density was about that of air” [...] This is a very interesting stage, and some idea of the diameter of the universe at that point would be useful. The same at previous and latter points, particularly in the first few minutes and later on. That would also give some idea of the speed of expansion at different points of the universe's evolution.

Daniel_C 10:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The diameter is only meaningfully set by the speed of light times the age of the universe. That's the definition of the relevant cosmological horizon and there is an entire section in the article about this. ScienceApologist 14:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I think a clarification is merited. Regarding probable diameters, these estimates must specifically relate to the observable universe. There are both spatial and temporal limits to what we are able to observe. Thus, there is no (present) manner to estimate the size or age of the universe ... in fact there is no compelling evidence suggesting that the universe has an end or an origin. Bpabbott 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Objective

One of the crucial elements of the Wikipedia sites and its predecessors is an objective perspective. This article lacks that. It should also be included that the Big Bang at present is only a theory no matter how much evidence there is to support it. It is technically a theory still as it cannot be observed. Only the repercussions can be observed. Therefore it will remain a theory. I apologize if this in itself is biased but hey everyone is biased towards something.Apocalyptica is taken —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:04, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article says that the Big Bang is a model, which is another word for theory. I think that addresses your objections.--VAcharon 09:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The wonderful aspect is that we do indeed have direct observations of the big bang, as much as sunlight is the evidence of nuclear reactions in our star, per the following section. Publicola 17:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

"In the beginning, there was darkness, and then... BANG."

The above phrase comes at the beginning of every episode of the current History Channel documentary The Universe (TV series). My understanding is that this is a perfect example of the misconception that the Big Bang "exploded" out into empty space - because really there was never any period or place of "darkness" at the beginning of the universe, no matter what measurements of space and time nor what model of particle physics you prefer. Unfortunately this show is the best current high-profile scientific television production addressing the Big Bang, and seems sure to cement this misconception in the popular consciousness for years to come. 70.15.116.59 19:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know, and I hope someone more scientifically-minded can answer in a way I can understand: What is the evidence that there was no space or time prior to the big bang, and why is that evidence stronger than what I would think is the default Occam's Razor assumption that there was either prior? Publicola 07:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Spacetime as we know it behaves in certain ways (time marching forward, three dimensions of space in all directions, etc.) only as long as the universe is not squished to an unimaginable density. However, in the early universe, with all matter and energy at a very high density, the detailed equations that determine how spacetime behaves breaks down. Therefore, it is a very pragmatic statement to say that space and time did not exist as we know it before a certain time in the past. However, that's not to say that spacetime didn't exist, only that it was in a very different form. There are still theorists trying to figure out exactly what kind of form spacetime would have in those first few moments. ScienceApologist 15:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I have to admit I'm still baffled. Let me try to take this step by step: Ignoring time for a moment, what is the evidence that space itself was compressed in the early universe, as opposed to space as we know it today containing all the matter compressed into a small part of space? As for time, there are theories like "big crunch" and oscillatory universe -- are those ruled out? Is there evidence saying more than that it's just not meaningful to talk about what preceded the big bang, or is there evidence that there was no prior moment of time? (By the way, I have read the article carefully, but I cant find the connection between this concept of expanding spacetime in the "overview" with the information presented in "Observational evidence." Redshifts, for example: why are they not just the Doppler effect of matter flying apart as the debris from the explosion of the big bang?) Publicola 15:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please see metric expansion of space for more on space being compressed. You can also read about big crunch and oscillatory universe at their respective pages. The short of it is that they aren't completely ruled out, but we currently look to be living in an open universe that will reach heat death or maybe a Big Rip. As for "prior moments in time", since time is intricately dependent on space in spacetime, our models indicate that there is a t=0. The only problem is that our current models of physics also don't tell us what the universe was like at and near this point (see quantum gravity). So "before the Big Bang" is either shorthand for describing models that can explain the Big Bang or it is a misnomer since t=0 is the (fiducial) starting point and there is no time before it. Finally, the expansion of space, redshift, and to some extent the Milne universe articles answer your last question. ScienceApologist 15:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! In fact I did just come across Metric_expansion_of_space#Observational_evidence as I was thinking about this question. Now I wonder why I didn't come across it reading the article. Publicola 15:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

On reflection I find the "Hubble's law expansion" section of this article to be critically lacking. It explains the observational evidence of the redshift, but it does not connect that to metric expansion of space. I just inserted a see-also to metric expansion of space#Observational evidence I think is clearly superior to the pre-existing distance measures (cosmology) see-also which only talks about the different means of determining the distance of faraway objects, and says nothing about the observational evidence of expanding spacetime. Their are at least two points from metric expansion of space#Observational evidence which I believe should be added to the "Hubble's law expansion" section, paraphrasing:

That space is undergoing metric expansion is supported by direct observation of the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle, which together have no other explanation. Astronomical redshifts are extremely isotropic and homogenous, supporting the Cosmological Principle that the universe looks the same way in all directions. If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a distant center instead of the expansion of space, then they would be observed to be smaller in the direction of the center and greater facing from it, but they are not. Measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems have proved the Copernican Principle on a cosmological scale in 2000.^[1] The radiation that pervades the universe is demonstrably warmer at earlier times. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion.

This is important for explaining why the redshifts are not the result of explosion, in which case they would not have those properties unless we happened to be in the center of the explosion which is unlikely. I think this is obviously a common fallacy. I think I will be bold about this. Publicola 16:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I added a considerably improved revision of that paragraph to the section which I renamed from "Hubble's law expansion" to "Hubble's law and the expansion of space", because the distinction from expansion of matter is critically important. Someone please proofread the last two paragraphs at the end of that section. The reason that I was troubled was that there was no suggestion that the Copernican principle was a cosmological fact, which is the point of the last paragraph. The paragraph before that states that Hubble's observations were uniform and thus agreed with the Cosmological principle -- that was just barely implicit if at all in the earlier version today. Publicola 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope that those who understand this better than I do, will especially proofread this sentence: "If the redshifts were the result of an explosion from a center distant from us, they would not be so uniform." I thought that uniform redshifts in all directions proved only that the universe is uniformly expanding/exploding, which wouldn't indicate a center as demonstrated at [4]. Something more would be required to determine whether the expansion was originally caused by an expansion or an explosion. Art LaPella 21:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

What I think is intended here is for uniform=isotropic, but I'm not sure. ScienceApologist 21:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I changed it to "similar in all directions."

After having delved in, I am feeling the dilemma about vocabulary level usage. (e.g., use introductory simplicity or the language professionals choose?) Publicola 22:08, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Art, you are exactly right: the Cosmological principle (supported by isotropic redshifts along with much other evidence) is supplemented by the newly-proven Copernican principle (shown from the 2000 research cited in the final paragraph of that section.) Publicola 23:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a digression, but I think that there could be many ways to interpret the Big Bang. I find the idea of logarithmic time intuitively appealing - if you use a unit of time that is proportional to the age of the universe, and a distance unit related to it by a constant speed of light, then the overall size of the universe really didn't change very much - maybe 10,000 fold, if I remember correctly. Similarly the redshift would not have been so much and the temperature could be seen as changing only slightly, I think. Or you could use a unit of time defined so that there is no redshift. The problem with such views of the universe of course is that all constructs such as electrons, protons, atoms, and such would be variable in size over time. But I think it indicates that you could see the "early universe" subjectively not as a short bang, but as an infinitely long period of time with a large universe in which there was constant activity. Still, no matter how you look at it, there is no space outside the Universe, by definition, and there's no empty, cold, dark place available at the beginning. 70.15.116.59 05:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

expansion considered in general relativity before Hubble

Does "universal expansion was considered mathematically in the context of general relativity well before Hubble made his analysis and observations," mean that GR predicted metric expansion? If possible, I think we should say that, or at least something stronger than "considered mathematically". Publicola 15:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It was predicted, but since very few people understood general relativity at the time, few people were aware of the prediction. ScienceApologist 16:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

A source for this would be fantastic. Publicola 04:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The canonical references for that are Alexander Friedman's 1922 "Über die Krümmung des Raumes" in Z. Phys and Georges Lemaitre in a 1927 Annales de la Societe scientifique de Bruxelles article. 122.145.8.149 13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A few thoughts to ponder

If all matter in the universe was once in a single collected location, would it not be too dense and have too much mass to escape itself and "bang"? Could the "expanding" scientists are seeing simply be a "breathing" action of a larger universe we do not understand yet? Perhaps it grows and shrinks after long periods of time. I find it interesting that while scientific theory cannot be proven with today's knowledge people tend to rely on it as fact and completely dismiss the idea of intelligent design, sure it is only theory as well. Why not, as scientists, be open to the possibility of a higher form of energy of intellectual properties which could have created us? I've noticed too often that people claim we have evolved, they teach this in school but they ban prayer, either one is just theory. One person may have a miraculous experience and say it is evidence of a creator, but they still can't prove it. One might compare two fossils and say it is the process of evolution, again it cannot be proven. Why is there such bias towards science alone and against the idea of a creator? We, mankind, have not been here long enough to make such solid claims as "the universe is expanding" it may be expanding now, but perhaps it will shrink in another 8,000,000,000 years.. either destroying itself and banging again, or just expanding again. The expansion we witness may appear to us as a large scale, or HUGE but it all depends how large the observer is, the expansion may be very very small from another perspective. For all we know, we are inside of a quark, inside of an electron, inside of an atom inside of a snow globe which rests on a child's dresser. Davidthewavid —Preceding comment was added at 04:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this section as I don't really feel it contributes in any way to the discussion about the Big Bang Wikipedia entry, and someone reversed my deletion. I don't think I was out of line as the talk page guidelines specify deletion of entries is acceptable if the entry is, "not relevant to improving the article." The above paragraph represents mostly fanciful speculation. thryllkill (talk) 22:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiability of Dark Energy and the Big Bang

There seems to be little discussion of the weakest links in the logical chain of thought regarding the Big Bang, especially the lambda CDM version, the so called standard model. For instance, the argument concerning acceleration of expansion since 9 billion years ago depends critically on an interpretation of the high z SN-1a results. These supernovae seem to be further away than they should be based on a value of H₀. Which value? They are not further if some values are used and are even further if others are used. Why use the value that was used and why discount other values?

As a matter of fact, Tony Smith's Cosconsensus website identified several H₀ values that are purportedly of high quality and are probably reliable. They were determined by the use of standard candles at various ranges of distances. If these values are plotted versus the average distances of the ranges, H₀ is seen to be not a constant at all, so it is useful only for objects in the respective ranges of distances. This is why H is often referred to as a parameter. To use H₀ properly, one must zero in on an answer by successive approximations.

More importantly, H₀ increases substantially along a very tight linear regression line as distance from us increases. If an inappropriate value for H₀ was used to compare the present expansion rate of the universe with the distances to high z SN-1a objects and with the expansion rate therein implied, the conclusion that the expansion rate of the universe is accelerating could be wrong.

Curiously, one can use the high z SN-1a results to find a new value of H₀. One also finds a value for H₀ using CMB data. According to data compiled by Smith, I find that these and the earlier determinations all fall on the same tight linear regression line having negative or decreasing slope toward the present era or position. But, if the universe is enlarging at an accelerating rate, H₀ should be increasing toward the present.

It is a mistake to state that high z SN-1a results imply that the expansion rate was lower in the distant past, as stated in the article. H₀ calculated from the high z supernovae absolute luminosity distances and actual redshifts is higher than all but the CMB determinations.

This is not my data nor my research. It is plain fact available for anyone to analyze. H₀ increases linearly with distance away from us or decreases on approach to our present position or time. At least a half dozen truly independent measurements show this. Contrary evidence for the Big Bang, Inflation or Dark Energy should not be so easily swept under a cover. Why should an encyclopedic article be so chained to consensus? Consensus has frequently been wrong. I call this the H₀ paradox or the Hubble problem of the Dark Energy hypothesis.

Other weak points are the codependence of several phenomena that are used to "independently" corroborate this acceleration conclusion and the implied existence of Dark Energy, like the pattern of clusters or the large scale structure of the universe. Corroboration must come from truly independent lines of observation or experiment not from corrolated measurements. Also, the unsupported premise of Dark Matter is used to help reinforce the Dark Energy hypothesis, as if the existence of dark matter had already been proven.

For any theory to be considered valid, it must be falsifiable. A null hypothesis must be constructed and the evidence for or against it must be evaluated. The null hypothesis is one that nullifies the original hypothesis, it must be contradictory. If the null hypothesis can be proven true or false by means of a critical experiment, the theory or hypothesis in question is denied or proven. More attention should be given to null hypotheses and their disproof. This is especially true regarding Dark Energy because statements have been made regarding it by prominent scientists that threaten the integrity of science itself.

We cannot relax our grip on science by loosening our standards for proof, as has been suggested. If Dark Energy, quintessence or a nonzero cosmological constant are not experimentally falsifiable hypotheses, they do not deserve to be regarded as viable hypotheses at all in the first place.

The biggest objection to Dark Energy is that it indeed appears to be unfalsifiable - miraculous. How ironic it is that the scientific method has brought us so far that we may feel free to begin to doubt it. We doubt in order to embrace an ad hoc hypothesis for our convenience and to cloak our lack of imagination. It is no small matter that experiments to determine the repulsive effect of vacuum energy due to quantum fluctuations show that it is a hundred orders of magnitude too large to account for Dark Energy. The real paradox is that problems like this are minimized or dismissed by we who profess allegiance to the scientific method.

So, the best resolution to the paradox of Dark Energy and Neo Inflation or Acceleration is that they do not exist. It is simpler to believe that a short sequence of misconceptions, misinterpretations, mistakes and mistatements has resulted in propagation of a big error than to believe in such a momentous miracle.

I am sorry. I cannot remain neutral when the discussion touches on the scientific method. I support it.

Gary Kent

Kentgen1 05:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to debate you scientifically, but that isn't what this page is for anyway. Have you read the infoboxes at the top of the page, especially the one that begins, "IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began..."? Following those links will give you extensive answers to "Why should an encyclopedic article be so chained to consensus?" "Consensus has often been wrong", but more often it has been right, especially on Wikipedia which attracts people with much stranger ideas than yours. Art LaPella 21:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, Art. Gary's post, largely about dark energy, is not at all integral to the big bang theory, at least not yet. Gary, you should present your argument on the BAUT Forum - www.bautforum.com . --Cougar --64.122.177.153 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

BUT EVEN IF THE BIG BANG HAPPENED WHO CREATED THAT LIL DOT THAT CAUSED THE BIG BANG?

THINK ABOUT THAT 1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.17.249 (talk) 08:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does it need to be a "who"? What's wrong with a "what"? In which case, lots of people are thinking about that. Mike Peel 09:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Take note of the opening paragraph. "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe whose primary assertion is that the universe has expanded into its current state from a primordial condition of enormous density and temperature. The term is also used in a narrower sense to describe the fundamental "fireball" that erupted at or close to an initial time-point in the history of our observed spacetime." ... it is essential to understand that the event often called the Big Bang, refers to the origin of "observed spacetime". It is erroneous to assume that observation coincided with the origin of the universe. That we cannot see beyond this temporal curtain, does not mean that there is nothing beyond it. Bpabbott 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Cause of Big Bang

Disclaimer: this is not a creationist rant.

This article is quite large, and by just skimming through it I can't find any discussion of origins of Big Bang. Not origins of the theory, but "what caused Big Bang to happen". I remember reading something about fluctuation of energy in vacuum that might have caused creation of great amount of energy which then triggered the Big Bang or something like that. Anyway, is there a section in this article which presents scientific theories of origin of Big Bang? --78.0.90.120 09:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Second-to-last section. ScienceApologist 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang"? I don't see anything about what caused Bing Bang there. If that section truly is supposed to answer that question, then the section need serious rewrite for clarity... --78.1.107.253 18:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From the overview: "How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. The early hot, dense phase is itself referred to as "the Big Bang". There is no consensus about how long the Big Bang phase lasted: for some writers this denotes only the initial singularity, for others the whole history of the universe." If you are looking for first causes, that's as good as you're going to get. ScienceApologist 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There appears (to me) to be some confusion on what constitutes the event referred to as the Big Bang. This event marks the origin of the observable universe. The question isn't what created the content of the universe, but what conditions/phenomena enabled observation to become eternal. In my opinion, past versions of this page were less misleading on this point. I'm tempted to edit the page to add the term "observable" in several instances where the word "universe" is used in the context of its evolution or origin. Comments? Bpabbott 18:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Bpabbott, you are quite right that there is a lot of confusion about "the big bang." The name of this widely encompassing theory is a terrible misnomer. As I've mentioned elsewhere, we know next to nothing about the "event". We do know a remarkable amount about what happened after that, even as little as one second after. Besides, the big bang is not an event. It is a scientific theory built on observations. With no evidence of the so-called event, it is simply not part of the theory. -- Cougar --64.122.177.153 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"The Big Bang Theory

Typing "the big bang theory" into the search now directs to a tv show. Good as the show is, isn't the origin of the universe a bit more significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the show too, but the redirection should go to the more important issue not the one that is more like.216.49.97.10 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

A Google search shows that "The Big Bang Theory" means the scientific theory about twice as often as it means the TV show. The history page for The Big Bang Theory (TV series) shows it was moved to The Big Bang Theory on November 20 by User:David Levy with the comment "unnecessary qualifier". Although there is a Wikipedia:Hatnote, I think it's more important to direct readers to Big Bang, although we also need a way to find the TV series. So I suggest a disambiguation page, with a See Also link to Big Bang Theory (album). Art LaPella (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I performed the page move simply because The Big Bang Theory was a redirect to The Big Bang Theory (TV series) (which defied our naming conventions and served no practical purpose).

I do, however, believe that the former is an appropriate title for the article about the television show. The phrase unquestionably refers to the scientific theory with greater frequency, but not in title case (with an uppercase "T" in "Theory"). The title also includes the word "The," the presence of which Wikipedia's naming conventions would not allow in an article about the scientific theory.

Note that the above (legitimate) complaint about "the big bang theory" leading to the article about the TV series was due to the fact that The big bang theory (without title case) was redirecting there. I just edited it to redirect to Big Bang instead. —David Levy 07:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Art LaPella (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Age of the universe and Hubble Deep Field

In the Big Bang article, it says the age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years. In the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) article, it says that the galaxies seen there are about 12 billion light years away. If everything in the universe was at the location of the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, how did those galaxies manage to get 12 billion light years away from us by now? I thought that only very light things like, um, light, could travel at the speed of light, and galaxies aren't light, they are very heavy!

If we assume that the HDF region is unremarkable, as its article says, then presumably looking in the opposite direction, somewhere "south" of the Earth, would reveal lots of galaxies 12 billion light years away in that direction too. That would make the universe have a diameter of 24 billion light years. However, I wouldn't be surprised if astronomers discovered more galaxies even further away than the HDF galaxies once better telescopes are built.

So this is what I find hard to understand. If the Big Bang was about 14 billion years ago, then those galaxies in the HDF must have been travelling very quickly to get 12 billion light years away. I'm finding it hard to calculate exactly how fast they must have travelled. Here's what I'm thinking. The galaxies are 12 billion light years away, which means that the light from them must have taken 12 billion years to get to us. In other words, they were 12 billion light years away from where we are now, 12 billion years ago. Doesn't that mean that they must have travelled to 12 billion light years away from here in only 1.7 billion years from the Big Bang? (I'm not saying they travelled faster than the speed of light, since I'm not assuming that the Big Bang was right here.)

How would one calculate how fast those galaxies must have been going to get from the Big Bang to 12 billion light years away? How would one calculate the amount of energy needed to get a galaxy moving fast enough to get that far away?

I'm not an astrophysicist, so I might have made some really basic errors or wrong assumptions there. But if I got it basically right, then it seems to me that the existence of galaxies 12 billion light years away in one direction, and presumably the same distance away in the opposite direction, proves that the Big Bang either didn't happen, or was a lot longer ago than 14 billion years, or the distance of 12 billion years to HDF galaxies is wrong, or something really weird happens at the "edge of the universe". Thanks for reading, and please tell me what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.80.200 (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You're obliquely referring to the horizon problem which is an issue scientists have been aware of for some time. However, I think your misconceptions may run a bit deeper. In particulary, there are two assumptions you have made which are problematic: 1) you assume that the initial condition for the Big Bang was such that everything was causally connected (in other words, everything started from the same place), but this needn't be the case 2) that galaxies are "traveling" when they follow the metric expansion of space, but this is also incorrect. Both of these misconceptions together lead to some rather bizarre twists of logic as you have demonstrated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 14:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Something to think about..

Okay.. so space is everything right...what contains space though? can u posable see something being "endless" [or at least our (being humanity's) understanding of the word]? Just picture it and the posibilities are endless. and to all think that mabye everything in the entire...I csn't even beginnin to think of a word..how about Everything...mabye everything that is everything that ever was or is now, could have all been once a single body of mass... it drives me crazy just trying to think about it. 69.248.209.198 (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

122.167.240.91 (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)About the basic idea

122.167.240.91 (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)I am a student of Engineering in India and i wanna know some basic ideas about the big bang theory. Can any one please tel me on what basis the universe was said to be expanding,is it only based on the positions of the objects determined by the images got by the observations made(ie. is it based on the received light from the objects or other type of emittions made by the objects) or is there any other basis how it has been theorised.And can anyone please tel me how wide the universe is? and on what basis it has be caliculated

All of the information you ask is in this article. Did you read it? 209.77.205.9 (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Did he understand it? See WP:BITE. You could either direct him to the WP:Reference desk, or to the last 2 paragraphs of Big Bang#Hubble's law and the expansion of space which gives some idea of an answer to his first question - I didn't find answers here to the other questions. Art LaPella (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comparison with global warming

Looking at the treatment of dissenting views here, it seems that WP:WEIGHT is being applied much more rigorously than in relation to Global warming. At least if you just count heads, it seems as if dissenters from the Big Bang model with relevant qualifications in physics are at least as numerous as dissenters from AGW with relevant qualifications in climate science. Not that I'm objecting, but I was surprised to find (via a trawl through Conservapedia I have to admit), this "scientists dispute Big Bang" statement [5] of a kind familiar from the AGW debate. The signatories seem rather more high-powered than those of the typical AGW letter (fewer "retired" this and "consultant" that, for example) and some of the retired signatories are names even I recognise. I suspect the problem is more with the GW piece than here, but perhaps the statement could be modified a little. JQ (talk) 07:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the signatories to the cosmology statement are either "usual suspects" or not cosmologists. There really is no controversy in the scientific field and, unlike global warming, there is very little in the way of a media controversy either (despite the attempts of Halton Arp, Jayant Narlikar, and others to get their views more visibility). This article used to be riddled with "controversy". However, it was easily determined through citation analysis that the people supporting the existence of a "controversy" and who disputed the Big Bang were of such a minority that their opinions could be relegated to one or two sentences. Those sentences are still there in the article giving the appropriate weight to these ideas. I encourage you to use this article as a standard for global warming if you'd like. We went through a lot of headaches to get it to the state it is today. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll see if there's a way I can promote this as a model for GW.JQ (talk) 20:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

BB Doesn't Address Origin of Universe

I note that the third paragraph of this article makes the following statement:

"...its [the CMB's] discovery led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe."

It is indeed the best model for the evolution of the universe, but since there is no evidence of the conditions at "t=0", the "big bang model" currently says nothing about the origin of the universe. --64.122.177.153 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)Cougar

Latest Mod

Thats cool, I was just demonstrating to a friend the fundamental nature of wikipedia, and you were most co-operative. Thankyou:-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.111.66 (talk) 06:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

second photo contains incorrect information "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:3duniverse.png"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:3duniverse.png

This photo contains text whihch states that the human species has existed for "a few million years". However the wikipedia article on the human species (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human) states that "DNA evidence indicates that modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago"

I suggest removing this document.

Enrizzl (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It was removed by Irishguy. Art LaPella (talk) 04:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

big bang universe end theory

if the big bang is said to continuesly repeat itself wouldnt that break the whole fact of religion exept for the belief in reincarnation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.104.28 (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, religion (with or without reincarnation) could adapt to an oscillating universe, in the same ways it has adapted to the current scientific consensus. Art LaPella (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion And The Big Bang

Shouldn't There be a section about Religion and the Big Bang. Like how they support, or Contradicts with each other?--Obaidz96 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Support

There Should Be one, many verses in the Quran say that the Universe/Space is constantly Expanding. And I am pretty sure the bible has some verses tha contradict with the theory. --Obaidz96 (talk) 23:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Adding a section like this would be useful in showing these contrasts, and in providing perspective with a different POV. scetoaux ^{(talk) (My contributions.)} 23:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose- I believe this has already been mentioned, and rejected, under criticism discussions, and there is already an article for this called Philosophical and religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory which does talk about the differences and that article is pointed out in the Big Bang article. --BirdKr (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - per BirdKr. Geologyguy (talk) 04:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

There already is one. It's called Big Bang#Philosophical and religious interpretations. It's vague, but it links to a larger, more specific article Philosophical and religious interpretations of the Big Bang theory. Art LaPella (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The sub-section pointed to by Art LaPella is fine and enough imo. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoyle

This edit duplicates material about Hoyle in the fourth paragraph of Big Bang#History. Art LaPella (talk) 18:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I would vote to remove it, although the last sentence is new and could be kept if you think it's relevant. --Childhood's End (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed an unsourced bit about criticism from the intro that didn't seem to relate to the existing criticsm section - unless I've mis-interpreted. Also removed the rather overdone Lerner quote - so he's complaining about the "powers that be", so what. If there are other sources that back up his sour-grapism then let's see 'em. Vsmith (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I rephrased the support for Big Bang that looked like criticism to Vsmith and so it was removed by him. Jim (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro Trashed?

I pretty much rewrote the introductory paragraphs, which to me appeared to have been thoroughly trashed by creationists or some such. It was gobbledegook. I haven't done a lot of Wiki editing, and I didn't look into previous versions, but I've done some considerable study on this topic, and the Intro is now intelligible and accurate to my knowledge. Comments, criticisms, and nitpicks welcome. Go ahead and make it better. If you're unsure, ask first. DCCougar (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have very mixed feelings about your changes to the introduction. Would you mind saying why, specifically, you felt the version you changed was trashed? CKCortez (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the previous version is gone now, so I can't address specific points. (Is the old version available somewhere?) Basically, it contained numerous inaccuracies, it contained side-trips out into areas that are not central to the theory, and Jim's claim about the "most important achievement" (see below) is terribly far off the mark. It was scattered and unintelligible. The theory is simple at its base. I try to inform, not confuse. DCCougar (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Click here for the old version. To find old versions without me, go to the Big Bang article, click the tab that says "history" near the top of the screen, and click one of the time and date stamps. Each represents a different historical version of the page you want - in this case, the version you want is 14:12 March 10, 2008, just below your first (lowest) edit, which is labeled with DCCougar. Art LaPella (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Art. A good example of the inaccurate or unintelligible introductory description that I was mortified to find is as follows: "The model is based on a theoretical lack of the Hubble type redshift in a stationary universe and so on a constant creation of the energy necessary to compensate for the dynamical friction of photons in such a universe." I still can't make out what is trying to be said here. The model is based on observational evidence. That evidence pretty much ruled out Hoyle's "eternal" model. Hoyle was one stubborn scientist, though, and like Arp, he scrambled to find some explanation, however unlikely, for the inconsistencies between his model and observation. DCCougar (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I also don't see what was wrong with the previous version - perhaps you can explain what part you felt was 'gobbledegook' or why you felt it was 'trashed by creationists'. PhySusie (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why have you deleted my edits about the most important achievement of the Big Bang Theory: the invalidation of the principle of conservation of energy and finally allowing for unity of science and spiritual life?

It's new physics, unknown before the Big Bang Theory, when every physicist and his brother thought that "energy can't be created out of nothing". The expanding universe theory showed conclusively that it can be created out of nothing and it is easily created in sufficient amounts. I hope you appreciate the fact that if energy were strictly conserved the expanding universe wouldn't be possible and all the astronomical observations had to be explained also in Einstein's universe (as they are explained with a possibly phony "Einsteinian gravitation" by cranks). Since the fact of creation of energy is taught in all general relativity courses around the world, even if your POV is different, it is not allowed in wikipedia since it goes against the mainstream science. TELL THE WIKITRUTH Jim (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Mainstream science" does not teach that the Big Bang invalidates the principle of conservation of energy: the Big Bang is regarded as containing all the energy that is now distributed throughout the Universe. Also, I've never seen "the fact of creation of energy" taught in any general relativity tutorial (nor is it presented in the Wikipedia article on GR). And what does "finally allowing for unity of science and spiritual life" mean? --Robert Stevens (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Rob Stevens. Yes, Jim, you seem to be in the wrong place. This theory has nothing to do with "unity of science and spiritual life." Please do not attempt to impose your beliefs where they do not belong. DCCougar (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah - thank you for catching that - the older version that I looked at didn't have all that. Good catch. PhySusie (talk) 14:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That the Big Bang invalidates the principle of conservation of energy is a common knowledge even if it is not known to the wikipedia editors. It comes from the Noether theorem applied to the expanding universe. You may check it with the university where I'm doing my PhD in general realtivity. The head of "Cosmology and Gravitation" is prof. Demianski (click on "Authorities and people" and slect his e-mail). If he's not enough then prof. Meissner told me that my proof of validity of Einstein's universe has to be rejected on grounds of invalidity of conservation of energy. Otherwise Einstein's idea is fine, and it would explain the illusion of accelerating expansion and even Pioneer anomaly. Its only problem is that the validity of Einstein's universe is based on conservation of energy which according to mainstream science is false. If this principle were true the university could get first Nobel Prize in its history. So you are adding insult to injury by maintainig that "mainstream science" allows conservation of energy. It does not and the result is the Big Bang and invalidity of Einstein's universe.

The "unity of science and spiritual life" is something that theist want to push through, using the Big Bang as a vehicle, since the Big Bang contradicts the conservation of energy. Just yesterday a Catholic theologian, prof. Michael Heller got $1,600,000 prize (biger than Nobel Prize) for cosmology. Supporting guess what. The scientists from U. of Kansas maintain that support of Einstein's universe is an atheist plot. So I just wanted you to be consistent in your belief in possibility of creation of matter from nothing. Jim (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim wrote: "That the Big Bang invalidates the principle of conservation of energy is a common knowledge even if it is not known to the wikipedia editors." Please provide peer-reviewed journal articles supporting this position. More to the point, however, explain how this is central to a general understanding of the Big Bang theory. I have no problem with violating the law of conservation of energy -- dark energy, if accurately described by the cosmological constant, does that -- however, I don't see how this is at all central to the theory, and its positioning in the introductory paragraphs can only confuse, rather than inform wiki-readers. DCCougar (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim wrote: "The "unity of science and spiritual life" is something that theist want to push through, using the Big Bang as a vehicle, since the Big Bang contradicts the conservation of energy." So why are you even talking about it? DCCougar (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

...Huh? Jim, "Einstein's Universe" refers to a static-Universe, steady-state theory which Einstein later considered to be a mistake (his "biggest blunder", in fact). You tried to "prove" that it was valid? Why? And your "proof" failed? How is this relevant to the Big Bang theory? And steady-state theory is NOT "fine", it is contradicted by numerous observations (not just redshift). And Heller was awarded the Templeton Prize, which doesn't mean much in academic circles anyhow: it's a religious prize. But if it was for musings on the Big Bang: so what? According to mainstream science, the Big Bang happened, regardless of whatever "spin" theologians want to put on it. --Robert Stevens (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Jim, you might want to review Wiki's No original research policy. DCCougar (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi DCCougar and Robert Stevens. If I wanted to talk about all subjects I'd have to violate No original research policy since those things are the subject of my PhD work and a PhD work by definition is an original research.

While I can't show my original research I can answer your questions. That the conservation of enrgy is not valid in the Big Bang model you may ask any general relativity professor from any university in the world. All of them know that the Big Bang does not allow conservation of energy.

I can also "explain how this is central to a general understanding of the Big Bang theory" in other words "why the Big Bang does not allow conservation of energy?".

The short answer is that conservation of energy implies a redshift in a stationary universe and so if we want to have the expansion of space we have to get rid of conservation of energy since we can't have two reasons for the same effect (then the effect would be twice as big and it's not).

The long answer is that in general any object moving through the universe is a subject to so called dynamical friction. It is on average a loss of kinetic energy of the moving object to the surroundings (if it is gain then it is called sling effect). The effect can be calculated applying the principle of conservation of energy and when surroundings gain the energy the object is assumed to lose the equal amount of energy. When we calculate this loss for photon's energy in a static universe of desity of ours, we get redshift of the same order of magnitude as the Hubble redshift. It looks like a "tired light effect" (the same equation) but we know that in Einstein's gravitation, there is no "tired light effect" since there are no gravitational forces acting at the distance. So this effect can only be either a relativistic effect of time dilation at the source of light (similar time dilation as in gravitational redshift) or the priniciple of conservation of energy is not valid for photons and the redshift is Doppler and so the space is expanding. Since the former would require the time runing slower "simultaneously" at two points in space (which was too radical a physics at that time to admit, even for Einstein, not anymore though since relativity got stronger) the former possibility has been abandoned and invalidation of the principle of conservation of enrgy admitted for the construction of the Big Bang model. So the principle of conservation of energy has been assumed not to be valid for photons and the dynamical friction for photons was assumed to be exactly zero and the reason for the redshift has been assumed to be an expansion of space. That's why it is essential for the model. We don't see any expansion, we just assume it indirectly, assuming that in a static universe there wouldn't be any Hubble type redshift (since the principle of conservation of energy is assumed not to be valid for photons). It might look like a lousy physics but it is cosmologists who accept it not physicists.

The subject of my work is basically that "some physical theories are wiser than their creators" (Hertz). In my work I'm showing the things that Einstein didn't want to argue about with the cosmologists and I'm showing why if the energy is conserved the observations show that the universe is stationary. It's an observational result. No theory except Einstein's.

Einstein was a physicist who had litle appreciation for math ("As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.") so he didn't want to argue with cosmologists who were applied mathematicians. He already said that the biggest blunder of his life was discovering the cosmological constant which started this madness of each cosmologist subscribing to his pet value while its obvious value was $c^{2}/(4\pi G\rho )$ . Something that after a while made to the urban legend as "Einstein admitting his blunder of discovering cosmological constant". Repeated by many as if discovering anything might be a blunder. He also told his secretary not to let in anybody who wants to talk to him about the universe (source: his associate Roy Glauber, my teacher at Harvard).

So if you are patient and the principle of conservation of energy, which Einstein as a patent office clerk must have understood better than any applied matematician, makes back into the mainstream science you may see all of these things explained successfully by the "mainstream science" in a few years. If you are curious though how Einstein's theory explains things that cosmologists can't explain without inventing new physics (dark energy) and if you are able to assume that the principle of conseation of energy is valid, agree to the fact that the space might be curved and that the time is delated accordingly, luckily all controlled by simpler than Newtonian equations -- and luckily there isn't anything else in Einstein's theory, you will see then how Einstein's theory can explain and predict numerical values of Hubble constant, accelerating expansion, CMBR, Pioneer anomaly, such phenomena as local quasars, all calculated only from the first principles, agreeing with observations up to one standard deviation. At the same time contradicting the priest's science (as Einstein called the Big Bang) that the church supports with awards bigger than the Nobel Prize. Einstein's "crank physics" (so far) is only supported by the principle of conservation of energy. An ungodly principle preventing God from creation universes out of nothing and even preventing the universe from expanding or shrinking and that's why the "mainstream science" had to drop this principle to stay internally consistent. So this fact shouldn't be hidden from the public opinion since this is the only difference between the Einstein's "crank physics" -- with the principle of conservation of energy -- and the priest's science -- without it, but instead with such mighty protectors as Wikipedia and the Catholic Church. Jim (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

...Except that it isn't "the only difference". You're essentially claiming that the astronomers are ignorant of the relevant physics, whereas it actually seems that the steady-state advocates are ignorant of the relevant astronomy. Plenty of people over the years have proposed that redshift might be due to causes other than the expansion of the Universe (this isn't exactly some new groundbreaking idea), but all have come unstuck due to the inability to explain the other astronomical evidences of the Big Bang. See Steady state theory. --Robert Stevens (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it isn't "the only difference". I should say it is the only fundamental difference since most other things in both theories are the same, except that the Big Bang does not produce any verifiable predictions and so it can't be falsified (and in this sense it is not a theory but an unverifiable hypothesis contradicting the standard physics -- the principle of conservation of energy). Einstein's stationary universe on the other hand produces at least five verifiable predictions (that I mentioned earlier) so it can be falsified if it fails just in one of its predictions. The Steady state theory of Hoyle etc. has the same problem as the Big Bang, an unverified so far creation of matter from nothing, so all other problems become irrelevant and it is irrelevant how many things the steady-state advocates are ignorant of.

It would be interesting if you could present those "other astronomical evidences of the Big Bang theory" that Einstein's stationary universe explain falsly (produces wrong numbers) since then Einstein's stationary universe would be falsified. Could you do this? Jim (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim wrote: So if you are patient and the principle of conservation of energy... makes [it] back into the mainstream science you may see all of these things explained successfully by the "mainstream science" in a few years.

Until that time, it has no place in this article. DCCougar (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim wrote: ...the Big Bang does not produce any verifiable predictions and so it can't be falsified...

With statements like this, I am forced to seriously doubt you are a doctoral candidate, and further discussion is pointless. You do not seem to realize that the big bang theory does not make any claims about times earlier than 10^-19 seconds -- we are unable to simulate conditions earlier than that since our particle accelerators are currently not the size of the solar system. The big bang is a theory about the evolution of the universe after that early time. It says NOTHING about the ultimate origin of the universe. How can it? There is no evidence. Scientific theories are based on evidence! I have recently read current books by leading physicists and cosmologists such as Alex Vilenkin, Paul Steinhardt & Neil Turok, Leonard Susskind, and Lee Smolin. It is interesting that they ALL agree that the big bang theory is essentially correct from 1 second after the "bang" to the present day. Their only disagreements come in what happened before 1 second. DCCougar (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

DCCougar wrote: "With statements like this, I am forced to seriously doubt you are a doctoral candidate". Actually you may be forced only to doubt whether I'm a serious PhD candidate i.e. whether I manage to make my PhD when the "mainstream science" is pushing an opinion that matter can be created from nothing, the only argument the Cosmology and Gravitation professors at my university are able to present for the Big Bang. Which is silly since a theory without the necessity of making matter from nothing, as Einstein's universe is, and predicting all the same observations, providing also a reason for them, is a better theory. Why not?

Even if "ALL agree that the big bang theory is essentially correct" four centuries ago ALL agreed that the Ptolemaic system is essentially correct (which of course is, just the Copernican system is better). And luckily, I can prove since 1985 that Einstein's stationary universe is a better theory than the Big Bang, which might be worth a PhD. You just lose the creation of matter from nothing and all that nonsense about the history of the universe "before it was created" and "what happened before 1 second [after it was created]". The Big Bang moves into the history of science like Ptolemaic system did in 1543. Do you think it would be bad for the science (or for the religion)? Jim (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You must think that something is bad with the Big Bang if you block the access to the information about it. Do you think that the public would lose faith in the Big Bang if it knew everything? Jim (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed this warning at the top of this page:

"IMPORTANT: This is not the place to discuss how you think the universe began. This page is for discussing the article, which is about the Big Bang model, and about what has been presented in peer-reviewed scientific literature about it. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. If you wish to discuss or debate the validity of the Big Bang please do so at BAUT forum or talk.origins." (Emphasis added.) DCCougar (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed my statement "If I wanted to talk about all subjects I'd have to violate no original research policy since those things are the subject of my PhD work and a PhD work by definition is an original research." It means that I'm not discussing the Big Bang here but only your removal of the most important feature of the Big Bang. We discuss just what we are expected to discuss: your edits.

I'm supporting the Wikipedia rules, arguing for the mainstream science, even against my personal POV. You are ignoring Wikipedia rules by removing the important parts of the article since your POV is against the mainstream science (against the lack of conservation of energy in expanding universe, which obviously follows from prof. John Baez's texts and from the presented reliable sources). If you don't understand the subject of the article then maybe you should leave the editing to those who do? Jim (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, Jim, I have read over 100 books on this subject, many by Nobel laureates. Mainstream science books. I don't recall ONE of those books giving the slightest mention to your notion of "lack of conservation of energy in expanding universe." So your claim that this is "the most important feature of the Big Bang" is drastically subjective at best, and as far as I'm concerned, it lacks any degree of credibility. DCCougar (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And by the way, would you care to clarify and provide peer-reviewed papers to support your following claim? "...the most important achievement of the Big Bang Theory: the invalidation of the principle of conservation of energy and finally allowing for unity of science and spiritual life?" You're claiming this is mainstream science? DCCougar (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DCCougar, you see, you read over 100 books on this subject and you didn't know that, so it turns out to be "the most important feature of the Big Bang". Because nobody knew this. Such a thing is called a discovery. Phony duscovery in my opnion, but my opinion is not "mainstream". Prof. John Baez's opinion is nowadays "mainstream". And you know prof. Baez opinion. I was shocked, when I learned that "mathematical physicists" started maintaining that "energy is not conserved in general realtivity". I've always known that the expanding universe hypothesis violates the principle of conservation of energy so I didn't take the expansion seriously and I just kept using it as an argument against the expanding universe. I was glad that "mathematical physicists" found finally the same thing but to my bewilderment, instead of rejecting the expanding universe (which would be a painless thing to do), they rejected the principle of conservation of energy (a thing impossible to explain without a supernatural). But they were applied mathematicians, not physicists, so they didn't need to know all the evidence against the creation of matter from nothing. And that's why we have the "mainstream science" going along with religion. Which amuses me a lot. It is the same problem with "mathematical physicists" that Feynman wrote already about.

"The most important achievement of the Big Bang Theory" was an ironic statement as well as the "unity of science and spiritual life". But it is really there in the "mainstream science" even if not yet documented as clearly as it is in professor Baez's statements. In my university most students already believe that energy can be created out of nothing (with some proper magic perhaps) since they are told by "mathematical phisicists" that "the expanding universe is a proof of this". I don't believe in any of it since I know enough physics to understand how it really works (rather simple knolwdge explained already by Einstein) but how a physics student who doesn't have all that knowledge yet, or you, is to find out what is true? So I don't blame you for not knowing just for getting involved in the things that you don't understand instead of asking how it works, and using your brain to decide whether it may work this way. Jim (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT the place to announce "discoveries": WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V. --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory Basics

The base of evolution is the Big Bang theory. This is the general theory: Before anything, even time nothing (flaw number one) packed together so tightly exploded(NOTE: I can not say it because it was nothing). The explosion was so big planets,suns(stars),galaxys, everything. But they aren't going the same way(flaw number two). So Billions of years later the rocks absorbed the oxygen before it existed (flaw number three) and about one billion years later it rained on the rocks for millions of years (where did it come from and where did it go?) and made Primordial Soup and that became life (what did it eat, how did it reproduce?) and thus Evolution began. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.179.200 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this page, did you notice the red octagon with a hand in the middle? We're well aware of Big Bang and evolution basics, so please debate them at talk.origins. Art LaPella (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Just how correct is it?

The big bang as you know consisted of nothing. But how did nothing become something? I read "The Big bang Theory Basics" and the big bang is completely absurd and I'm sure whoever made it up wasn't thinking very hard. Also, you've been wondering why there are all these shootings and stabbings, well Evolution has no absolutes, and the people that did those things are taught thier animals! Wich means you can do what feels right, Evolution is to get rid of the Authority of the Law, wich is Chaotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.222.104 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts - but please see the top of the page. This is for discussing the article - not the merits of the theory. PhySusie (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Novice says

I thought robert dicke of princeton developed big bang theory but i dont see him mentioned ???

SINGLE STATE THEORY: [...] i used to beleive in the entirety of this theory - the big bang theory )j(, but since the docu$drama that ridley scott did of steven - i have wondered that the theory he went up against as shown in the beginning 'i've worked it out - bunny',, has grown backwards against this his neo/matrix/envelope {tacyon lens} to have only have seen this once "i": and then to have to go |so that theory was called| /\ but then look at the envelope say the publiscists, here is the sound-map and the varying-degrees-charts all relating to \/ the big-bang,, 'i've forgotten the bunny';; [*], but then it comes back in between meals despite advertising of this kind;;;;; in partisan-realisations from this point, it seems to be that the theory he rebelled against had something to do with certain-orthodoxies,, ]very distracting millman[ & now particle accelerators appear - making new chart-legos M,, before you can say € they have closed some sort of office of interpretation at the same point you would have done ??? the certain-orthodox theory is like a fruit !!! [({})] !!! .. is .. so , in that case there is another theory that is like a tree and stevens theory is about a seed ||| in the lego-factory documentary it showed something like big-bang-pulse-theory, that's the fruit in that case,, the charts belong to the tree ::::::: one was a noise, one was an energy and one was ^tennis match^ <cricket match> a mastery, :the bunny wins go back two spaces: in thatc ase one was dr who;:;:;: ,,, then call big-bang-theory, single state theory hence this last realisation --- gravitational destiny the tardis --- no, i really don't know this stuff,,, either way call it that,,, call the fruit theory MATERIAL STATE THEORY and call the tree theory ENERGY STATE THEORY,,, sardis... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.116.136 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the universe expanding?

I was wondering what is the proof that the universe is expanding? Is it because the redshift on standard candles? Is there other proof?

My understanding is that gravity can bend space. If a great mass passes in front of light could one see a redshift since the distance now is farther than it was? the speed of light should be constant but I think that it relatively has to go father in the same time. thus the redshift. Is this correct?

Also if the above is correct. What would be the effect of mass that was spread over great distances. Where I am going with this is :

Could dark matter spread out over billions of light years cause a red shift in the light from a star that is not moving away from us in absolute terms? The thought is that the amount of dark matter that the light passed through could have quite a bit of gravity. Thus making far away objects appear that they are moving farther away from us quicker than they actually are.

--Tommac2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.66.67 (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"If a great mass passes in front of light could one see a redshift since the distance now is farther than it was?" I think that is correct but you seem to have overlooked what happens when the mass goes on by, reversing into a blueshift. To get such a redshift from dark matter, it wouldn't be enough for the path from the light to be longer once. It would have to keep getting longer and longer somehow, and for all distant galaxies, and I can't imagine what would cause that. Art LaPella (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK makes sense. So lets take this a step farther. Lets say that the amount of dark matter in the universe is growing at a constant rate equally distributed accross the universe. That means that the amount of dark matter that the light from a distant star passes through is increasing. Thus the light is effected by an increasingly larger net gravitational field. In theory couldnt that cause a permanent red shift? --Tommac2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.45.240.18 (talk) 14:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

For a few seconds it would, but after that I think the dark matter would have to grow fast enough to crunch everything. http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/ would know that answer better than I would. Art LaPella (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Art's right. As the light approaches a large mass, the gravity causes blueshifting; then as it departs, it is redshifted. Overall, the effect is essentially canceled. In another situation, if light is generated at or near a hugely massive body, it is simply redshifted as it climbs out of the "gravity well." However, calculations show that the amount of this type of gravitational redshifting is very small - practically negligible - when compared to the redshifting due to cosmic expansion. By the way, as the top of the discussion page says, this really isn't the place for this type of discussion. These types of questions are welcome at the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum (http://www.bautforum.com/) in the Questions and Answers section. And, Jim, you should be discussing your ideas and "discoveries" there, too, in the Against The Mainstream section. BAUT is a moderated forum, and you will be asked to read and abide by the rules. If you are proposing a new theory, you will have to defend that theory in detail and answer questions put to you. DCCougar (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

But I'm not proposing any new theory. It's old Einstein's theory. It's called "Einstein's universe". I just gave it some supporting math based on an assumption that energy can't be created. The math that either didn't occur to Einstein or he didn't care to argue with mathematicians. Jim (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As previously pointed out, Einstein's (static) Universe was discarded over 70 years ago. It is now very much Against the Mainstream, and that would be the appropriate place to discuss it at the BAUT Forum. The BAUT participants are not so easily shaken by mathematics. In fact, they demand it. Are you afraid your cherished idea will be chewed up and spit out when presented to people who are well studied in the field? DCCougar (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If Einstein's Universe turns out to be ours what will you do? Will you move somewhere else?

OK, I'll try the BAUT. Maybe there is some intelligent life out there. But then I might not have the time to come here and try to explain the pysics to you. Unless you go there with me. Jim (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I live at BAUT. DCCougar (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Big Bang vs White Hole / Steady State.

I was watching a special on the Big Bang ( part of The Universe series ). As they spoke it seemed all of the claims they made could also be applied to a white hole.

From my understanding they claimed that people found out that the universe was expanding and logically they were able to calculate when the universe was a singularity. They claimed that the entire universe was once a point smaller than an electron.

Then they discussed that seeing that the universe is expanding crushed the idea of a steady state universe.

However could the proof of the big bang be the same proof as a white hole / black hole pairs and indeed a steady state universe?

What are the differences of the big bang and a big white hole?

--Tommac2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.66.67 (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The article says "Little is known about the earliest moments of the universe's history." In particular, we don't know if the same laws of nature applied, so there isn't much to say other than listing guesses. Art LaPella (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Again that sounds very much like inside of the event horizon of a black or white hole. --Tommac2

Real particle formation

Presumably there were real particles at the initiation of inflation. I once read that large scale CMB variation arises from the formation of individual real particles (in pairs presumably) during inflation, each of which corresponds to a large volume at the end. Now only virtual particles appear ex nihilo, so that deserves explanation. I assume it is required by conservation of energy, but then what type of particles -- why not just photons or neutrinos or whatever? Fairandbalanced (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Was it "particles" that were inflated to become the tiny density variations in the CMB, or was it "quantum fluctuations"? Leon Lederman in The God Particle said at page 400, "One has to go to the quantum phase of the universe's history, in which spooky quantum mechanical fluctuations during inflation can lead to the irregularities. Inflation enlarges these microscopic fluctuations to a scale commensurate with galaxies." At any rate, a virtual particle can become real if for some reason it is unable to rejoin its pair partner. I imagine inflation certainly presents such an opportunity. But on the other hand, google on ("particle production" "after inflation"), and it appears the current mainstream view sees all the particles in the universe being generated from the extreme energy released as the inflaton field decayed to its ground state... or something like that. DCCougar (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of the theory

Big Bang#Criticism of the theory is about 1/40 of the article. Part of it duplicates material in the history section. As for Arp and Lerner, as I understand it they don't account for anywhere near 1/40 of current scientific opinion. Although I sometimes worry that minority opinions aren't allowed to be expressed in their own articles, in this article people want to read about the Big Bang theory. So doesn't this much minority opinion belong at articles like Non-standard cosmology? Art LaPella (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I share the same concern about minority opinions. As much as I support putting the focus on the generally accepted theory in any given field and would oppose giving too much weight to minority opinions, I do think that an encyclopedia's role is to document all the relevant (and verifiable) information rather than simply report what the majority group says. This seems to me even more important in an article about the Big Bang, where science and philosophy meet (perhaps some more material in this regard could be welcome, especially about infinity implications, but I leave it to others).

You raise a good point that people want to read about the Big Bang theory, although the larger audience, imo, is likely to expect something about the dissenting scientific views. --Childhood's End (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no "dissenting scientific views" in this instance. There is consensus that the Big Bang is the only model left that explains all observations. Sure there are mavericks out there, but they aren't taken seriously. There are also mavericks who dispute that Maxwell's Equations are correct. This doesn't warrant mention in that article for the same reason. Fringe groups are marginalized at Wikipedia because they are marginalized outside of Wikipedia. If you want to see them included, encourage them to become less marginalized outside of Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually WP:Undue weight doesn't say we are to document all the relevant and verifiable information, although it can be documented in articles devoted to minority opinions. We wouldn't want the article to be overrun with every possible opinion about it. The oft-debated issue here is how much text should be devoted to each opinion, and comparing the text ratio to the scientist ratio is a good objective test. As the undue weight policy puts it, "in proportion to their representation among experts". If people want the story on dissenting scientific views, as I understand it the answer is that scientists have debated the issue in the past, and now they are pretty much united. Dissent is largely limited to blogs and an amazing number of Wikipedia editors, but among professional scientists the support for such dissent is nowhere near 1/40 (according to previous debates). So I don't understand devoting 1/40 of the Big Bang article to it. The link to Non-standard cosmology covers the subject without exaggerating it. Art LaPella (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I shortened the section. It's now restrained to two paragraphs, with half of one actually devoted to critics of the critics. Hope it satisfies both readers and editors. --Childhood's End (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The section shouldn't be here at all. We've discussed this many times. Please read the archives and get back to us. I removed it completely. Until you have a new argument to make, do not add this fringe material back. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Archives are quite large. Can you find for us the discussion about Alfven? Also, there's a fine line between WP:FRINGE and WP:IDONTLIKEIT that I suspect might be relevant here. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

IDONTLIKEIT is a rationale to avoid in deletion discussions. I think what you are looking for is something like WP:NOT#CENSORED. In any case, the discussions are mammoth, I cannot point to a single section of the archive. However, if you want to propose adding more to this article, I suggest you read the entire thing. Also, please note that a 1984 paper and a 1991 book isn't exactly up-to-date, even if you are to buy the mythology that there is a controversy. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think there's a real controversy in the litterature, actually. I only see that there are some (minor) dissenting views that are both notable and verifiable, and that should thus be noted since WP must cover the notable and verifiable viewpoints. That's all. --Childhood's End (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The "viewpoints" are only prominent with respect to the history of the Big Bang. There is no prominence of contemporary criticism. Plasma cosmology is not a critique recognized in the sources and the dissent is not worthy of inclusion in a section like that. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be glad to hear from other viewpoints as my mind is not set towards one solution or the other. Perhaps it's more relevant to the history section. But I see a strong presumption in favor of including the dissenting viewpoint of a Nobel physicist in an article such as this one. He might not make a controversy on his own, but he's both notable and verifiable, which is the standard inclusion criteria. Still waiting on any archived link about Alfven if you dont mind. --Childhood's End (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Do an archive search yourself, I cannot be bothered to educate you about why Alfven's cosmology is completely irrelevant to Big Bang when this has all been hashed out before. Nonstandard cosmologies is where you belong, not here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it belongs to nonstandard cosmology. That's what was being discussed on this talk page before you rushed in with your own pov. Pushing scientism is not more acceptable than pushing fringe theories. I found little material in the archives about Alfven. It seems agreed he's notable, but that his cosmology theory is not. Perhaps what should appear is a note of his thoughts about the Big Bang's merits while leaving out the reference to his alternative theory. What seems clear to me is that a dissenting opinion coming from a Nobel prize in a scientific field warrants inclusion in any article. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has already happened before and it was determined that the place this idea belongs is on nonstandard cosmology. Alfven's thoughts on the Big Bang deserve no more mention than any other Nobel physicist's thoughts, and we have nearly one hundred to choose from. It's incidental to the theory itself and therefore does not warrant inclusion in this article. Please see WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE for more. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add on to this (and to give some moral support): Pushing scientism is not more acceptable than pushing fringe theories. This one made my jaw drop. Of course it is more acceptable, just as pushing fact is more acceptable than pushing fiction. Alfven might have a Nobel, but that does not give his ideas in unrelated fields more weight! He might as well have won the prize in Biology. His stuff is from the 60s, and the last 40 years have shown that the theory is a failure. Why would we want to reheat this old pile of... ? --Dschwen 21:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is another representative quote about Alfven from previous debate. I don't really know if Alfven was right, but Wikipedia isn't about my opinion, and it seems clear that Alfven's importance today is more historical than anything else. Art LaPella (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

@Dschwen, I think you misunderstood my comment since 'scientism' can be interpreted in a number of ways. Epistemology is part of science, and trying to push in Wikipedia that science can produce either undisputable truth or that science is a better source of knowledge than, say, philosophy, in all areas of life and nature is not supported and is unscientific in itself. What this article, and all scientific articles, should do is to report the state of the science as it exists, with the proper context and history, etc., without pushing either fringe theories or scientism, which are not scientific.

As to Alfven, I think that what the reader would expect to find is his view of the Big Bang, not necessarily his alternate theory, which I agree is discredited. That should have been left out right from the start. --Childhood's End (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. We've been over this. Nothing to see here folks. Move right along. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship

My citation to "The pre-big bang universe" at BigCrash.org was removed, claiming conflict of interest. This is about science not about politics, if the model can be discredited by science then do so, otherwise do not censor me. My only interest is in finding the scientific truth, where ever that leads. A critical review of the model includes "...you may have stumbled onto some new explanations that would explain observed physics." Challenge the content on science, not politics. --Jtankers (talk) 23:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Challenge the content on Wikipedia policies, not on science alone. In particular, please study the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You may also want to study the Wikipedia:No original research policy. If you can persuade other scientists that your ideas have merit - for instance, by publishing them in a peer-reviewed journal - then they would become appropriate to cite on Wikipedia. However, at the moment, they're not. Scog (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Understood --Jtankers (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Origin of the Universe?

I went to the article origin of the universe and it redirected me to the big bang. The big bang does not explain the origin of the universe, it merely explains the construction of things within the universe. Is it possible to start a new article on origin of the universe? (Including information about how/where that original bit matter required for the big bang to even be possible originated from) 24.5.246.233 (talk) 05:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There are no well established theories beyond the current big bang model. There are some examples of ideas that some people have been developing under "speculative physics beyond the big bang" in this article, but this section is small enough that I don't think it is necessary for it so be split off into its own individual article. Coffeeassured (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

OK that's great. Maybe in the future there will be more information on that subject. Thanks for your input.24.5.246.233 (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV tag

The NPOV tag links to WP:NPOVD which states "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies,..." So we'll give KirbyManiac half an hour or so to compose his NPOV objection, before removing his tag. Art LaPella (talk) 00:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No such explanation has been provided, so I removed the tag. Art LaPella (talk) 00:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Big Breed Theory?

Has anyone ever heard of the "Big Breed Theory" or "Exact Classical Mechanics" proposed by Ron Pearson (e.g., http://www.pearsonianspace.com/second%20page.html)? Some interesting claims are made but I assume they aren't taken seriously outside of Pearson's close circle of supporters. RichardF (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find a Wikipedia article on Big Breed Theory, Exact Classical Mechanics or Ron Pearson (that Ron Pearson is an actor), so without knowing anything more, it doesn't belong in the main Big Bang article. It may (or may not) be notable enough to have its own article though, with links from some non-standard cosmology articles. Art LaPella (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew none of those articles were here. All of the Googled pages I found seemed to be interconnected too. That's why I was wondering if there was any degree of independent acknowledgment of the assertions. I can't find any. RichardF (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Horrendous Space Kablooie

The Horrendous Space Kablooie isn't exactly vandalism. But the usual name "Big Bang" is used 8000 times more often according to Google, so the "HSK" doesn't belong in the first paragraph, and probably not in the main Big Bang article at all. Art LaPella (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Argument by Google count won't fly per se, but if one of those sites listed is an WP:RS then I won't argue. But something like that must be sourced. (I'm one of many that feel "BB" is a misnomer...sad to think it but HSK might actually be an improvement. :P) --Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to think this is just a humorous conversation, but I fear not. What was so horrendous about it, and who did it horrify? --Jack forbes (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Cosmogony Jok2000 (talk) 19:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to a mini-edit war that ended here with the edit summary question "Seriously?" Well, it was semi-seriously; the Horrendous Space Kablooie is at least a well-known joke. Art LaPella (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I had never heard of it, but then, I'm no big bang expert. I'm just amazed what some people will edit war for! --Jack forbes (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Proof the scientest need change the name of this.

The Big Bang, that's impossible. Now, I DON'T argue that there WAS and explosion that created the universe. However, there was NO BANG!!! Ya see it's simple, there is no air in space, thus nothin' for sound waves to travel through, thus no sound, which means that the "Big Bang" never occoured. Yes, they was an explosion but no actual bang. Just proved that scientest don't ALWAYS know best after all. --Cra sh U nderride 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There would be no bang if an explosion occurred in space as we know it, i.e. with an average density of 1 hydrogen atom per square meter. However, at the time the universe was a lot denser: denser than usual "terrestrial" materials, denser than star cores, even denser than neutron stars. The higher the density of a material, the faster the speed of sound. So, there was a bang, and it travelled extremely fast from the center of the event to the edge. Devil Master (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's called the "Big Bang" for the same reason sunset is called "sunset", even though "Earth-turn" would be more accurate. It's the name everyone uses and recognizes. (Anyway, there probably was a bang within the expanding matter.) Art LaPella (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest instead The Horrendous Space KABLOOIE.--BirdKr (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

So when did the bing bang happnd?

How long ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.20.215 (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is mentioned in the article..."the universe has a calculated age of 13.73 ± 0.12 billion years old." Teapotgeorge (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Science?

Science is something that can be demonstrated over and over again. If you can demonstrate the big bang and make another universe why haven't you done it yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.222.104 (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts - but please see the top of the page. This is for discussing the article - not the merits of the theory. There are other more appropriate places to discuss your ideas. PhySusie (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Guys, why can't you accept that Wikipedia is not to publish the scientific truth but only the opinion of majority of editors? If the majority happen to be idiots or mystics, this is what Wikipedia is to publish. If you happen to know the truth (or you think so since you tested it observationally which is the only way to test the truth) you should keep it to yourself since in some fields of science (cosmology and gravitation is an example) it won't be accepted by the majority of editors.

The truth about the Big Bang was aready told by Feynman many years ago so it doesn't need to be repeated. The tuth is absolute and eternal. Like laws of Pythagoras and Archimedes and so it can't be changed. What would you understand about the nature if laws of Pythagoras and Archimedes were modified every time someone coms with a better idea and tries to modify the Wikipedia article according to her idea, removing from the article what majority of editors already agreed upon, or adding what she tested as the truth?

The proper place for scientific truth are a few scientific journals (the fewer the better) since it allows those who control the science a better control over it and it prevents the spread of truths that might hurt the important people in science. Imagine the Big Bang got falsified. Where all the mathematical pysicists would find new jobs in our collapsing economy? Jim (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, we have here a religious fundamentalist (76.229.222.104) who rejects the Big Bang because it's "evolutionist", and is being supported by someone (Jim) who is apparently a militant atheist and rejects the Big Bang because it's "supernatural"! However, neither view is helpful here (furthermore, observation supports the theory that the Universe is of finite age and has changed over time: if it didn't expand from a point, then presumably it was "poofed" into existence at its current size: would this not be "supernatural"?) --Robert Stevens (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

This would be extremely supernatural. So the best approximation (at least for Jim) it is that the universe was always here, not even evolving too much (to keep the Copernican principle as a perfect cosmological principle). Jim (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

What the editors, specifically the consensus of the editors, go by is scientific consensus. It doesn't matter what the majority believes, but what the scientific community does. Editors here merely determine how it should be explained for the sake of us common man. It seems your original research was rejected for inclusion multiple times (that, or I got the wrong user), if so, then it did violate what Wikipedia stood for and does not warrant for you to say that these editors are idiots or mystics. You seem to forget the fact that we are a secondary source, getting information from primary and secondary reliable/credible sources, not trying to outline a new horizon in the knowledge of a subject. Here's an example: if the absolute truth was that 2 + 2 = 4, yet most if not all primary and secondary sources claimed 2 + 2 = 5, then Wikipedia must say 2 + 2 = 5. It's a poor example and implies the Big Bang is bogus (I am in no way claiming that), but it does reflect how critical the consensus of credible sources are to Wikipedia. --BirdKr (talk) 06:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I may agree with you, although, as you say, wikipedia could "teach" bogus theories as if they were "truth" (the generic lay-man user would think that that is "the truth", because it is in an enciclopedia), but this editor's point of view has to be said clearly for the users, in my opnion. As a start, for example, the first sentence in the introduction is: "The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the universe that has become well supported by several independent observations." The expression "supported by observations" very often depends on interpretations and different theories/hypothesis may explain the same observations very fine also. What should be written/added, AT LEAST, is something like: "The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the universe that, according to the majority of cosmologists, explains satisfactorily well several independent observations". If that crucial expression is left out of the sentence, then wikipedia is assuming an absolute truth over this issue, which as you said is not what the editor's claims to be publishing. (Epleite (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC))

You might address the oft-repeated counterargument: that "majority of cosmologists" is so overwhelming that emphasizing it in the very first sentence exaggerates the (tiny) opposition among professionals. Or if you like reductio ad absurdum, the arithmetic article doesn't say "2+2=4 according to the majority of mathematicians". Art LaPella (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it merely informs people what is actually happen. And if the sentence is left the way it is, then it is clearly innacurate (because, like I said, "supported by observations" is a matter of how one interpret the observations) and any scientist would confirm what I am saying. You may be aware of this, but lay person not. Of course, math is the only "place" where you often have what could be called "absolute truth" or proof beyond any doubt. But that is definitely NOT what happens in natural sciences. If you think so, then I am sorry but you should not be editing a scientific article.

(200.161.55.11 (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

Even 2+2=4 is philosophically uncertain – I might be hallucinating, brainwashed, or living in a 99th century holodeck that manipulates my mind. But the counterargument is that the Big Bang is considered certain enough among professionals, and that's what Wikipedia goes by. Later on the article expresses doubt, but putting it in the first sentence could exaggerate that doubt. Art LaPella (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, putting it in the first sentece would inform the user the truth about the subject, which is that not every cosmologits is adept to the big-bang theory, specially outside of north-america. The lack of world-wide statistics about what percentage is adept makes it impossible to claim that the majority is "so overwhelming", as you are claiming. (Epleite (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

In previous repetitions of this old argument you might read in various archives, I found "statistics" by comparing Google Scholar hits on the phrase "Big Bang" to the best-known alternative "Plasma cosmology". Beyond that, I leave this issue to others as I am not a professional scientist, although previous debate gives me the impression that dissenting cosmologists (defined as doing cosmology for a living) can be counted on one hand. Art LaPella (talk) 03:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi BirdKr, Excelent example but you may have a wrong user since I understand that Wikipedia is meant for a common man, epecially the high school kid. So I never try to confuse her neither with any unscientific stuff nor with my original research (which of course I have as any guy who works in science). I understand all those things, just some editors don't, and they try to fix 2+2=5 as 2+2=12, which might be the same thing, just in different notation. What I'm doing then is to explain to those editors that the right notation (understood by the common man and woman) is 2+2=5. I may tell him that I'm not pushing my POV since privately I think that 2+2=4 but we aren't to write private articles that would produce chaos and confuse common man. I said that "if the majority [of scientists] happen to be idiots or mystics, this is what Wikipedia is to publish" (your example with 2+2=5, so as you see we both agree on it). But some editors vote 9:1 on 2+2=3 while mainsteam science says 2+2=4. E.g. it happens with gravitation "a natural phenomenon by which all objects with mass attract each other" according to those editors, who voted 9:1 for Newtonian gravitation (and prevailed) over Einstein's which they didn't understand and of course the mainstream science is 10:0 for Einstein. That's why I think you might have the wrong guy. Because of this and since I'm using Wikipedia to popularize Einstein's theory which is rarely understood and then it might look like pushing my POV. And incidentally, Einstein's theory doesn't support the BB despite the attempts to patch in the support for the BB. Einstein's idea of metric tensor being non symmetric coincides with Jim's but Jim is even more crazy since his metric is also degenerate (although it approximates Minkowski) i.e. it has a property that the spacetime volume (

dt\times dx\times dy\times dz

) is zero everywhere. Jim (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that I'm only a physics and math undergraduate student right now so some of the things you've said may have been ignored. Basically it seems you're trying to explain Big Bang under Relativistic and Quantum physics in substitution for the Newtonian physics, after all, Newtonian physics merely provides an approximation to the other two physics mentioned which are regarded to be "better" (for the lack of words), more accurate, and preferred by the scientific community. However, despite all this, how does one explain the Big Bang? You wrote that using Einstein's theories (part of relativistic physics I should assume) disproves the Big Bang theory so there's no sense on using that to explain the Big Bang. If this true, you should note it in the criticism section of Big Bang, forwarding readers to quantum and relativistic physics and Superseded scientific theories. Or you can write another section in this article explaining the Big Bang under non-Newtonian physics and how there are some disagreements or total rejection, just try to add credible sources as much as possible if you do. If you do go ahead with this, it is advisable that you post your draft in the Talk page just so you can respond and clarify to other editor's comments to avoid a revert war. Overall though, is to use credible sources to state your claims, avoiding subjective terms, and keep your agendas as far away as possible when contributing. We're here to improve the article, not to redefine it to a "more correct" or "preferred" view (I put in quotations to note that "correct" to one person may be "more false" to another).

If you can't find any reliable and credible sources (such as scientific journals that to you "dictate" scientific truths) to substantiate the statements, then I'm sorry to say that it has no right to be posted on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is the truth or not or accepted by the "silent" scientific community.--BirdKr (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to disprove the Big Bang. I'm only trying to turn attention of DCCougar to the fact that the Big Bang contradicts the conservation of energy. This is also what the mainstream science says about the Big Bang and every mathematical physicist working in the field proving it with his math. I say opposite but I'm not a mathematical physicist. I'm just a regular guy with MS in electronics. I just know enough to show that observational data are consistent with the conservation of energy. It is of course no big deal, just contradicts the mathematical physicists's theory that the universe is expanding, and also the Big Bang hypothesis, which is not my fault that astronmers got data which does not support the Big Bang and require dark energy to save the mathematical physicists's theory.

Since I'm doing my PhD work in it I know all of it and I gave DCCougar refs that he doesn't want to look at, maintaining that he never heard about the necessity of non consrvation of energy in the Big Bang, and that this is my duty to present the concrete refs. I did, but Apparently professor Baez's testimony isn't good enough for DCCougar.

The irony of the situation is that it's not good enough for me neither since I'm of the same opinion on conservation of energy as DCCougar. But in Wikipedia we aren't supposed to write our private opinions but the mainstream science's opinion which incidentally is professor Baez's opinion and all the mathematical physicists around the world. So I think that DCCougar says 2+2=4 and I know for sure that the mainstream science says in this case 2+2=5 (speaking figuratively) since I showed it already 22 years ago. It is not in the mainstream since it was not published in a scientific journal. It was "not interesting enough to be published since there isn't any new physics in it". And of course there isn't since the conservation of energy is known for about 300 years. So we should support Wikipedia rules and write 2+2=5 as long as mathematical physicists of the world support it. But DCCougar objects to it and for some reason tries to make an impression that I am an idiot who thinks that he's smarter than anybody on the internet. And this is the whole silly issue. Nothing really important. Jim (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jim wrote: "I never try to confuse her neither with any unscientific stuff nor with my original research (which of course I have as any guy who works in science). I understand all those things..." Jim, I find it difficult to fathom how you can be so self-assured that you are so much smarter than anyone else on the internet, but at the same time your own webpage relates how your so-called research has been rejected for publication, and that all your subsequent contacts with numerous professionals, apparently in an attempt at some small validation, has only confirmed that such rejection was appropriate. Methinks thou art a bit too full of thyself.

By the way, your webpage appears to be infected with a virus that attempts to infect visitors. And you used to be into programming? Hmmm.... DCCougar (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so self-assured that you think that energy is conserved? I just think the same thing so why is it so strange?

And why is it strange that the proof that if energy is conserved then the universe isn't expanding were rejected for publication? Isn't it showing to you that the mainstream thinks that energy is not conserved, and didn't prof. Baez told you already the same thing, and that's why what I have shown doesn't matter. How would you explain the events if the mainstream (or prof. Baez) thought that energy is conserved? Could they ignore my derivation of the redshift based on conservation of energy? They couldn't since they think logically.

So even if you didn't think, that the mainstram thought, that energy was conserved, the rejection of my paper for publication should prove, as the only logical possibility, that the mainsteam thought that energy is not conserved, and so my proof doesn't matter. Do you finally get it?

So now you may believe what anybody familiar with contemporary physics see around the world, that mathematical phisicists don't believe in the conservation of energy since their (assumed) math tells them that there is none. And so the choice is only to believe either in conservation of energy and that their math is defective (as I do) or to believe their math and that the energy can be created (as mainstream does). So a conflict that we have here is between the physics (the facts from which principles are derived) and the assumed non conservation of energy -- since math is as only good as its assumptions. So in this case mathematical physicists argue against facts established by regular physicists, assuming non conservation of energy and so far the mainstream is on their side. Which means we need more observational data to tell who is right. Everythig would be fine if the mathematical physicists didn't block the necessary observations as "unnecessary". So the issues are more complex than just presence in it of one stupid Jim.

And what would you like me to do about the appearance of infection of geocities.com? Some practical advice? Jim (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems you have learned some obscure point regarding the theoretical General Relativistic treatment of the conservation of energy, and with that you think you can overturn the enormously broad Big Bang theory that is supported not by a single obscure fact but by numerous independent lines of evidence! What does your nearsightedness say about the CMB? What about the acoustic peaks observed in the CMB? What about the abundance of the elements?

I am aware of John Baez's paper, Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity? (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html) I am also aware that his answer is not exactly a slam dunk, particularly when he opens the paper with, "In special cases, yes. In general -- it depends on what you mean by "energy", and what you mean by 'conserved'." He also goes on to say, "…GR introduces the new phenomenon of gravitational waves; perhaps these carry energy as well? Perhaps we need to include gravitational energy in some fashion, to arrive at a law of energy conservation for finite pieces of spacetime?... Casting about for a mathematical expression of these ideas, physicists came up with something called an energy pseudo-tensor… Now, GR takes pride in treating all coordinate systems equally. Mathematicians invented tensors precisely to meet this sort of demand -- if a tensor equation holds in one coordinate system, it holds in all. Pseudo-tensors are not tensors (surprise!), and this alone raises eyebrows in some circles. In GR, one must always guard against mistaking artifacts of a particular coordinate system for real physical effects." Yes, Baez's paper is quite complex, and bully for you if you can slog through it with a complete understanding, but your fixation on this conservation of energy thing as if it's the greatest paradigm shift in the history of science is engendered by a common sophomoric exaggeration of the importance of one's isolated realization.

You would do well to keep up with the literature; for example Matt Francis et al.'s Expanding Space: the Root of all Evil? (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007PASA...24...95F) The common view is that space itself is expanding. We use analogies like balloons being inflated or expanding loaves of bread. These are helpful. But they are analogies, and there are limits where they break down as they meet the technicalities of General Relativity, which is, after all, what Big Bang cosmology is based on. For instance, Francis et al. say, "What efficacy then, if any, do the common expanding universe analogies have? The balloon-with-dots or bread-with-raisins analogies, like any analogies, are useful so long as we are aware of what they successfully illustrate and what constitutes pushing the analogy too far. They show how a homogeneous expansion inevitably results in velocity being proportional to distance, and also gives an intuition for how the expansion of the universe looks the same from every point in the universe. They illustrate that the universe does not expand into previously existing empty space; it consists of expanding space. But using these analogies to visualise a mechanism like a frictional or viscous force is taking the analogy too far. They correctly demonstrate the effects of the expansion of the universe, but not the mechanism. That they fail at some level is hardly surprising: we’re representing 4-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifolds with party supplies." Also, you think you have an alternative explanation for the cosmic redshift? I doubt you understand what GR actually says about the redshift. To say that the wavelengths of light are stretched as it travels through expanding space is a simplification that is not even present in GR. As Francis, et al. clarify, "Technically, cosmological redshift is ...caused by the photon being observed in a different frame to that which it is emitted... The difference between frames relates to a changing background metric rather than a differing velocity..." Different background metrics mean different lengths for "meter" sticks... or spectral shifts.

But again, this is the type of discussion welcomed at the BAUT Forum, and specifically unwelcome on Wiki discussion pages. DCCougar (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness, Jim previously wrote: "The truth about the Big Bang was aready told by Feynman many years ago so it doesn't need to be repeated. The tuth is absolute and eternal. Like laws of Pythagoras and Archimedes and so it can't be changed. What would you understand about the nature if laws of Pythagoras and Archimedes were modified every time someone coms with a better idea and tries to modify the Wikipedia article according to her idea, removing from the article what majority of editors already agreed upon, or adding what she tested as the truth?"

Holy smoke, Jim, this is a horrendously misunderstood and misleading statement about the nature of science! There is no such thing as "absolute truth" in science. Religion has absolute and unchanging truth, but not science. Science is a process. Current science is built on centuries of scientific progress and consists of our current best explanations for all the observations that have been compiled over that time. But science in the next century will surely have differences and be more advanced than what we know today. What were you thinking? DCCougar (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

How different the laws of Pythagoras and Archimedes do you expect to be? If the universe is stationary, how can you change this with new discoveries? These are rhetoric questions just meant to help you to realize that science discovers only the absolute truth (if it's not absolute it isn't science but either religion or magic). This is its only value (for the non scientists of course and I'm not concerned here how much profit some scientist, priests, or mathematicians have out of the Big Bang, I know its a lot, but I'm concerned here with physics only). Jim (talk) 10:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The Problems with the Big Bang

1- The Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory theorizes that in the beginning of time nothing decided to pack together as tight as possible. Then it exploded. The explosion was so big it made solar systems, moons, stars, and every thing we see today.

It does nothing of the sort. Please learn a little about an idea before you attempt to criticize it. DCCougar (talk) 02:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have heared of two theorys of the Big Bang 1. Nothing packed together so tightly it exploded. 2. A cosmic egg was sitting in space for unbelievebble amounts of time (but where did Time, space, and matter come from?) and then it exploded either way it's sounds like a science fiction novel and that's all it is. And, why are the planets spinning opposits of some others?

...Nope, both of those "theories" are nonsense, and have nothing to do with the actual Big Bang theory. And the rotations of the planets aren't a problem for the actual Big Bang theory either. This page is for discussion of improvements to the article, which is about the actual Big Bang theory: not some other theory proposed by some crackpot. If this continues, I'll delete this section of the talkpage (including the stuff below this paragraph) as off-topic. --Robert Stevens (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

2- The Problems with the Big Bang

1. There would be no way to pack “itself” together

2. No way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there?

3. If it exploded the matter coming out would go in the same direction forever

4. There is not enough anti-matter in the universe. Anyway all the anti-matter would destroy all the regular matter

5. Everything cannot come from nothing

6. Matter is just matter. Not a special matter to make stars.

(Don't start line with spaces!)Jim (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Recipe: Nothing (very hard to find), Magic Vacume (even harder to find), Protective clothing (expensive), and last but not least, frictionless space. Tell your friends and relatives because you might not come back. Tell your neighbors to step back. BOOM! You might not survive. Test this and we'll see if it's really science. Also, there isn't any scientific proof evolution is true!

This also belongs at talk.origins. Art LaPella (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But we don't want to lie to people right?

Right. This article tells people what scientists believe. There is another article for creationism. Art LaPella (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

End of discussion. DCCougar (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

first time editor has a question about the Universe

I may have overstepped my boundaries here so someone please help out. I don't know where or how to make a general comment so I am placing it here in hopes that someone who works for Wiki can answer my question. I was perusing the "universe" page and I saw that there was a statement about the Big Bang. Now I believe that the Big Bang actually happened, but there was a subjective viewpoint expressed therein. The statement was something to the effect of, "the beginning of the universe is called the Big Bang." I changed this to say, "the moment God initiated the universe is called the Big Bang, in the scientific community." UH-OH! I should have known that someone would not like that, (RYAN I believe his name was) can he, or anyone else tell me how we can change this to represent an unbiased explanation. I thought mine was ok but knew it was not perfect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.64.32 (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Posting anything even remotely in favor of God on Wikipedia is suicide. Now, I'm not atheist or anything, but it is generally accepted that on pages dealing with matters of science, the consensus of the scientific community should be represented. Something like, "The creation of the universe is believed by scientists to be the result of the Big Bang," or, "The Big Bang is believed by scientists to be the cause of the universe." is better. Or you could think of something better. And don't worry about overstepping your boundaries, Wikipedia is all about being bold. Trust me, you will encounter a lot of bold people here. Well, happy editing. I suggest you make an account. Welcome to the team.--Asderoff (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue was clearer than that. That statement wasn't just "remotely in favor of God". It was claiming as fact that a singular God existed and created the Universe, a point of view that excludes many religions as well as non-believers. And "believed by scientists" in a scientific article is redundant. The various gods that people believe in have their say in the creation myth article, where the Big Bang makes but a brief guest appearance. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 10:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I already understood that speaking about God is suicide in Wiki. But amazinlgy it is not suicide to mix scientific facts and consensus. You always use that word, consensus, when you should speak about dogmatism. Any different with God concept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.38.68 (talk) 14:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I researched this topic and found this.

Bold textI am doing a project where I must talk about the Big Bang. I needed information and this and found nothing. This is lame. I am sorry but I think that this should have been started off with what happened. :[--168.99.75.98 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant to say that the beginning of the article doesn't explain the basics very well. It was perhaps written more to impress other scientists, rather than to explain the Big Bang to the rest of us. However, the first sentence in the first picture caption is a better summary: "According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today." Or better, "...an extremely SMALL, dense and hot state..." Art LaPella (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now, Art, it wasn't SMALL. It was the entire universe, after all. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it was, according to http://www.onelook.com/?w=small&ls=a: "limited or below average in number or quantity or magnitude or EXTENT" (emphasis added). A thesaurus didn't help—it gave a list of words open to similar criticism. "small-sized" might be better. Art LaPella (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

But, Art, it wasn't "limited or below average in number or quantity or magnitude or EXTENT". It was the entire universe, from one end to the other, with all the stuff in it. Though the universe is "expanding", the only real sense of "size" we get is from co-moving coordinates. The universe is always the universe: no bigger, no smaller. It's only our rulers which change size! ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No bigger, no smaller, but expanding. I think you accomplish that paradox by defining "small" to mean "small as a fraction of the universe". I think Metric expansion of space#Metric for spacetime says the position coordinates aren't expanding but the distance formula expands with time (I understand how that choice of coordinates could be made, although I don't understand why that inside-out perspective is helpful.) But Cosmic inflation#Overview seems to use the word "small" for the early universe, whether or not we mean the observable universe. "the only real sense of 'size'" is also puzzling, as the ever-increasing impossibility of living long enough to reach a distant galaxy would seem to be a sense of increasing size regardless of the coordinate system. But OK, I can see how "small" might lead to a can of worms. I just wanted to explain that "the universe expanded" means expanded zillions of times, not 2 or 3. Art LaPella (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Every sentence using the "scientific consensus" should be banner

Are you speaking about science or faith? Be clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.38.68 (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is talking about the scientific consensus Coffeeassured (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead question

The article begins "The Big Bang is a cosmological model of the universe that has become well supported by several independent observations." I'm sure there is a reason it doesn't refer to the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. Can someone explain why this is?Asher196 (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As often discussed at #Origin of the Universe? for instance, there is no consensus on whether the Big Bang was the beginning. But I agree the introduction should give us a better hint what the Big Bang theory is: "...where the universe came from..." would be a good start. Art LaPella (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this a sucker question? Why do you think the Wikipedia article doesn't "refer to the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe"? Please don't go changing the article because you have some misconception about the Big Bang theory and the "beginning of the universe."

The Big Bang does not address the so-called "beginning of the universe" because there is currently no evidence to go on. Particle accelerators can simulate very hot and energetic interactions similar to those expected at a fraction of a second after the beginning of the expansion. If the early universe was rapidly expanding and cooling, there would only be a small window of time that hydrogen could fuse to create helium, resulting in certain amounts of each. As the Intro (again) states, the amounts calculated according to a big bang scenario closely match the amounts observed. Note that there is no evidence either way that the "beginning of the expansion" was the singular beginning of time. For all we know ours is simply a bubble universe that transitioned from an ultra high-energy inflationary background to the low-energy, slowly expanding universe we find all around us. DCCougar (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Many sources I checked disagree with your statement that the Big Bang does not address the "Beginning of the universe"

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/IUP/Big_Bang_Primer.html
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html Asher196 (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Asher, but in reverting this article to its former Introduction, you have made a terrible mistake. To start with, the very first sentence now has two falsehoods in it, and its grammatical structure is atrocious. Here's the sentence: "The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the universe, originally conceived to describe its origins, that is best supported by all cosmological observations." I seriously doubt that the Big Bang was "originally conceived to describe its origins." This is surely false. Do you have a cite on that? The Big Bang is a natural development from the finding that the universe is expanding. By the way, I looked at your berkeley link above, which you listed as a "source" for your contention that the Big Bang theory "addresses" the beginning of the universe. The author has a Bachelor's degree from Berkeley, and he wrote that page in 1997. Although the author is not a cosmologist, he has written a fairly reasonable summary of the Big Bang for the real beginner. In simplifying it, he has made some statements are are technically incorrect. Take, for example: "The big bang theory states that at some time in the distant past there was nothing." This is incorrect. The Big Bang says nothing of the sort. Popular science accounts may offer this simplification, but working cosmologists know that conclusions cannot be reached without some sort of evidence. Recent writings by cosmologists Susskind, Smolin, Vilenkin, and others contemplate possibilities that "our" time that apparently began with the expansion may not be the only time. But I will not enter into a revert war. I do expect the Introduction to this article should be reverted to the Introduction that was there before Asher changed it. I have no stock in Wikipedia. If the users or monitors allow the current Introduction to remain, the public will just be getting a grossly inferior explanation that is both misleading and grammatically troublesome. If that is your purpose in life, Asher, to mislead and misinform, then the current Introduction certainly fulfills your quest. If you want to present to people the most accurate information you can, you will revert the current Introduction to what it was. DCCougar (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh oh, here comes another big Wikipedia argument about nothing much.

First, does the Big Bang address the beginning of the universe? That seems to mean, does the Big Bang theory include the assertion that nothing came before? The University of Michigan reference above says: "What exisisted [sic] prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation." That's what DCCougar says, and I don't know of anyone else here who disagrees with that sentence. Talk of "beginning" or "origin" is shorthand for "the beginning of the universe as we know it".

Next, let's look at the grammar - I'm not a professional scientist but I often correct grammar. DCCougar criticized it twice. Did he mean the dangling participle? I don't think anyone will misread that sentence as "the universe was originally conceived to describe the origin of the Big Bang", so isn't "atrocious" hyperbole at best, considering what the rest of Wikipedia is like?

Next, "two falsehoods": apparently 1. the Big Bang was conceived to explain origins not expansion and 2. that the universe is known to have its origin in the Big Bang. Both issues are semantics. If everything is expanding, then the theory is that everything came from one place in a big bang—and wasn't it always considered at least possible that nothing was before? And even if something did come before the Big Bang, couldn't the bang still be described as part of our origin?

"The article should be reverted..." I'm not so sure of that, but anyway I'll let the scientists here decide that. What I'm surer of is that to suggest that Asher is here to mislead and misinform is way too premature. Isn't that why Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy? I think Asher agrees (or can at least be shown) that there is no consensus on what was before the Big Bang, or if that question is even meaningful, but he disagrees on how to say it. That's all. So if that's the argument, can we restrict this to how to best explain that the Big Bang was at least part of the beginning but not necessarily the very beginning? Art LaPella (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all, DCCougar should WP:AGF. I was trying to make the lead reflect the common perception of the Big Bang. I don't think I was wrong. Quoting from my NASA source, "The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe." Quoting from History of the Big Bang theory, "In 1927, the Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître made one of the first modern proposition of the occurrence the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe, although he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom"." When I changed the lead, I commented that my change was a bit clunky and needed refining, which it was by another user.Asher196 (talk) 04:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the History of the Big Bang theory article more closely, I found that it was lacking in sources, so I'll take a quote from here, "In the 1930s Georges Lemaître had suggested that the universe might have originated when a primeval "cosmic egg" exploded in a spectacular fireworks, creating an expanding universe"....Asher196 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Big Bang is often associated with the "origin", but can you agree with DCCougar's point even if we keep the word "origin"? The Declaration of Independence could be called the "origin" of the United States, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a colonial period before. Big Bang#Speculative physics beyond the Big Bang says "Proposals in the last two categories see the Big Bang as an event in a much larger and older universe, or multiverse, and not the literal beginning." Should that sentence also be changed? Art LaPella (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I made some changes to the lead which I think fix the grammatical errors. I also put back some of DCCougar's additions that I had reverted.Asher196 (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that paragraph is altogether appropriate as it is highly speculative and doesn't really aid in understanding. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your good faith efforts, Asher, but I'm afraid your understanding of the theory is incomplete, and your writing tends to mislead. Unless you can show me a citation that verifies the following sentence: "It was originally conceived to describe its origins," I wish you would remove it. Where did this idea come from? Who said this? The possibility of investigating "origins," a religiously charged word, was a secondary development of the theory. Why insert it as the motivating factor of the theory, which would be wrong? DCCougar (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Lemaitre was probably thinking of origins when he proposed the model. I doubt that Gamow thought of the Big Bang in that way, however, though he didn't mind the idea of an "origin" per se, he didn't see it as being teleologically profound. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think that lead paragraph is just awful. The fact remains: The previous lead paragraph was carefully crafted, factually accurate, and grammatically impeccable. The sentences flowed logically from one understanding to the next. The changes that have been made to it have made it worse. Yes, our Universe had to come from "somewhere." But without any evidence, nobody knows anything about that. It is not part of the theory, which is all about explaining how the universe has evolved after the so-called beginning. It is not even known whether that was the beginning. I'm not pushing the idea, but there are serious researchers like Maurizio Gasperini ( http://www.ba.infn.it/~gasperin/ ) who are investigating a Pre-Big Bang possibility. The sentence, "It was originally conceived to describe its origins," makes no sense, explains nothing, and seems to be a token statement for the monotheists. Where did the big bang theory come from? How did it develop? It did not come from a group of people sitting around thinking of a way to describe the singular origin of the universe. That quote is simply a false, misleading statement. I know the priest Lemaitre had some input, but it wasn't religious input, it was General Relativistic input! Again, the Big Bang theory is not about the "origin" of the universe. DCCougar (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Further, Asher, you said, "I was trying to make the lead reflect the common perception of the Big Bang." Make the lead reflect the scientific consensus, not the "common perception" of scientific illiterates, which is simply wrong. DCCougar (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I tend to agree that the ideas about the Big Bang are not important as to what exactly the Big Bang is. However, the misconception that it is about the "origins" of the universe abounds. We should try to tackle it head-on, in the lead. What's the best way to do that? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, S.A. I think this misconception can be addressed succinctly in the lead paragraphs. I'll work on it. DCCougar (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's a misconception that the Big Bang has anything to do with the origin of the universe, then it is a widespread misconception, and I would welcome a rewrite of the lead that addresses that.Asher196 (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I made considerable changes to the lead paragraphs. I didn't have time to put in several obvious links, e.g., blackbody curve, particle accelerator, etc. If anyone can add those, much appreciated. Comments also appreciated. My knowledge of the Big Bang is perhaps better than most, but it's far from complete and certainly not infallible. DCCougar (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your changes don't in any significant way address the apparent misconception that the Big Bang has anything to do with the origin of the universe. I believe ScienceApologist has it right. It should be tackled head-on in the lead.Asher196 (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Asher, I did address that. See the last three (!) sentences of the first paragraph: "But these accelerators can only probe so far into such high energy regimes. Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition. The theory accurately explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant." Even though this "origin question" is a common misconception of the theory, to correct it, one must take pains to explain what the theory is not, which I don't think should have too central a place in an article about what the theory is. Also, where do you get off editing my grammar? . . . Just joking! Just joking! While I don't believe my grammar was in error, your minor change did make the sentence flow better. Good edit. DCCougar (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

While maybe not the best WP:SUMMARY in the world, I think the lead does a decent job at least of covering the bases (with the possible exception of no mention of WMAP-concordance model, but we digress). Maybe someone else will come along and see a way to shorten it and make it even more clear that the Big Bang just talks about the evolution of the universe and doesn't really touch-on origins any more than, say, string theory. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we've been arguing semantics revolving around the word "origin". Your edit which uses "initial condition", to me, implies origin. Either way, I think the lead is better now, but I agree that it could use more clarification.Asher196 (talk) 02:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

^ Astronomers reported their measurement in a paper published in the December 2000 issue of Nature titled The microwave background temperature at the redshift of 2.33771 which can be read here. A press release from the European Southern Observatory explains the findings to the public.

[1] Astronomers reported their measurement in a paper published in the December 2000 issue of Nature titled The microwave background temperature at the redshift of 2.33771 which can be read here. A press release from the European Southern Observatory explains the findings to the public.

[1]